Republicans Are Talking Differently About Climate Change

A suddenly more nuanced position speaks to the party’s belief in the issue’s coming potency.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 13: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) speaks during a National Press Club Newsmaker Luncheon May 13, 2014 in Washington, DC. Sen. Rubio delivered a policy speech on social security and answered questions during the luncheon. 
National Journal
Alex Roarty
June 18, 2014, 5:46 p.m.

These days, it takes care­ful pars­ing to pin­point what Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates be­lieve about cli­mate change.

The GOP’s Sen­ate can­did­ate in Michigan, Terri Lynn Land, is­sued a press re­lease last month that de­clared glob­al warm­ing was “ab­so­lutely” a real­ity. Such an ac­know­ledg­ment, on its face, would once have amoun­ted prac­tic­ally to heresy for a party hos­tile to the sci­ence of cli­mate change. But lest any­one be­gin to con­fuse her with Bill Nye the Sci­ence Guy, her cam­paign’s spokes­wo­man quickly emailed a fol­low-up state­ment: Al­though Land thinks the Earth’s cli­mate is chan­ging partly as a con­sequence of hu­man be­ha­vi­or, she’s du­bi­ous about the de­gree to which hu­man­kind is re­spons­ible.

To a cli­mate sci­ent­ist, that’s a bit like watch­ing a golfer line up a per­fect putt, only to see the ball un­ex­pec­tedly lip out of the hole at the last mo­ment. But as the dust settles on Pres­id­ent Obama’s pro­pos­al to cut car­bon emis­sions, her al­most-but-not-quite em­brace of cli­mate-change sci­ence is in­dic­at­ive of a broad­er shift with­in the Re­pub­lic­an Party — one that has shucked the de­fi­ant skep­ti­cism of its re­cent past for a nu­anced view on the sub­ject.

Cer­tainly, base-wary Re­pub­lic­ans haven’t gone all-in yet. Their ad­just­ment, however, is no ac­ci­dent: While the sci­ence it­self is largely the same, the polit­ics of its le­git­im­acy has turned against Re­pub­lic­ans in all but the red­dest of states. It’s a sep­ar­ate de­bate from the eco­nom­ic-fo­cused one about the po­ten­tial loss of jobs from the reg­u­la­tions — one Re­pub­lic­ans are con­vinced they’ll win — but it’s non­ethe­less an is­sue rear­ing its head in the midterm elec­tions.

“I don’t think it would be wise for a Re­pub­lic­an to shut the door on a dis­cus­sion of cli­mate change,” said Dick Wadhams, a Col­or­ado-based GOP strategist. “But I do think it’s sens­ible for a Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ate to ex­press skep­ti­cism about this head­long rush … a lot of Demo­crats seem to be hav­ing to kill the coal in­dustry.”

Wit­ness Marco Ru­bio, who like Land sim­il­arly ar­gued that the cli­mate is chan­ging but doubted wheth­er hu­mans are the main cul­prit. Thom Tillis and Joni Ernst, two Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate can­did­ates in purple-hued North Car­o­lina and Iowa, re­spect­ively, have also ex­pressed views in shades of gray. Rick Scott, the Re­pub­lic­an gov­ernor of Flor­ida, has star­ted say­ing that he’s “not a sci­ent­ist.”

And that’s when Re­pub­lic­ans talk about the sci­ence at all: Many, such as Ed Gillespie in Vir­gin­ia or Cory Gard­ner in Col­or­ado, opt against say­ing any­thing all, in­stead keep­ing their fo­cus trained squarely on the ef­fect reg­u­la­tions will have on jobs and elec­tri­city bills.

It wasn’t al­ways this way. As re­cently as 2009, Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers such as then-House Minor­ity Lead­er John Boehner were pub­licly mock­ing cli­mate-change sci­ence. Ap­pear­ing on ABC News’s This Week, Boehner said the no­tion that car­bon di­ox­ide was a car­ci­no­gen was “al­most com­ic­al.”

“Every time we ex­hale, we ex­hale car­bon di­ox­ide,” he said. “Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more car­bon di­ox­ide.”

In many in­stances, Re­pub­lic­ans avoided talk­ing about the is­sue at all (some­times go­ing to great lengths to avoid do­ing so). It’s not that Re­pub­lic­ans have al­ways out­right re­jec­ted cli­mate-change sci­ence; be­fore the tea-party wave of 2010, the GOP had largely em­braced not only the sci­ence but some meas­ure of poli­cy­mak­ing to com­bat it. But with the rise of the ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive base, the fail­ure of the Demo­crats’ cap-and-trade le­gis­la­tion, and sub­sequent deep un­pop­ular­ity of that pro­pos­al, Re­pub­lic­an at­ti­tudes changed.

“In the af­ter­math of that, no one had to be care­ful,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a prom­in­ent Re­pub­lic­an eco­nom­ist and out­spoken ad­voc­ate about the threat posed by cli­mate change (who op­poses the pres­id­ent’s EPA rules). “You could just lam­baste everything as­so­ci­ated with it.”

Now they do. Nearly six in 10 Amer­ic­ans think hu­man activ­it­ies are mainly to blame for the rise in glob­al tem­per­at­ures, ac­cord­ing to a Gal­lup Poll from March. And des­pite the party’s long­stand­ing skep­ti­cism about cli­mate change, 41 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­ans say the same.

But more im­port­ant than how many voters it reaches is which voters it reaches. The re­jec­tion of cli­mate-change sci­ence — and the po­ten­tial to con­sequently be labeled as anti-all sci­ence — risks ali­en­at­ing the crit­ic­al bloc of mod­er­ate and even GOP-lean­ing voters. “There’s a slice of mod­er­ate and lib­er­al Re­pub­lic­ans, part col­lege-edu­cated, part wo­men, part un­der-50, where there is an op­por­tun­ity for Demo­crats to get a lot more of those voters than they nor­mally would,” said An­drew Bau­mann, a Demo­crat­ic poll­ster who works with en­vir­on­ment­al groups.

Cli­mate change won’t single-handedly change minds, not by a long shot. Few in­di­vidu­al is­sues do. But it’s one of a mélange of top­ics — among them im­mig­ra­tion re­form, gun con­trol, and abor­tion rights — that Demo­crats can use to win over the bloc of af­flu­ent sub­urb­an mod­er­ates, a kind of death-by-a-thou­sand-cuts strategy. It’s the same group of voters who also pop­u­late a lot of crit­ic­al 2014 swing areas, such as the North­ern Vir­gin­ia or the Den­ver sub­urbs.

Des­pite the com­pel­ling polling on the is­sue, Re­pub­lic­an strategists say it’s one that’s eas­ily nav­ig­able by tal­en­ted can­did­ates. A de­bate about sci­ence isn’t good for the party, but it doesn’t have to be, they say, ar­guing that the fo­cus on EPA’s car­bon reg­u­la­tions and the po­ten­tial job losses that res­ult steers the de­bate to­ward far firmer ground for the GOP.

Be­sides, voters still rank com­bat­ing cli­mate change near the bot­tom of their list of pri­or­it­ies.

“The ques­tion is, is cli­mate change go­ing to be on the menu of what’s driv­ing voters in North Car­o­lina?” said Paul Shu­maker, a North Car­o­lina-based GOP strategist who works for Tillis, the party’s Sen­ate nom­in­ee. “How many people in North Car­o­lina are be­ing dir­ectly im­pacted by it now?”

Ac­cord­ing to sci­ence, all of them.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×