Miami Will Likely Be Underwater Before Congress Acts on Climate Change

Why the struggle over climate is moving to the executive branch.

NEW PORT RICHEY, FL - JUNE 26: Residents of the Mill Run area ready their homes and prepare to leave under a mandatory evacuation order by emergency management officials on June 26, 2012 in New Port Richey, Florida. According to local news, two area rivers have converged and surpassed the 100-year flood plan. 
Getty Images
Ronald Brownstein
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ronald Brownstein
May 15, 2014, 5 p.m.

Miami will likely be un­der­wa­ter be­fore the Sen­ate can muster enough votes to mean­ing­fully con­front cli­mate change. And prob­ably Tampa and Char­le­ston, too — two oth­er cit­ies that last week’s Na­tion­al Cli­mate As­sess­ment placed at max­im­um risk from rising sea levels.

Even as stud­ies pro­lif­er­ate on the dangers of a chan­ging cli­mate, the is­sue’s un­der­ly­ing polit­ics vir­tu­ally en­sure that Con­gress will re­main para­lyzed over it in­def­in­itely. That means the U.S. re­sponse for the fore­see­able fu­ture is likely to come through ex­ec­ut­ive-branch ac­tions, such as the reg­u­la­tions on car­bon emis­sions from power plants that the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency is due to pro­pose next month. And that means cli­mate change will likely spike as a point of con­flict in the 2016 pres­id­en­tial race.

Pres­id­ent Obama, from his first days in of­fice, made it clear to in­tim­ates that he be­lieved a le­gis­lat­ive solu­tion to cli­mate change would provide a more stable, broadly ac­cep­ted re­sponse than ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion. But his ex­per­i­ence has high­lighted the struc­tur­al forces that make a le­gis­lat­ive agree­ment so un­likely, es­pe­cially in the Sen­ate.

Reach­ing agree­ment on any is­sue has be­come in­creas­ingly dif­fi­cult in a Con­gress de­luged by par­tis­an po­lar­iz­a­tion and money from in­terest groups. But cli­mate change faces two oth­er head­winds that make the path to le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion even more daunt­ing.

One is the dif­fi­culty that all demo­cra­cies face with de­cisions that im­pose costs today while prom­ising be­ne­fits to­mor­row. The shift to­ward a lower-car­bon eco­nomy could pro­duce com­pound­ing ad­vant­ages in the form of new in­dus­tries, new jobs, and, not in­con­sequen­tially for the politi­cians mak­ing these de­cisions, new cam­paign con­trib­ut­ors. It could also pre­vent en­vir­on­ment­al haz­ards that would oth­er­wise oc­cur in a warm­ing world. Yet for many polit­ic­al lead­ers, all of that has seemed less com­pel­ling than the jobs (and con­tri­bu­tions) tied to the ex­ist­ing fossil-fuel in­fra­struc­ture.

On this front, though, the bal­ance looks to be shift­ing to­ward en­vir­on­ment­al­ists. Sci­entif­ic evid­ence is strength­en­ing the case that not act­ing on cli­mate car­ries its own costs — not someday, but now.

The fed­er­al Na­tion­al Cli­mate As­sess­ment re­leased last week cata­logued cur­rent-day con­sequences linked to a shift­ing cli­mate that range from heat waves, droughts, and ex­treme weath­er (more high-in­tens­ity hur­ricanes along the At­lantic Coast and a nearly 40 per­cent in­crease in heavy down­pours in the Mid­w­est) to rising sea levels press­ing against coastal cit­ies. Sci­ent­ists fol­lowed that can­non shot with the re­lease of new stud­ies this week show­ing that cli­mate change is ac­cel­er­at­ing an ap­par­ently ir­re­vers­ible melt­ing in the West Ant­arc­tic ice cap that will raise sea levels world­wide.

Yet even as the price of in­ac­tion grows more tan­gible, a second struc­tur­al bar­ri­er im­pedes le­gis­lat­ive ac­tion. Much like gun con­trol, cli­mate is an is­sue that unites Re­pub­lic­ans by ideo­logy but di­vides Demo­crats by geo­graphy. Even if Demo­crats can build a big­ger Sen­ate ma­jor­ity through the next few elec­tion cycles — they are po­si­tioned to add seats in 2016 even if they lose con­trol in 2014 — such gains prob­ably won’t pro­duce the 60 votes needed to break a fili­buster against le­gis­la­tion to lim­it car­bon emis­sions.

The Demo­crats’ prob­lem is that they can­not build a big Sen­ate ma­jor­ity without win­ning seats in states heav­ily de­pend­ent on coal, which would suf­fer the most from lim­its on car­bon. Demo­crats now hold 21 of the Sen­ate seats in the 19 states that rely on coal to pro­duce a ma­jor­ity of their elec­tri­city and half of the seats in the 10 states (some over­lap­ping) that mine the most coal. Res­ist­ance from some coal-state Demo­crats doomed cli­mate le­gis­la­tion in 2009, even when the party con­trolled 60 Sen­ate seats and then-Speak­er Nancy Pelosi nar­rowly muscled a cap-and-trade bill through the House. Sen­ate Demo­crats such as North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and In­di­ana’s Joe Don­nelly re­main equally un­enthu­si­ast­ic today.

The­or­et­ic­ally, those Demo­crat­ic votes could be re­placed by Re­pub­lic­an votes from states less re­li­ant on coal. But Re­pub­lic­ans face over­whelm­ing ideo­lo­gic­al pres­sure to op­pose ac­tion on cli­mate change and even to re­ject the sci­entif­ic con­sensus that it is oc­cur­ring, as Sen. Marco Ru­bio from vul­ner­able Flor­ida demon­strated in his dis­missal of the fed­er­al cli­mate re­port. Re­pub­lic­an unity and Demo­crat­ic di­vi­sion prom­ises a per­man­ent le­gis­lat­ive stale­mate over cli­mate.

As a res­ult, des­pite Re­pub­lic­an howls of ex­ec­ut­ive over­reach, there’s an air of in­ev­it­ab­il­ity to Obama’s shift on cli­mate, to­ward reg­u­lat­ory ac­tion centered on high­er vehicle-fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards and the up­com­ing EPA reg­u­la­tion of car­bon emis­sions from power plants. With House Re­pub­lic­ans vot­ing re­peatedly to block the power-plant rules, it also looks in­ev­it­able that the 2016 GOP pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee will run on their re­peal.

Obama’s tilt to­ward reg­u­la­tion cap­tures a lar­ger change. Be­cause the Demo­crat­ic elect­or­al co­ali­tion is grow­ing demo­graph­ic­ally but re­mains ex­cess­ively con­cen­trated geo­graph­ic­ally, the party now is more likely to con­trol the White House than Con­gress. In a re­versal, that is trans­form­ing Demo­crats in­to a party fa­vor­ing strong ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion to ad­vance its goals — and Re­pub­lic­ans in­to de­fend­ers of con­gres­sion­al prerog­at­ives. That dy­nam­ic is already un­fold­ing on is­sues such as im­mig­ra­tion and edu­ca­tion. Noth­ing crys­tal­lizes this new pat­tern more than the tur­bu­lence over Obama’s ef­forts to con­front a chan­ging cli­mate.

What We're Following See More »
ON SANCTUARY CITIES
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
23 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

MAY BRING CONSERVATIVES ON BOARD, BUT WHAT ABOUT MODERATES?
House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

AT LEAST 30 TO BE ASSESSED
Trump to Order Review of National Monuments
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.

Source:
EMERGING BUDGET FRAMEWORK?
Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
17 hours ago
THE LATEST

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Source:
WHITE HOUSE BLOCKING DOC REQUEST
Michael Flynn Remains A Russian-Sized Problem
17 hours ago
BREAKING

The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login