Election results and climate policy

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Anchor Lisa Mullins speaks with The World’s Environment Editor, Peter Thomson, about the impact of yesterday’s mid-term elections on U-S climate and energy policy.Download MP3

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Foreign policy may not have been in the forefront for many American voters yesterday. But you don’t have to dig too deep into the results to find at least one major international issue that apparently did affect the outcome, climate change. Republicans, in general are more skeptical than ever about climate science and they successfully used the issue as a club to beat on Democrats around the country. They portrayed Democrats who voted in favor of legislation to fight climate change as job killers. The World’s Environment editor Peter Thomson has been pouring over the results. Is it fair to say Peter that the prospects for new climate change legislation look pretty dim right now?

Peter Thomson: Yeah, Lisa. I think that’s about the safest bet that you can make in Washington today. Congress is already deadlocked on the issue. A fairly ambitious climate bill passed the house by just the narrowest of margins last year in 2009. That’s the now the infamous Cap and Trade bill. The Republicans have successfully recast Cap and Tax. That went nowhere in the Senate even with the Democrats’ big majority. So, unless the Democrats can somehow muster the votes to pass it in a lame duck session before the end of this year, which I think is pretty unlikely, Cap and Trade and just about any other significant effort to deal with global warming collusion through something like a carbon tax is off the table for at least the next two years.

Mullins So does that mean there is any kind of outlet of all four, anyone who wants anything done on Capitol Hill on climate change? I mean, is it off the table entirely?

Thomson: Well, it’s possible that we’ll see some small movement on shifting the country’s energy mix over the next few years, ever so slightly towards cleaner sources. But the more progressive Democrats have nearly lost all of their leverage for pushing their priorities for things like renewable power. And you’ll likely see more emphasis on favorites. Republicans and energy say Democrats things like more nuclear power and, or some folks call clean coal.

Mullins: Which some folks, they doesn’t exist clean coal, as well.

Thomson: Right.

Mullins: So, if Congress can’t do anything to really move the country one way or another on this issue of global climate change. Does that mean Congress is making itself irrelevant on the issue right now, here and overseas?

Thomson: Well, no. I mean, first of all, no new policy is essentially a continuation of the old policy.  And the problem of climate change continues to get worse and the country isn’t responding in a way that’s close to what scientists say we need to do to address it. So standing still is essentially locking in a position, that we are not going to help the rest of the world solve this problem that we helped to create. Beyond that, you are also likely to see the house start to halt, climate scientists up before Congress to defend their work to highly skeptical committee members and, and perhaps even the efforts to cut budgets for science funding on climate change research and even agencies like the EPA.

Mullins: It’s worth mentioning of course the one exception in terms of the Anti Cap and Trade mood and that was California. What happened there yesterday?

Thomson: Well, a few years ago, California passed what was the most ambitious climate change legislation in the country setting big targets for green house gas pollution cuts. The points of the law pushed about ?? this fall, that would have essentially repealed that law. They also tagged it as job killer. But in this case that epithet didn’t stick. Supporters of the law made a pretty successful case to voters that it wasn’t only important to help fight global warming but also to help create new greeen jobs and compete with countries like China and Germany that are going whole hog on those industries. It’s important to remember that California is something like the world’s seventh largest economy. So cutting green house gases there actually will have an impact on the global climate in a way no other state can really have. What happens in California on climate change won’t necessarily stay in California.

Mullins: All right. And final question for you Peter. If you could give us a larger look at what the election tell us about climate change policy, as we look ahead from today.

Thomson: Well, one key thing is that next Republican presidential nominee is almost certain to be a climate skeptic. The tenor of debate among Republicans these days is such it’s almost impossible in much of the country to be a Republican and to be anything but hostile to the accepted science on climate change.

Mullins: Thank You, The World’s Environment editor, Peter Thomson.

Thomson: Thanks Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.