Skip Navigation

Polar Bears and Butterflies; Donkeys and Elephants

“We are not going to be talking about polar bears and butterflies,” said political strategist Chris Lehane, “We are going to be talking about how this issue of climate impacts people in their backyards, in their states, in their communities.” Rather than dismiss the pathos of seeing a lone polar bear stranded on an iceberg, Lehane’s statement captures the grit and resolution of the climate change lobby as the 2014 elections approach. Lehane is a long time Democrat political strategist; he spent six years in the Clinton White House and has served in numerous capacities on Democratic cabinets. But this year he works for Tom Steyer — environmental lobbyist, mega-donor, and new kid on the block. As Steyer’s chief political strategist, Lehane is working in a transformed environment regarding climate change, one where he says, “the political tectonic plates are shifting.”

Climate change is no longer a fringe issue Democrats dance around and Republicans deride. Since the last election cycle, a combination of factors — a perfect storm, if you will — has transformed climate change’s prominence on the campaign trail. During the 2012 presidential campaign neither President Obama nor Republican candidate Mitt Romney outlined a legislative or regulatory program addressing climate change, leaving questions ranging from tax policy to the future of American leadership unanswered: To what extent will the United States combat carbon pollution? Will we lead the charge on renewable energy development? How much should we tax fossil fuels? But, instead of butting heads about subsidizing energy research, Obama and Romney simply didn’t talk about it. The candidates were not solely to blame. Mirroring the media’s attitude, none of the four general election debate mediators asked the candidates about environmental policy. In 2012, an election cycle dominated by the post-recession economy, the so-called 47 percent, and the growing gender gap, climate change didn’t make the cut.

In a stark reversal from 2012, this year climate change will take the center stage in dozens of races in coal friendly and energy neutral states alike. In New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa and Michigan, amongst others, congressional candidates, from both sides of the aisle, have crafted positions on climate change. What accounts for this the newly animated concern for climate change policy? Although there are a number of factors — including, for example, Obama’s new EPA regulations — there are two primary explanations: First, during the past two years a handful of extreme weather events have jolted the public’s attention to the increasing frequency of natural disasters; secondly, Tom Steyer’s monumental impact on the green lobby’s fate for 2014.

Of the numerous natural disasters that have occurred since the 2012 general elections, Hurricane Sandy, which interrupted the 2012 presidential elections, has had the greatest lasting consequence. Although it failed to ignite candidates’ discussion on climate change policy at the time, its aftermath underscored what will be an unremitting challenge in the coming century:  Infrastructure preparedness for natural disasters. After Sandy’s destruction the American publican watched as a tornado devastated Moore Oklahoma in 2013, killing 24 Americans. In the same year, the Philippines experienced Typhoon Haiyan, a storm so severe it prompted 750,000 people to evacuate their homes and ultimately killed more than 6,000. Though the direct relationship between these particular events and global warming it is of yet unestablished by climate scientists, the American public drew its own conclusions.

Recently, a more articulate force of nature, Steyer, has made clear the green impact he hopes to have on the 2014 elections. Earlier this year he let float a plan to spend $50 million of his own money and $50 million more raised through his SuperPAC, NextGen Climate, over the course of the 2014 elections (read an informative account here of Steyer’s impact thus far on the midterms, written by BPR’s Stephen Stahr.) Steyer is a single issue lobbyist; the express purpose of his activism is to make climate change a “wedge issue” on the campaign trail, and to “hold [American] leaders responsible for the role they play in the fight against climate change,” as he put on NextGen’s webpage.  Steyer’s met success thus far: He has captured the media’s attention and his financial clout has “given Democratic candidates a reason to highlight their stance on climate protection rather than hide their views.”

In light of the changing atmosphere around climate change and the electoral agenda, I spoke with League of Conservation Voters (LCV) president, Gene Karpinski. Karpinski, ’74, is a Brown alumni and survivor of the Keeney quadrangle. Before he became president of the LCV in 2006, he served 21 years as the Executive Director of the US Public Interest Research Group, a consumer group that employs grassroots campaigning to protect consumer health, financial security, and democratic participation. During our conversation Karpinski shared some insights on climate change politics and the goals groups like LCV and NextGen have for upcoming elections.

The Mouth and the Muscle

The foremost observation to make about contemporary climate change politics is that it is a sharply partisan issue. This was not always the case; as recently as 2008, John McCain ran on a platform that included a national program to place a tax on each ton of carbon dioxide produced by US companies. The same year Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich were featured together in an ad encouraging the development of cleaner forms of energy. Today, it is more or less impossible to find leading Republicans — presidential candidates included — that openly acknowledge climate change is a grave threat that humans have had a hand in causing, much less a threat that the government must take action on in order to mitigate its effects.

The partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats reaches to the heart of any conversation concerning climate change. Karpinski explains that, “There’s a very partisan divide when it comes down to even the basic question of the existence of global warming…Almost all Democrats agree it’s a problem — they might not agree how to solve it — but [they agree] it’s a problem.  There’s a chunk of the Republican Party, mostly driven by the tea party folks, who deny it’s even real.”

Two arms of the GOP are responsible for the party’s current unanimous attitude against climate change policy:  tea party activists and the moneyed energy industry. Since its ascent in 2009, the tea party — which represents a highly energized grass roots faction of the Republican Party — has made a reputation for itself by denying the existence of climate change. The New York Times called the movement’s skepticism and outright denial of climate change “articles of faith.” The tea party’s scientific position partially stems from the movement’s rigid libertarian political ideology. To the tea party, regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is impermissible because it would impose government authority on the vast majority of the economy. According to a Pew Research poll, only a quarter of tea party Republicans believe that climate change is taking place, the smallest fraction of any group surveyed including Democrats, Independents, and even the remainder of the Republican Party.

If the tea party is the mouth, the energy industry is the muscle behind climate change denial, particularly in a post-Citizens United United States. (See Jeffrey Toobin’s  New Yorker article describing the ramifications the 2010 campaign finance case had on climate change politics.) Even before the 2010 SCOTUS decision, the fossil fuel industry, and individuals who have made their fortunes through it, spent hundreds of millions of dollars campaigning against legislation aimed at limiting climate change’s impact. In addition, these groups spent millions financing institutes that produce anti-climate change studies, websites that question the prevailing climate science, and establishing groups like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works — organizations that campaign and arrange rallies for politicians, often tea partiers, whose views further the energy lobby’s agenda. After the Citizens United decision, however, an even larger floodgate was opened to wealthy individuals looking to oppose climate change oriented legislation.

The uniformity of Republican opposition to climate change legislation in 2014 is evidence of the grip the moneyed energy interest has on the GOP. Toobin describes the disproportionate impact the Koch brothers — leaders in climate science disinformation — have had on the Republican Party’s agenda: “In the forefront of anti-climate-change activism are the Koch brothers, who have invested huge amounts in politics and political candidates since Citizens United … The Kochs are so prominent that they have become, in effect, gatekeepers for Republican politics. Climate-change denial is now the price of admission to the charmed circle of Republican donors.”

From a political theory standpoint, it is odd that the Republican Party lacks a position on climate change beyond road blocking any and all action to combat it.  Climate change is an issue that fundamentally affects the entire population, not a remote demographic secluded in a single party, and it poses the gravest threat to the environmental and economic security of the United States in coming decades. Unfortunately, in the context of modern campaign finance law, the GOP’s continued denial is explicable. Strangled by both the tea party movement and the fossil fuel lobby, the Republican Party as of now is, as Karpinski puts it, has been “kept on the sidelines” regarding climate change policy.

Don’t You Know That You’re Toxic?

I asked Karpinski why he thought climate change skepticism has gained so much ground. If the reality of climate change is clear to most people — according to Pew research from 2013, 67 percent of Americans believe there is “solid evidence that the earth has been getting warmer over the last few decades” — why can a remote, albeit wealthy, interest group so successfully paint it as liberal folklore? “What happens on climate change is, the average person for the most part — not a tea party person — thinks it’s happening and thinks we are causing it,” Karpinski responded, “But the problem is if you ask someone what are the most important issues, it doesn’t get into the top five, or even the top 10.” According to the same 2013 Pew poll, only 34 percent of Americans viewed new climate change policies as vital issues for Washington to tackle that year. In fact, climate change came in second to last among 20 issues competing for priority in the capital.

With so much campaign money at stake, and an issue that doesn’t drive voters to the polls, the label “denier,” is not a political liability — yet. 2014 could prove an interesting year. “You see more and more candidates deciding to use [climate change skepticism] as part of the narrative to paint [his/her opponent as] outside the mainstream,” Karpinski stated. Steyer, the green lobby’s white knight, is pouring money into at least seven priority midterm elections backing Democratic candidates facing opponents who either receive funding from the fossil fuel industry or who question the claims of today’s climate scientists. Steyer’s activism in these campaigns seeks to emphasize the discrepancy that exists between candidates regarding climate change, thus hoping to make climate change policy a “wedge issue.”  With Steyer’s aggressive single issue campaigning spanning various elections, there may be a consensus established on whether voters tolerate climate change skepticism from their elected officials come November.

Thus far, Karpinski explains, the use of the “denier” label has been effective on a “case by case” basis. He cited the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race as one success story that could set a precedent for the future of the environmental cause. In 2013, Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe ran against the former Attorney General of Virginia, Republican Ted Cuccinelli, a well-established enemy to the climate change cause. While he was attorney general Cuccinelli accused a University of Virginia professor and climate scientist of fraud and pursued an investigation against him, in what the Washington Post called a “witch hunt.” The professor later referred to the incident as an “ideological crusade.” Cuccinelli’s climate change denial and seeming “ideological crusade” became an important aspect in McAuliffe’s political strategy, helping McAuliffe paint Cuccinelli as ‘extreme,’ on everything from Medicaid to contraception. In Virginia, climate change became the sort of wedge issue Steyer seeks to make it in the seven races this year. Karpinski commented that McAuliffe’s camp relentlessly painted Cuccinelli as an anti-science candidate with his head in the sand: “That became part of their narrative and it was effective,” explained Karpinski. Ultimately McAuliffe was victorious (with $11 million worth of help from Steyer). And though it was a single race, many in the media described the election as evidence that climate change denial is a losing political position.

Democrats and the green lobby will do their damndest to replicate McAuliffe’s success this November. With climate change on the main stage, the environmental lobby is energized and prepared to exploit the opportunity 2014 presents. Karpinski stated, “If you’re on the right side of the climate change rules then we are going to be on your side. We are trying to show support and resources and muscle.” The best-case scenario for Karpinski and his colleagues would be to see the defeat of any Republican candidate targeted for their climate science intolerant viewpoints. While this would not necessarily ensure federal legislation addressing climate change is passed in the next two years addressing climate change, it would serve as a referendum on the stubbornly skeptical politicians who, backed by the fossil fuel industry and pressured by the tea party movement, continue to deny climate change.  If this does not end up being the case, however, there is still some hope for a conversion in the Republican agenda. A backlash is fomenting within the party as moderate Republicans, younger voters, and conservative intellectuals view the prevailing GOP position on climate change as “willful denial of science and facts.” Samuel Thernstrom, a scholar of environmental policy at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, and former advisor in the Bush White House, stated that Republicans’ current disbelief of climate science is politically “untenable.” Even if the GOP isn’t swept away by Steyer in 2014, it will eventually need to face the storm quietly brewing within its own ranks.

About the Author

Meg '15 is a political science concentrator and the US section director for the Content Board. She is writing a senior thesis on right wing movement success and political opportunity structures, with a focus on party institutions, in the US, UK, France and Germany. She enjoys watching angry middle aged white men screaming at one another which explains her affinity for both Congressional politics and Martin Scorsese films.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES