Skeptic shift by Republican hopefuls
We are rapidly approaching the 2012 US presidential election year. The race to prevent dangerous climate change is on. And so the rest of the world has a greater stake in the battle to lead the world’s largest economy and second highest CO2 emitter than ever before.
The contest for the Republican nomination is becoming heated with no clear frontrunner emerging and climate change has become a touchstone issue.
In the past few weeks US voters have witnessed back-peddling among Republican hopefuls, who are trying frantically to distance themselves from previous statements and policies aimed at averting climate change. This shift reflects changes in public opinion – particularly amongst conservative voters.
The collective retreat to skepticism in recent years seen in the US has occured partially as a result of mounting pressure from conservative, often industry-linked, lobbies and funders who are also gearing up for the 2012 campaign [pdf].
Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, announced last week that he was pulling his state out of a regional cap-and-trade programme. The policy U-turn followed a lobbying campaign led by Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by oil refining Koch Industries.
Three GOP presidential hopefuls have been shown to have significantly changed their position:
Newt Gingrich:
November 13, 2007: “I started by saying let’s stipulate that it is probable global warming is going on, and that it is conceivable human beings have a role, and therefore as a matter of prudence we ought to have less carbon loading of the atmosphere.”
May 14, 2011: “It is inconceivable that any threat from global warming is big enough to justify destroying the American economy.”
Mitt Romney:
November 8, 2005: “This [a regional cap-and-trade pact for power plant emissions] is a great thing for the Commonwealth [of Massachusetts]. We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.”
May 18, 2011: “Governor Romney opposes cap and trade because it is bad for business and it costs jobs.”
Tim Pawlenty:
2008: “If we act now, we can create thousands of new jobs in clean energy industries before our overseas competitors beat us to it. So come on, Congress, let’s get moving. … Cap greenhouse gases now.”
April 1, 2011: “I think climate change occurs, but the bulk of it is natural historic trends in climate. There is some suggestion that humans have caused some of it, but the answer is not a government, top-down scheme.”
Charles Babington, writing for the Associated Press, identified this shift as part of a more general rightward move amongst GOP candidates:
“Climate policy is a dramatic example of how GOP presidential hopefuls have shifted to the right in recent years. Former governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Jon Huntsman of Utah, along with other likely candidates, have backed away from earlier embraces of regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
“Such stands were unremarkable in GOP circles just a few years ago. Senator John McCain, the 2008 presidential nominee, supported a cap-and-trade plan to place prices and limits on the emission of heat-trapping gasses. Now the position is anathema to millions of Republicans, and therefore to the party’s candidates.”
Sahil Kapur at The Guardian’s Comment Is Free compared rejection of the science of climate change with other “conspiracy theories”. Labelling it “cimate trutherism”, he presented this explanation as to why it has become mainstream in the US:
“First, climate truthers have the support of a wealthy, powerful industry dedicated to mainstreaming their theory. Second, the Republican party’s anti-regulation policy agenda is threatened by the realities of climate change, so it’s better to deny there’s something wrong than cede that argument to their adversaries. And third – and this is why it self-perpetuates – the media like to stay in good odour with powerful politicians, so often can’t quite bring themselves to pronounce one side unequivocally wrong.”
Climate change is not in fact a political priority for US voters, particularly Republicans. So why the sudden focus on the issue? Michael McKenna, a GOP strategist and energy lobbyist, told the New York Times in May:
“The issue itself is not a particularly important issue to [voters] â?¦ It is a surrogate, a totem for how you feel about large government versus small government, or general willingness to accept the perceived wisdom of the mainstream for a whole bunch of things.”
Industry and conservative lobbying in the USA has already had an impact on both US domestic climate policy and international negotiations. What this Republican shift towards more outright skepticism means for the US, and for global attempts to halt climate change, remains to be seen.