Republicans in Congress are dusting off past plans to tackle climate change as they brace for the likely prospect that they will take control of at least one chamber of Congress in next week’s midterm elections.
Their ideas include planting millions of trees and improving energy efficiency, hydroelectricity, nuclear power and carbon sequestration. They would also increase domestic fossil fuel production by expanding federal oil and gas concessions and banning moratoriums on energy development on federal lands.
“Our energy solutions are climate solutions,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state who is set to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year if the GOP takes control of the chamber. “America can and should lead the world in reducing emissions without trading our security with the Chinese Communist Party and without sacrificing our energy reliability and accessibility to OPEC+.”
The International Energy Agency has said halting all investment in fossil fuel generation is necessary to eliminate global energy emissions by 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s largest group of climatologists, has said that drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels is necessary to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and thus avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Republicans say more domestic drilling is good for the climate because US energy is cleaner than that produced in other countries with less stringent environmental regulations and is produced more efficiently. “We care about the climate, we care about the environment, and the way to do that is to increase energy made in the United States, because it’s better than anywhere else in the world,” Rebekah said. Hoshiko, Republican spokesperson at House Natural Resources. Committee.
Increasing liquefied natural gas or oil could bring climate benefits under the right circumstances, said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor at Princeton University who studies pathways to net zero energy. For example, LNG that displaces coal imports in Asia, or oil production that displaces tar sands development in Canada or heavy crude production in Venezuela, could provide a moderate climate benefit, Jenkins said.
“These are all things that there is a legitimate case for, they reduce emissions by a modest amount, under the right circumstances. But they’re not a game changer,” Jenkins said. “They won’t put the world on a path to net zero emissions.”
Environmental groups are deeply skeptical of the plans. “Unfortunately, if the past is prologue, they’re going to repeat their same old failed energy policies,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters. “Clearly they want to keep us dependent on fossil fuels for the benefit of big oil and dirty coal.”
Some of the ideas Republicans plan to overlap with those of Democrats’ Cut Inflation Act, which includes $370 billion in spending to fight climate change, including generous nuclear tax credits , hydrogen and carbon capture, and funding research and development of energy technologies such as forest conservation and the planting of new trees. No Republicans in Congress voted for the Cut Inflation Act in August.
The party outlined its plans over the summer, releasing a strategy drawn up by an “energy, climate and conservation task force” created by the House leadership, which promised it would cut energy costs and create jobs while reducing global emissions and reducing America’s dependence on energy from foreign adversaries. The strategy does not specify emission reduction targets.
In recent years, GOP lawmakers have largely stopped denying the scientific consensus that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. “I’m not here to debate climate change,” Rep. Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, said when asked about the issue in a recent phone interview. “We are not climate deniers, we just believe we have better alternatives.” Johnson questioned the seriousness of climate change and its human causes in a 2013 op-ed; his office did not respond to a question about whether his views had changed since then.
But some Republicans say drastically cutting emissions will hurt the economy and that the United States should not take aggressive action as countries like China and India pollute heavily – a position criticized by proponents of the climate and the Biden White House as a “delay.” Climate change has also been dragged into the culture wars, with Republicans on and off Capitol Hill attacking environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.
In 2020, GOP forays into fighting climate change faced opposition from some right-wing groups, who argued that the attempts would discourage conservative voters and hurt the economy. Among the proposals put forward then were funding carbon capture, expanding a tax credit for companies that capture carbon dioxide, and a program — expected to be taken up by the GOP in the next Congress — to plant 1,000 billion trees in the world.
“Now they have the opportunity to look at the evidence and decide which policies they want to support,” said Alex Flint, the executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative group that favors a carbon tax to reduce emissions. global warming emissions. gas. “They’re going in the right direction, but we don’t know what Republican climate policy will be right now.”
But with the latest climate polls this election cycle among conservative Republicans, it remains to be seen how much of a boost the Republican Party will make this time around, especially as gasoline and other energy costs increase.
“Why walk away from winning messages on the economy, crime and border security?” said Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist. “Nobody cares about climate change.”
A first test will be whether Kevin McCarthy, the House’s top Republican, chooses to retain a special select committee on climate change created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019. Former Vice President Mike Pence is already doing pressure for him to be killed.
“This is not a select committee on the climate crisis, this is a select committee in support of the war on American energy,” Pence said on Twitter.
Republicans in Congress are dusting off past plans to tackle climate change as they brace for the likely prospect that they will take control of at least one chamber of Congress in next week’s midterm elections.
Their ideas include planting millions of trees and improving energy efficiency, hydroelectricity, nuclear power and carbon sequestration. They would also increase domestic fossil fuel production by expanding federal oil and gas concessions and banning moratoriums on energy development on federal lands.
“Our energy solutions are climate solutions,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Republican from Washington state who is set to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year if the GOP takes control of the chamber. “America can and should lead the world in reducing emissions without trading our security with the Chinese Communist Party and without sacrificing our energy reliability and accessibility to OPEC+.”
The International Energy Agency has said halting all investment in fossil fuel generation is necessary to eliminate global energy emissions by 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s largest group of climatologists, has said that drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels is necessary to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and thus avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Republicans say more domestic drilling is good for the climate because US energy is cleaner than that produced in other countries with less stringent environmental regulations and is produced more efficiently. “We care about the climate, we care about the environment, and the way to do that is to increase energy made in the United States, because it’s better than anywhere else in the world,” Rebekah said. Hoshiko, Republican spokesperson at House Natural Resources. Committee.
Increasing liquefied natural gas or oil could bring climate benefits under the right circumstances, said Jesse Jenkins, an assistant professor at Princeton University who studies pathways to net zero energy. For example, LNG that displaces coal imports in Asia, or oil production that displaces tar sands development in Canada or heavy crude production in Venezuela, could provide a moderate climate benefit, Jenkins said.
“These are all things that there is a legitimate case for, they reduce emissions by a modest amount, under the right circumstances. But they’re not a game changer,” Jenkins said. “They won’t put the world on a path to net zero emissions.”
Environmental groups are deeply skeptical of the plans. “Unfortunately, if the past is prologue, they’re going to repeat their same old failed energy policies,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of the League of Conservation Voters. “Clearly they want to keep us dependent on fossil fuels for the benefit of big oil and dirty coal.”
Some of the ideas Republicans plan to overlap with those of Democrats’ Cut Inflation Act, which includes $370 billion in spending to fight climate change, including generous nuclear tax credits , hydrogen and carbon capture, and funding research and development of energy technologies such as forest conservation and the planting of new trees. No Republicans in Congress voted for the Cut Inflation Act in August.
The party outlined its plans over the summer, releasing a strategy drawn up by an “energy, climate and conservation task force” created by the House leadership, which promised it would cut energy costs and create jobs while reducing global emissions and reducing America’s dependence on energy from foreign adversaries. The strategy does not specify emission reduction targets.
In recent years, GOP lawmakers have largely stopped denying the scientific consensus that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. “I’m not here to debate climate change,” Rep. Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, said when asked about the issue in a recent phone interview. “We are not climate deniers, we just believe we have better alternatives.” Johnson questioned the seriousness of climate change and its human causes in a 2013 op-ed; his office did not respond to a question about whether his views had changed since then.
But some Republicans say drastically cutting emissions will hurt the economy and that the United States should not take aggressive action as countries like China and India pollute heavily – a position criticized by proponents of the climate and the Biden White House as a “delay.” Climate change has also been dragged into the culture wars, with Republicans on and off Capitol Hill attacking environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.
In 2020, GOP forays into fighting climate change faced opposition from some right-wing groups, who argued that the attempts would discourage conservative voters and hurt the economy. Among the proposals put forward then were funding carbon capture, expanding a tax credit for companies that capture carbon dioxide, and a program — expected to be taken up by the GOP in the next Congress — to plant 1,000 billion trees in the world.
“Now they have the opportunity to look at the evidence and decide which policies they want to support,” said Alex Flint, the executive director of Alliance for Market Solutions, a conservative group that favors a carbon tax to reduce emissions. global warming emissions. gas. “They’re going in the right direction, but we don’t know what Republican climate policy will be right now.”
But with the latest climate polls this election cycle among conservative Republicans, it remains to be seen how much of a boost the Republican Party will make this time around, especially as gasoline and other energy costs increase.
“Why walk away from winning messages on the economy, crime and border security?” said Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist. “Nobody cares about climate change.”
A first test will be whether Kevin McCarthy, the House’s top Republican, chooses to retain a special select committee on climate change created by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019. Former Vice President Mike Pence is already doing pressure for him to be killed.
“This is not a select committee on the climate crisis, this is a select committee in support of the war on American energy,” Pence said on Twitter.