Republicans, Climate Change, and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Over the past few days, I've seen a number of articles that play up the significance of the fact that 15 GOP Senators voted to acknowledge that "human activity contributes to climate change." They do not deserve a gold star for acknowledging reality, but people like grading Republicans on a (very steep) curve. Some articles have even tried to portray this as a "rift in the party".

Let's instead review what these senators did--and did not--vote for.

The amendment in question, offered by John Hoeven (R-ND), originally had little to do with climate change. In fact, it began as an amendment saying that building the Keystone XL pipeline would have a negligible impact on the environment:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the following findings of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Secretary of State for the Keystone XL Project (referred to in this section as the ``FSEIS''):

    (1) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-1, section 4.16).

    (2) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).

    (3) ``. . . approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).

    SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ENERGY COSTS AND SUPPLIES.
    It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
    (1) reject efforts to impose economy-wide taxes, fees, mandates, or regulations that will--
    (A) increase the cost of energy for families and businesses of the United States; or
    (B) destroy jobs; and
    (2) prioritize policies that encourage and enable innovation in the United States that might lead to energy supplies that are more abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure.

However, it was changed just a few hours before receiving a vote. Here's what happened according to POLITICO:

The GOP’s trick play on the climate amendment had the party first propose language that stayed on message, praising “abundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secure” energy, its mantra that includes fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. But an edit that emerged in the hours ahead of the vote that borrowed the Democratic language on human-caused climate change, but omitting the word “significant” to describe the impact.

Hoeven later told reporters that the change to include the climate language was made “because our members felt they needed something they could vote for,” though he was ultimately forced to vote against it to prevent it from reaching the 60-vote threshold.

Basically, some Republicans, knowing that Democrats were going to make them vote on anthropogenic climate change, wanted weaker language that would still give them a way to deflect charges of being "anti-science." 

The Hoeven modified amendment read as follows:

(a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--     (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
    (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';
    (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme weather events).
    (4) ``The analyses of potential impacts associated with construction and normal operation of the proposed Project suggest that significant impacts to most resources are not expected along the proposed Project route'' (FSEIS page 4.16-1, section 4.16.;
    (5) ``The total annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project'' (FSEIS page ES-34, section ES.5.4.2).; and
    (6) ``..... approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the United States based on expected oil prices, oil-sands supply costs, transport costs, and supply-demand scenarios'' (FSEIS page ES-16, section ES.4.1.1).''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
    (1) climate change is real; and
    (2) human activity contributes to climate change.

The vote on the amendment was 59 to 40. It died, being one short of the 60-vote threshold. 

 

39 Republicans and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the amendment. Sanders's logic was the complete opposite of that of the Republicans: he opposed it, I would presume, because of the statements in (4) through (6), the only parts with which most of these Republicans would have agreed.

But 15 Republicans voted for it (along with the Democrats and Angus King of Maine):

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Mike Rounds (R-MT)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

After that vote, the Senate voted on Brian Schatz (D-HI)'s amendment. It described the human contribution to climate change as "significant"."

 SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
    (a) Findings.--The environmental analysis contained in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referred to in section 2(a) and deemed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) as described in section 2(a), states that--     (1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';
    (2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.''; and
    (3) ``A warmer planet causes large-scale changes that reverberate throughout the climate system of the Earth, including higher sea levels, changes in precipitation, and altered weather patterns (e.g. an increase in more extreme weather events).''.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--Consistent with the findings under subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
    (1) climate change is real; and
    (2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

By adding the adverb "significantly," the number of Republican supporters dropped from 15 to 5: 

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)

The following day, the amendment offered by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came up for discussion. His amendment went a step beyond that of Schatz's to talk about solutions and underscore urgency:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement
     with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific
     community that--
       (1) climate change is real;
       (2) climate change is caused by human activities;
       (3) climate change has already caused devastating problems
     in the United States and around the world;
       (4) a brief window of opportunity exists before the United
     States and the entire planet suffer irreparable harm; and
       (5) it is imperative that the United States transform its
     energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy
     efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible.

The amendment had zero Republican supporters. Every Republican present voted to table the amendment, dispensing with it without any further debate. 

Sanders's amendment was the only one of these three with clear policy implications. And where policy is concerned, the GOP looks pretty united.