GWPF | 30 Oct 2014
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have struggled to identify themselves with the success of the shale revolution, given the party’s reputation as anti-fossil fuels. If the Democratic Party loses its control of the U.S. Senate following the mid-term elections, a small but significant part of the reason will be because it has found itself on the wrong side of the energy revolution. –John Kemp, Reuters, 27 October 2014
Environmental groups are on track to spend more than $85 million on key races this year, more than ever before, according to an internal memo. The record spending comes as green groups are worried about the fate of the Senate and the future of President Obama’s climate agenda. “The era of climate science denial will soon come to a close, and voters will demand leadership from their elected officials on this pressing threat,” the document states. Whatever the outcome [of the elections] on November 4th, all of the momentum is on the side of climate groups and candidates who want to act. –Laura Barron-Lopez, The Hill, 27 October 2014
The green movement has grown into a formidable political force, launching a broad and sophisticated operation this election cycle that rivals many of the most established groups. Still, even as the greens work to expand their influence ahead of the 2016 presidential election, their efforts may only help stanch the bleeding for their Democratic allies this year, who appear likely to lose their majority in the Senate. This [election] certainly looks set to be the biggest test yet of environmental groups’ effectiveness. –Andrew Restuccia and Darren Goode, The Hill, 28 October 2014
San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer has spent a staggering $76 million to promote climate change as a political issue in this year’s elections, but the subject isn’t exactly firing up the electorate. Polls show voters continue to rank climate change at the bottom of their priority lists. Even in races featuring the “Steyer Seven,” the Democratic candidates selected by Mr. Steyer as the chief beneficiaries of his largesse, the issue is barely registering on the campaign trail. –Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times 29 October 29, 2014
Democrats are justifiably worried about holding onto control of the United States Senate in the midterm elections Nov. 4. Most forecasts have Republicans winning seven seats for a 52-48 advantage, which would almost certainly spell doom for any action on climate change. But here’s the real catch: Even if Democrats win the Senate by a slim margin, climate action could still be foiled for the next few years by members of their own party. In several critical races, particularly in energy-producing states, Democratic candidates’ stated climate change beliefs somewhat echo their Republican opponents’. –Katherine Bagley, InsideClimate News, 21 October, 2014
With only a week to go before the 2014 midterm elections, polling from key battleground states indicates a small but widening advantage for Republicans. A six-seat net gain in the Senate would put both chambers of Congress under GOP control, uniting the two houses in opposition to many of the hallmark policies of the Obama presidency, including rules to curb carbon emissions from the nation’s power sector. Whether a Republican Senate could seriously imperil the president’s Climate Action Plan, as the party’s leadership has promised to do, is another matter. –Nathanael Massey, E&E, 28 October 2014
The risk of blackouts in Europe will grow in the coming winter as thermal power-generating capacity has been shuttered amid the region’s economic slump and a greater reliance on renewables, a study warned. A growing share of renewable energy is pushing out conventional sources of power, reducing the “electricity system’s margin to meet peak demand in specific conditions such as cold, dark and windless days,” the report said. –Tara Patel, Bloomberg 27 October 2014
1) Will Shale Revolution Sink Obama’s Green Party? – Reuters, 27 October 2014
2) Green Groups To Spend Record $85 Million On Midterms Election Campaign – The Hill, 27 October 2014
3) America’s Powerful Green Lobby Grows Into Electoral Powerhouse – The Hill, 28 October 2014
4) Green Groups’ Election Millions Can’t Heat Up Voters On Climate Change – The Washington Times 29 October 29, 2014
5) Why U.S. Green Groups Are Talking About Abortion This Election – Reuters, 29 October 2014
6) In Key Midterm Races, Democrats Sound Like Republicans On Climate Issue – InsideClimate News, 21 October, 2014
7) Could A Republican Senate Derail Obama’s Climate Agenda? – E&E, 28 October 2014
8) A Warning To Americans: Renewables Threaten Europe’s Energy Security This Winter – The American Interest, 29 October 2014
1) Will Shale Revolution Sink Obama’s Green Party?
Reuters, 27 October 2014
John Kemp
If the Democratic Party loses its control of the U.S. Senate following the mid-term elections, a small but significant part of the reason will be because it has found itself on the wrong side of the energy revolution.
Thanks to shale, energy-producing states have been the strongest economic performers in the United States over the past decade, sharply improving their position compared with the energy-consuming states.
Only 13 of the 50 states produced more energy than they consumed in 2010, the latest year for which comprehensive data is available, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The other 37 were all net energy consumers, relying on some combination of interstate commerce or imports to meet the shortfall.
The shale revolution and the renaissance in U.S. oil and gas production have resulted in a stark contrast between the fortunes of the two groups.
Eight of the 13 energy-producing states improved their relative position between 2003 and 2013 when ranked by per capita gross domestic product. They accounted for almost half of the 18 states that rose in the rankings.
By contrast, energy-consuming states have fared poorly. None of the 10 states with the largest energy deficits has improved its relative economic position since 2003. Nine of them have fallen in the ranking, in some cases sharply. […]
WINNERS AND LOSERS
It would be wrong to imply that energy production has been the only cause of success and failure among the states. […]
The energy boom has driven favorable shifts in employment, tax revenues and broader economic activity for the states concerned, and it is starting to show up in the political balance of power, too.
The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have struggled to identify themselves with the success of the shale revolution, given the party’s reputation as anti-fossil fuels.
That is piling on the pressure on the remaining elected Democrats in energy-producing states and leaving the party struggling elsewhere as voters question whether it is committed to local growth and job creation.
If the Democratic Party loses its control of the U.S. Senate following the mid-term elections, a small but significant part of the reason will be because it has found itself on the wrong side of the energy revolution.
Shale has remade the world in the past decade, but it is also remaking the United States, reshaping the contours of the economy and politics.
2) Green Groups To Spend Record $85 Million On Midterms Election Campaign
The Hill, 27 October 2014
Laura Barron-Lopez
Environmental groups are on track to spend more than $85 million on key races this year, more than ever before, according to an internal memo.
The record spending comes as green groups are worried about the fate of the Senate and the future of President Obama’s climate agenda, which they say is crucial to helping the U.S. and other nations curb greenhouse gas emissions and stave off disastrous climate impacts.
A memo circulated among five of the nation’s top environmental organizations, and provided to The Hill, summarizes in detail the plan hatched by the groups to put climate change on top as a key issue.
The five green groups — the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate — shared spending plans in the internal memo, which was first reported on by The Washington Post.
The memo states the climate groups have worked to execute a “high level strategy” to “raise more money than ever before” for pro-climate candidates, reach more voters than ever before and spend in targeted races.
“We are on track to spend more than $85 million overall including more than $40 million in just six Senate races,” the document states.
Out of those six Senate races, the groups have spent the most in Sen. Mark Udall’s (D-Colo.) reelection bid, totaling roughly $12.1 million. They have spent the second most in Rep. Bruce Braley’s (D) Senate bid in Iowa, totaling $7.2 million.
The groups have also spent $6.6 million on Rep. Gary Peters (D) in Michigan, $4 million on Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) in New Hampshire, $2.4 million for Sen. Kay Hagan’s (D) reelection in North Carolina and $1.9 million on Sen. Mark Begich (D) in Alaska.
“In each of these races, our groups are among the biggest, if not the biggest, spender on behalf of the pro-environment candidate,” the memo states.
NextGen Climate spokeswoman Heather Wong told the Post that the group, founded by Steyer in 2013, has spent a little over $50 million in both state and congressional races as of Oct. 20.
That puts NextGen in front as the biggest spender among the climate groups this election cycle. The League of Conservation Voters comes in second as it is poised to spend $25 million on campaigns.
In the document, the groups described the climate push this year as the “biggest and most sophisticated electoral effort ever” for pro-climate organizations.
“The era of climate science denial will soon come to a close, and voters will demand leadership from their elected officials on this pressing threat,” the document states.
“Whatever the outcome on November 4th, all of the momentum is on the side of climate groups and candidates who want to act.”
3) Green Lobby Grows Into Electoral Powerhouse
The Hill, 28 October 2014
Andrew Restuccia and Darren Goode
The green movement has grown into a formidable political force, launching a broad and sophisticated operation this election cycle that rivals many of the most established groups.
Leading environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee have hired well-known national and state political operatives to guide the effort, and they are digging into detailed polling and analysis produced by the same white-shoe firms that helped President Barack Obama get elected. More than ever, greens are collaborating with other progressive groups like unions, Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, sharing resources and divvying up responsibilities in key states.
Still, even as the greens work to expand their influence ahead of the 2016 presidential election, their efforts may only help stanch the bleeding for their Democratic allies this year, who appear likely to lose their majority in the Senate. That would allow Republican critics of Obama and the EPA’s efforts to combat climate change a new platform to work against the policies they have blasted as a drag on the U.S. economy.
While environmental groups have long been involved in electoral politics, only recently has their work started turning heads. For years, greens were seen as second-tier players, unable to muster enough power to sway race outcomes. Now they’re spending millions to help Democrats hold the Senate and inject issues like climate change into the political debate.
Several environmentalists said privately they expect to outspend all outside groups in several key states, with the exception of the Republican and Democratic Party organizations.
“Relatively speaking, the environmentalists used to be a small player. Now in many places we’re the biggest player,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said. “That’s a huge change.”
“This cycle you have really seen the environmental, climate movement across the board play in the most significant way — from a financial perspective, from an organizational perspective and from an impact perspective,” said veteran Democratic operative Chris Lehane, one of Steyer’s top advisers. Steyer alone has contributed $57.6 million to his super PAC this year, including an additional $16 million last week, according to the most recent FEC filings.
Although polls show Republicans ahead in the contest to control the Senate, greens hope to re-create the model they used in the Montana Senate race in 2012, where LCV spent more than $1 million on an elaborate field campaign aimed at boosting turnout for Jon Tester. Analysts like Nate Silver had given Republican Denny Rehberg the edge in the tight race, but Tester pulled out a win thanks in part to greens’ get-out-the-vote efforts. LCV says it signed up more than 28,000 Tester supporters to vote by mail, and in the end, Tester beat Rehberg by about 18,000 votes.
“All the pundits thought he was going to lose, but we expanded the electorate,” Karpinski said. “We have the same goal in 2014.”
This cycle certainly looks set to be the biggest test yet of environmental groups’ effectiveness.
In Colorado, for example, greens are strongly supporting Democratic Sen. Mark Udall’s reelection bid, but his opponent, Cory Gardner, is leading in all nine public polls released this month.
4) Green Groups’ Election Millions Can’t Heat Up Voters On Climate Change
The Washington Times 29 October 29, 2014
Valerie Richardson
San Francisco billionaire Tom Steyer has spent a staggering $76 million to promote climate change as a political issue in this year’s elections, but the subject isn’t exactly firing up the electorate.
Polls show voters continue to rank climate change at the bottom of their priority lists. Even in races featuring the “Steyer Seven,” the Democratic candidates selected by Mr. Steyer as the chief beneficiaries of his largesse, the issue is barely registering on the campaign trail.
Take the Senate race in New Hampshire. NextGen Climate Action, Mr. Steyer’s political action committee, has invested heavily in television advertising and the ground game on behalf of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, in her re-election bid against Republican Scott Brown.
What impact has climate change had on the contest? “None,” said Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
“It’s not been an issue candidates have been talking about the in the Senate race. It’s not in the kinds of questions that come up in the debates, and it’s certainly not one of the issues voters have told us are important or a serious problem,” Mr. Smith said.
Same with the Senate race in Michigan, where NextGen is supporting Rep. Gary C. Peters in his race against Republican Terri Lynn Land, a former Michigan secretary of state.
“There hasn’t really been a peep about it,” said political analyst Bill Ballenger, founder of Inside Michigan Politics. “I’ve seen no coverage of it in the media whatsoever, no mention of it.”
5) Why U.S. Green Groups Are Talking About Abortion This Election
Reuters, 29 October 2014
Andy Sullivan
Green billionaire Tom Steyer vowed to make the November congressional elections about climate change. Now he’s talking about abortion and the economy to get his candidates across the finish line.
Steyer, a hedge fund manager turned environmentalist, launched a state-of-the-art operation to push voters to elect governors and senators willing to confront global warming. His NextGen Climate Action political committee is on track to spend more than $55 million in this election – an unprecedented amount for an environmentalist group.
But NextGen and other green groups are not talking about climate change as much as one would expect.
Instead, they are paying for TV ads that attack Republican candidates on job creation and corruption, not carbon emissions. Door-to-door canvassers talk about clean water and reproductive rights, not the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would carry crude oil from Canada to U.S. refineries.
The reason is simple: climate change isn’t a top concern for most voters. Only 3 percent think it should be the country’s top priority, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.
NextGen and other green groups say they’re simply doing what it takes to elect the candidates they support.
That means working with Democratic allies to ensure a consistent message that resonates with a broad cross-section of voters, not trying to raise awareness about the perils of climate change. Door-to-door canvassers aim to motivate loyalists to vote, not persuade skeptics.
“The goal is to win the election, and using climate as part of that victory,” said Craig Hughes, a NextGen adviser in Colorado. “This is not about throwing up an ad about polar bears and butterflies going into extinction. This is making it relevant to the voters.”
The effort also serves as a dry run for 2016, when voters will elect a successor to Democratic President Barack Obama. Many of the most hotly contested races this year are in states that will be competitive in the presidential election as well, and green groups say they will review this year’s results to find out what tactics worked best.
But the win-first approach has its risks, as Republicans can argue that the groups’ unwillingness to let the climate message stand on its own is proof that it doesn’t matter to voters.
“Climate change is like an afterthought in the wider message, which is a tacit admission that on its own it doesn’t move the dial,” said Republican strategist Josh Penry.
With climate change crowded out by other issues, that has created an information vacuum for some voters who say that candidates’ stance on the issue would affect their vote – if only the candidates would talk about it.
“Climate change is a huge issue that we’re just pushing under the rug and not dealing with,” said Emily Rowe, 19, as she twirled a hula hoop on the campus of the University of Colorado. “I’m assuming the Democratic Party is more for that. That’s about all I know.”
6) In Key Midterm Races, Democrats Sound Like Republicans On Climate Issue
InsideClimate News, 21 October, 2014
Katherine Bagley
Democrats are justifiably worried about holding onto control of the United States Senate in the midterm elections Nov. 4. Most forecasts have Republicans winning seven seats for a 52-48 advantage, which would almost certainly spell doom for any action on climate change.
But here’s the real catch: Even if Democrats win the Senate by a slim margin, climate action could still be foiled for the next few years by members of their own party.
In several critical races, particularly in energy-producing states, Democratic candidates’ stated climate change beliefs somewhat echo their Republican opponents’. Most toe the party line and accept the idea that the world is warming, but resist action that could theoretically harm their home-state economies, such as cutting fossil fuels.
7) Could A Republican Senate Derail Obama’s Climate Agenda?
E&E, 28 October 2014
Nathanael Massey
With only a week to go before the 2014 midterm elections, polling from key battleground states indicates a small but widening advantage for Republicans. A six-seat net gain in the Senate would put both chambers of Congress under GOP control, uniting the two houses in opposition to many of the hallmark policies of the Obama presidency, including rules to curb carbon emissions from the nation’s power sector.
Whether a Republican Senate could seriously imperil the president’s Climate Action Plan, as the party’s leadership has promised to do, is another matter.
Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have indicated in the past several months that climate regulation proposed by U.S. EPA, and specifically the Clean Power Plan (CPP), would be a prime target if Republicans gain control of the Senate. Both responded to the CPP’s proposal in early June by proposing legislation to curb or weaken the rule, although those proposals died in the Senate.
But even if Republicans take the Senate next week, the leadership’s ambitions will likely run up against the basic math of the legislative process. If Republicans pick up the six seats they need to gain control of the Senate, they’ll still be shy of the three-fifths majority needed to override filibusters by Democrats.
And while enough coal-state Democrats might conceivably be swayed across the aisle to beat a filibuster on climate regulation, “it’s hard to think of a plausible scenario where you end up with a [two-thirds] supermajority” needed to override a presidential veto, said Nathan Richardson, an assistant professor at the South Carolina School of Law.
Budget wars, round 2?
Congress has the power to challenge the CPP directly, either through the Congressional Review Act — which allows Congress to overturn recent regulation from federal agencies — or by an amendment to the Clean Air Act. Assuming such measures are able to pass through both chambers in the future, however, there’s little chance they would make it across Obama’s desk without a veto.
Instead, the Republican leadership has indicated that it will pursue a less direct line of attack, by attaching riders to major spending bills that the government needs to pass in order to operate. In comments made to conservative donors at an event in June, later made public by The Nation, McConnell pointed out that, with both chambers secured, Republicans would “own the budget.”
“That means that we can pass the spending bill,” he said. “And I assure you that in the spending bill, we will be pushing back against this bureaucracy. … We’re going to go after them on health care, on financial services, on the Environmental Protection Agency, across the board.”
Congress could pass appropriations riders to larger spending bills that would bar EPA from carrying out its rule, or deny it the funds it would need to do so. But again, Obama is unlikely to allow any law that undercuts the viability of his central piece of climate regulation, or significantly lowers its emissions-reduction targets, said Thomas Lorenzen, a partner with law firm Dorsey & Whitney who previously defended EPA regulations for the Justice Department.
“At this stage, the president is not going to give up any of his climate commitments,” he said. “I think Obama sees this as not only critical for this country, but critical to driving other countries to satisfy their own obligations. If he sends a signal that the U.S. is willing to step back, that would send the wrong message overseas.”
A spending bill with riders designed to undercut EPA could set the scene for another budget showdown, similar to confrontations last year over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The reputations of both parties suffered from that episode. But Republicans may bet on the public’s ire falling primarily on Obama if a major spending bill dies on his desk, said Lorenzen.
Change of atmosphere, but not action
Whether or not confrontations over regulation lead to a high-stakes showdown, a Republican victory in the Senate would signal a change in atmosphere as EPA advances its proposed rule.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of Washington’s most vociferous climate skeptics, is next in line for the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would take the lead role in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, while Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has a shot at the chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Science and Space.
“Should Republicans take the Senate, the character of Congressional oversight will change,” wrote Scott Segal, head of the Policy Resolution Group at law firm Bracewell & Giuliani, in an email. “It is likely that regular order will return to the appropriations process, meaning that provisions which could alter or delay the rule are likely to have more thorough airing.”
8) A Warning To Americans: Renewables Threaten Europe’s Energy Security This Winter
The American Interest, 29 October 2014
Europe is crossing its fingers for a mild winter this year. In addition to the continent’s struggles securing a steady supply of Russian natural gas—a source that is looking very shaky, given that half of Gazprom’s supplies transit Ukraine, and Moscow and Kiev aren’t exactly seeing eye to eye right now—Europe is now facing the possibility that it won’t be able to heat its homes because of the rise of renewables. Bloomberg reports:
A growing share of renewable energy is pushing out conventional sources of power, reducing the “electricity system’s margin to meet peak demand in specific conditions such as cold, dark and windless days,” [Cap Gemini SA said in its European Energy Markets Observatory report]. […] “If we have a very cold winter, we could find ourselves in a very tense situation,” Colette Lewiner, Cap Gemini’s global energy and utilities researcher, said by phone.
Typically, fossil fuels and nuclear reactors provide what is called baseload energy, that is, a steady, dependable power output that can be counted on day in and day out. Renewables like wind and solar energy can’t replace that kind of supply, because they can only produce power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. These green resources instead serve to help supply peak demand, during the times of day when people are generally gluttons for electricity.
The problem is, as government subsidy regimes have increased renewables’ market share (in some cases quite dramatically, and at considerable cost), baseload generators can no longer afford to stick around, and have to shut up shop. We’re seeing that in Europe, where sluggish economic growth is already making it difficult for a lot of these power plants to find buyers for their supply.
Greens will undoubtedly cheer this as a victory, but may be doing so in cold, dark homes this winter if temperatures drop low enough. Renewable energy sources have a number of hurdles to vault before they can start seriously supplanting fossil fuels in the kind of green revolution many environmentalists dream of, and we may be witnessing one such limit in the coming months.
