Everything At Stake: Will Climate Unite the US Congress?

Last March, you and Ari Drennen published a study on Republican elected officials who deny the human origin of climate change. Can you tell us the main conclusions of this study, in particular the anchoring of this phenomenon despite the recent multiplication of extreme climatic events and the fact that a majority of Americans believe in the reality and human origin of climate change? Can we expect a change under the pressure of public opinion and the increasing number of catastrophic climate events in the US? 

Despite somewhat dramatic shifts in public awareness and opinion of climate change in the US over the last decade, our political system at the federal level has not always kept pace. In fact, according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF), more than half of all elected Republicans in the current US Congress still deny the scientific consensus that the climate is warming, and human activity is to blame. This is true even in spite of increasingly ubiquitous and damaging extreme weather across these politicians' districts - and it is in large part thanks to the extremely deep pockets, and deep-seated anti-climate-action interests of the fossil fuel industry. 

CAPAF has published an analysis of the perspectives on climate change of each Congress since 2013. Our most recent analysis in January 2021 found that there are still 139 elected officials in this Congress - 109 House members and 30 Senators, all Republicans - who deny the established scientific consensus that the world is warming as a result of human activity. These 139 climate deniers collectively represented more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the fossil fuel industry. 

Some say acting on climate change is too expensive, so we should adapt; others call for innovation instead of behavioral change, saying technology will save us. We even see it in Congressional Republicans’ refusal to pass the BBB, with many saying that the clean energy industry and its associated technology has already come far enough on its own. 

Full-on climate deniers are largely a thing of the past at this point, except for in very fringe cases - but don’t expect that to change many Republican’s votes on climate legislation. The only glimmer of hope is the accountability offered by growing public outcry, including the 100,000 protesters who showed up to the UN climate summit in Glasgow late last year. But even the public is more focused on urging ambition by those already acting on climate than on fighting those stubbornly committed to accepting fossil fuel money, and parroting the industry’s talking points. 

If Congress fails to pass an ambitious climate bill, the Biden administration's commitment will become almost impossible to keep. Some people express hope in a regulatory approach driven by the EPA: could that help achieve Biden’s ambitious climate agenda? What about actions at the state level? The rest of the world is growing pessimistic about the US with what looks like a remake of the Obama administration’s failed effort to pass a climate bill: does this diagnosis seem too pessimistic?

With or without the BBB investments, assertive executive action by the President will be needed to meet the climate commitments set by this administration. Investments make regulations more effective and beneficial, but could never get the job done on their own. This is why the President has set a bold target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030 early in his term, appointed serious climate champions to high-level cabinet and executive branch roles, and issued multiple executive orders to execute a whole-of-government approach to tackling the climate crisis.

However, that is the best-case administrative action scenario. Unfortunately, in just one month the US Supreme Court will hear arguments on a challenge to the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The outcome of this case, particularly given the conservative makeup of the Court at present, could put the strength of any Biden administration standards at risk. Additionally, time is of the essence - if the Biden administration doesn’t act quickly to propose and then finalize multiple different regulations, it is more likely that they could be undone by a potential future anti-environment administration. 

State and subnational action on climate has also been a critical element of US climate action over the last five years, particularly in the absence of (and in some cases, active harm by) any leadership at the federal level during the Trump administration. For example, sixteen states and territories have to date taken legislative or executive action to move towards a 100 percent clean energy future, with many more cities and counties on board (more than 150). However, the electoral map and partisan divide in the country mean that without federal standards and investments, it will be impossible to compel climate action by all states at the scope and scale to deliver the Biden administration’s climate target. 

Ultimately, Congress has a responsibility to act on climate change. This is not the Obama administration all over again - we are five years further into a ticking countdown clock on climate catastrophe. Ambitious regulatory action coupled with bold state and corporate programs can, and must, make a significant dent in US emissions. However, without the household cost savings and aggressive investment in a new clean energy economy promised by the Build Back Better legislation, Americans will not see immediate or future benefits of climate action - and we will not meet President Biden’s goal. If that’s the case, as CAP Founder John Podesta recently said in an interview with the New York Times, the US will lose international credibility and, more importantly, put our future in jeopardy. 

Copyright: Drew Angerer / Getty Images via AFP