Republicans and the Environment

I worked on environmental and energy issues for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 93rd Congress and the very begining of the 94th,  from 1973-1975.  At that time, there were many green Republicans in Congress.  They played a major role in drafting legislation on coal surface mining, the Endangered Species Act, amendments to the Clean Water Act and other statutes that to this day form the backbone of federal laws to protect the natural environment.  On some issues, especially those having to do with federal policy governing construction of dams, highways and other infrastructural facilities, the Republicans were at least as strong in making sure that the environment was protected as the Democrats, many of whom were wedded to the New-Deal notion that the government should build anything for the jobs and local economic boost regardless of the cost and environmental consequences.

Boy, have things changed!   Over the last thirty-five years, the Republican Party has slowly (not so slowly in the last two years) and steadily abandoned environmental protection as a worthy objective of federal policy.  The Democrats own this issue.  Earlier this year, to my knowledge the last national Republican-affiliated organization standing for environmental protection, Republicans for Environmental Protection, changed their name to ConservAmerica, severing the link between their objectives and the party.   If this is not an important event, it is a symbolic one.

I think we know why this happened.  The locus of power within the Republican Party shifted from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Southwest, areas where federal regulation to protect the environment lacks widespread political support, even though there is widespread support for the cleaner air and water tshat federal regulation has made possible.   At the same time, factions within the party that value freedom from federal regulation of whatever kind have gained power.   Too, large corporate interests have taken control of the flow of cash to the party’s coffers for elections.   There just is little support for environmental protection, especially at the federal level, among the Republican Party’s base.  This does not mean that there are no green Republicans left outside of the political class.  Not at all.  It just means that these folks have little to say on the issues that reach Congress.

Yet, there is no absence of essential environmental issues still to be addressed and resolved.  Climate change is one of them.  So is the effect of energy development, management of federal lands in the West, species protection and any number of air and water quality issues that endure, even while, except for climate change, we have the structure of federal legislation in place to address these problems.

In this post I comment briefly on what has happened and what it means for anyone who cares about environmental protection who wins this fall.  I begin with a short story.

Short story  As a staffer for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974, I witnessed a seminal moment in which the Republican Party began its long-term movement away from environmental protection.

The Nixon Administration had offered up a reasonably strong coal surface mining bill for consideration.  It also proposed something called the “National Land Use Policy and Planning Act.”  This bill would have authorized the expenditure of federal revenues to protect and preserve lands around growing cities in the U.S.  Essentially, this was a bribe to states to create greenbelts and other protected places.   Can you imagine something like this being proposed by a Republican President today?

As we know, Nixon was threatened with impeachment.   One day in 1974 a bunch of the growing caucus of right-wingers in the Republican Party from the South and Southwest took a trip to the White House to demand that Nixon withdraw his support for this legislation or risk a vote for impeachment by these folks.  It worked.  Right away, word came to us that the Nixon administration no longer supported strong coal surface mining or land use protection legislation.  That move undercut Republican greens in the House and the legislation foundered.  After a defeat on the floor of the House on a procedural motion, the land use bill never surfaced again.  Strong surface mining legislation passed both houses of Congress, but was pocket-vetoed by President Ford.  It took until 1977 and Jimmy Carter to get the coal bill enacted.  I was fired by a new team of very non-green Republicans in the next Congress, but not before I had secured another job elsewhere, because I saw the graffiti on the wall.  Thus began the long march away from environmental protection by congressional Republicans.

The intervening years  There’s a story to tell here, too, but it’s too long for a blog (even for mine), so here’s a quick summary.  The Reagan years are best summarized by one name: James Watt, a product of the West’s sagebrush rebellion who resisted movement on environmental issues at the federal level.  President George H.W. Bush was pretty good on the environment.   His capstone achievement was amendments to the Clean Air Act that addressed acid rain.  But he depended on Democrats in Congress to get this done.  It was hard to move environmentally progressive bills during the Clinton years, in part because Republicans controlled the House.  During George W. Bush’s presidency, not much happened.  We can all remember his campaign promise to deal with climate change, scuttled once he was elected.   He did create a marine reserve in the Pacific and made some progress on diesel-engine pollutoin, but mostly he was interested in other issues.

The 112th Congress  In the 2010 elections Tea Party winners together with conservatives effectively took over the House of Representatives.  They have made an extraordinary run at federal environmental legislation and have blocked any attempts to move on climate change, air quality improvement and other pressing issues.

On September 14, the Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee updated a roster they have been keeping of what they call “anti-environmental” votes on the floor of the House in this Congress.  (I’d pass along a link to this report, but there is none on the website.  The title of the report is, “Legislative Database, Anti-Environmental Votes,” Committee on Energy and Commerce, Democratic Staff.”  Google that, and you’ll get right to it.)

The Dems claim that there have been 302 such votes cast.  Now I was prepared to find that some of these were frivolous, procedural or duplicative votes.  After all, the Democrats on House Energy and Commerce, where I served as Democratic staff from 1981-1985, are in the eye of the storm of intense partisanship in Congress, so I figured they might exaggerate a little.  But I didn’t see that.  Instead, I saw an appalling attack on our foundational environmental laws by Republicans (and, on some votes, some Democrats) in this Congress, as well as opposition to any enhancement of environmental protection, across the board.  The committee Deomcrats tallied the attacks as follows:

• Votes targeted at EPA: 133
• Votes to block actions that prevent pollution: 128
• Votes targeted at the U.S. Department of Energy: 54
• Votes to defund or repeal clean energy initiatives: 55
• Votes to promote off-shore drilling: 47
• Votes to dismantle the Clean Air Act: 87
• Votes targeted at the U.S. Department of the Interior: 77
• Votes to undermine public lands and wilderness: 64
• Votes to block actions to address climate change: 47
• Votes to dismantle the Clean Water Act: 35

Now, these are all votes by the full House, on the floor.  They do not include committee votes.  They do not account for proposals to expand wilderness, encourage energy conservation or protect public lands that never made it out of committee or failed to gain consideration in a committee.  Many of these votes to dismantle existing legislation were meaningless since the Senate did not follow suit.  However, virtually all measures to expand protection, especially where climate change was implicated, just didn’t make it out of the House.  So action on them was forestalled.

Having served both parties in Congress on environmental and energy issues, I think I know what happened in this Congress.  Word simply went out that powerful forces within the Republican base wanted to begin the dismantling of federal environmental legislation.  So, party-line fealty was required, even in instances where some Republicans might disagree.  Can you imagine how bad this will get if the Republicans not only hold on to the House but also capture the Senate AND Romney is in the White House?

Romney plan for the environment  There is no such plan, except to gut the Clean Air Act and all other federal environmental legislation where, in his view, it stands in the way of fossil energy development.  I talked about all this in earlier posts.

The Republican platform on the environment  I reviewed the Rs’ platform on the environment.  It is a little more thoughful and careful than Romney’s energy policy, even mentionng that alternatives to fossil fuels have a place going-forward, whereas Romney’s energy-policy statements do not.  But the platform is generally consistent with what House Republicans offered up in this Congress.  Here are some of the key points from the Republican platform:

• A promise to “end EPA’s war on coal” and to encourage “safe development of the nation’s coal resources.”
• A “reasoned approach” to offshore energy development on the East Coast and other areas.
• Opening the coastal plain of  ANWR to oil development.
• Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
• Timely processing of new reactor applications pending at the NRC.
• Creating a pathway toward a market-based approach to renewable energy development without having the taxpayer serve as “venture capitalist.”
• Charge the U.S. Forest Service to use the 193 million acres it manages “to the best economic potential for the nation.”
• Restore the authority of the states in environmental protection.
• Congress should “reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership.” (Emphasis mine)
• “All efforts should be made to to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting.”
• Require congressional approval before any rule projected to cost more than $100 million to American consumers can go into effect.
• Rein in the EPA, in particular prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new GHG regulations.

It seems to me that these environmental planks in the Republican Party Platform actually are a roadmap for what Republicans will try to do, especially if they hold the House, capture the Senate and Romney wins.  Look out!

The Obama record  There has been disappointment with the Obama Administration among some environmental advocates, mostly with respect to failure to move forward aggressively on climate change and on EPA ozone regulations.  But this administration’s record is actually quite impressive, especially when compared to the performance of House Republicans and given the strenuous opposition by House Republicans to nearly every step he has taken.

Among the achievements:

• Allocation of over $10 billion of stimulus revenues in 2009 to a variety of environmental projects, including green-job training and marine habitat restoration.
• 2 million more acres of federal wilderness.
• A real attempt, so far partly frustrated by the courts, to tackle mountaintop coal mining.
• Aggressive vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
• Vigorous investment in new clean-energy technologies through loan guarantees and other measures.
• Steady management of Gulf of Mexico resources in the wake of the BP explosion.
• Implementation of mercury and other toxic substances regulations by the EPA.
• Proposed regulations to cover carbon emissions by utilities and others.

I think it’s safe to say that this administration has promoted policies to protect the environment against significant odds.  If you care about these issues, it’s hard to see how you can vote for Romney or, for that matter, any Republicans running for Congress, House or Senate.  If they get the power, decades of environmental progress on everything from protection of land to pollution abatement and human health are at risk.

Bruce Driver, Crested Butte, CO

September 16, 2012

Romney’s new Energy Plan: Wrongheaded and Unbalanced

In early August I posted an analysis of Mitt Romney’s proposals for energy policy taken from his website and related materials.  I showed that his policies were a tangible threat to Colorado’s developing clean-energy economy.  You can access that analysis on this blog.

On August 22 Romney published “The Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class: Energy Independence.”  This post is an overview of his new plan.

The new plan is wholly consistent with his earlier energy policies, but he doubles down on some of his ideas and provides “evidence” of the merits of his positions by cherry-picking articles and reports from think tanks, newspapers and various interested parties.  The whole thing reads like a post-trial brief written by a lawyer, in which he bases his argument on the evidence that supports his position and ignores everything else.

I found the new plan wrongheaded and unbalanced, a throwback to an earlier era and, frankly, horrific.

The New Plan

The central feature of the new plan is the achievement of North American energy independence by 2020.  Note that this is North American energy independence, including Canada and Mexico, not U.S. independence.  Romney would rely on increased oil, gas and coal development in the U.S. to help meet this goal.

A principal tool on which he would rely is to turn management of federal public lands for purposes of energy development over to the states, “excluding only lands specifically designated off-limits.”  Plan, p. 8.  State regulatory processes and permitting programs for all forms of energy development would be deemed to satisfy all requirements of federal law.  Id.

Romney would also establish a new five-year plan for the leasing of off-shore energy resources that would aggressively open new areas for development.  Plan, p. 10.

He would immediately approve the Keystone XL Pipeline and establish a regional agreement to facilitate cross-border energy investment, infrastructure and sales.  Plan, p. 12.

He says that he will bring about a re-assessment of U.S. energy resources, on-shore and off-shore, especially targeting public lands on which “no exploration is allowed to occur,” apparently paid for by the federal taxpayer and apparently including national parks, wilderness areas and other special places.  Plan, p. 14.

Another key component of the new plan is regulatory reform, including “measured reforms” of environmental statutes and regulations as well as the prevention of agencies from settling challenges to regulations.  Plan, p. 16.

He would also facilitate “private-sector-led development of new technologies,” focusing government support on basic research rather than, as he says, “picking winners in the market.”  Plan, p. 19.  He implies that President Obama is responsible for the loss of 10,000 jobs in the wind industry, Id., even while Romney opposes extension of the wind production tax credit.

While he does not discuss it in the new plan, his website stresses the need to relieve the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon emissions in order to encourage the construction of new coal power plants by electric utilities.

Romney claims that his new plan would create three million new jobs, generate more than $1 trillion in royalties for the federal Treasury and create an economic resurgence in the country.

Problems with the new plan

1. To a substantial degree, Romney’s new plan is a solution looking for a problem.  Oil and gas production in the U.S. is the highest today since 1998, and oil imports are the lowest since 1997, falling below 50% under the President.  So, we’re on the right track.  Can we really go faster?  Many believe that we cannot or should not.

2. Energy independence, a long-held goal of politicians since Richard Nixon, has never made much sense.  The costs, both economic and environmental, would be very high to achieve true independence.  What seems to matter more is reduction of the share of GDP that is spent on energy, a goal that Romney ignores.

3. The new plan ignores the fact that federal public lands, especially on-shore, are managed for many purposes in the name of the citizens of the U.S., including, in addition to energy production, recreation, wilderness preservation, hunting, water resource development, ranching and timber production.  Under Romney’s plan these purposes would be subordinated to energy production managed by the states, whose capability to handle a vast expansion of responsibility is questionable at best, especially in the West.  A race to the bottom, where money from royalties for the states from development or political contributions from developers are the main prizes, would likely ensue.  The collateral damage to other values could be immense.

4. Growth in production of oil and gas on federal public lands has not kept pace with production on private lands, but this is not because the U.S. has failed to lease or permit such production.  57% of leased lands on-shore and 70% of leased off-shore acres are inactive.  One of the reasons for the lack of development on federal lands appears to be that oil- and gas-containing shale formations, the new center of development, are found mostly on private lands.  In any event, the President has recently opened new lands in Alaska, in the Interior West and elsewhere to development.

5. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the regulatory lag in processing applications for permits to drill appears mainly a result of delay by operators in filing required paperwork, not federal officials sitting on their hands.

6. Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, assuming it would actually be built, would not keep Canadian tar sands, refined or otherwise, from China, if that is where developers can command the highest price.

7. There is nothing that significant expansion of reliance on North American fossil fuels can do to insulate Americans from oil-price shocks, since all oil is priced in a world market, no matter how much of it we produce.  Demand from China and India, among other countries, will continue to put upward pressure on the price of crude, no matter how much we produce.

8. There is no mention in Romney’s new plan of developing alternatives to oil as a transportation fuel.  This is a step back from the Bush Administration.

9. The new plan is 100% about enhancing energy supply.  The demand-side, still the cheapest way to meet a portion of our needs, is completely ignored.  There is not a word about energy conservation or energy efficiency.  In fact, Romney has pledged elsewhere to repeal vehicle fuel efficiency standards.

10. There is no mention of climate change or global warming.  There is no acknowledgement of the risks inherent in a pedal-to-the-metal program for fossil fuels.

11. Jobs claims are exaggerated, according to other estimates.  It is not clear, on a net basis, that massively opening up new public lands to oil and gas drilling and coal mining will create new jobs, since other uses of these lands will be discouraged.

Is there anything in Romney’s new plan that is worth consideration?  Maybe.  Perhaps some Interior Department regulations governing drilling on- and off-shore can be streamlined without adverse impacts.  But would this lead to more production, given that most leased lands are inactive?  The notion of looking at the U.S., Canada and Mexico togther is intriguing, although what this means for on-the-ground development is unclear, since all are sovereign nations subsject to domestic political pressures.  The support of basic research by the federal government makes sense.  Maybe an update on energy resources on public lands would be useful, but until developers drill a particular area, no one can really know the extent of the resource.

But the big problems in his plan are just overwhelming.  Turning over management of federal lands to the states for on-shore energy development is incredibly wrong-headed and, likely, politically impossible.  And, of course, the new plan is wildly unbalanced.  It is as far away from the “all of the above” plan that the President has been trying to implement.  It is all supply-side and all fossil fuels, with no acknowledgement of any of the risks inherent in following this path forward.

Bruce Driver

Crested Butte, CO

September 3, 2012