U.S: Some—not all—Red state legislatures, attorneys general, and governors appear hell-bent on preventing the nation's transition to a low carbon economy

Joel B.

Today's culture wars seem to spare nothing and no one. So, it is hardly shocking that some red state legislatures and blue city councils have been locked into battles over natural gas hookups. Blue city councils, e.g., Austin, Texas, have taken to prohibiting the use of natural gas in new construction for stoves and other appliances. In these cases, the cities want to replace gas with electricity from clean sources like solar and wind.
In response, GOP-controlled legislatures in some states, e.g., Texas and Ohio, have enacted laws preempting the actions of the municipalities. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/16/climate/gas-stoves-climate-change.html">New York Times</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/politics/natural-gas-ban-preemptive-laws-gop-climate/index.html">CNN</a> have reported that twenty GOP-controlled legislatures have enacted such legislation (see Figure 1).
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/3c97052ba43014f36c9cc94a3e8a235d5bffa13e.png?" alt="Red states prohibiting bans on natural gas hookups" />
Not nearly as prominent in the press as the conflicts between Republicans and Democrats over abortion and gun control, state/municipal struggles over climate-related policies are closely related and may be building in the run-up to the 2024 elections. According to <a href="http://The%20states%20that%20are%20most%20deeply%20integrated%20into%20the%20existing%20fossil-fuel%20economy,%20either%20as%20producers%20or%20as%20consumers,%20tend%20also%20to%20be%20the%20places%20that%20are%20most%20resistant%20to,%20and%20separated%20from,%20the%20major%20demographic,%20cultural,%20and%20economic%20changes%20remaking%2021st-century%20American%20life." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ronald Brownstein</a>,
<blockquote>
The states that are most deeply integrated into the existing fossil-fuel economy, either as producers or as consumers, tend also to be the places that are most resistant to, and separated from, the major demographic, cultural, and economic changes remaking 21st-century American life.
</blockquote>
Some&mdash;not all&mdash;red state legislatures, attorneys general, and governors appear hell-bent on preventing the nation's transition to a low carbon economy. They are employing various measures to accomplish their objectives, including lawsuits and the passage of legislation intended to limit the deployment of clean energy alternatives like wind and solar. In addition to legislation preventing cities from prohibiting new natural gas hookups, are actions prohibiting state retirement plans from investing according to <a href="https://joelbstronberg.substack.com/p/whats-wrong-with-investing-your-environmental-values-7d736d6783e5">ESG principles</a>.&nbsp;
<h2>What is ESG?</h2>
The acronym ESG stands for environmental, social, and corporate governance. The force behind socially responsible investments is the willingness of investors to put their money where their beliefs are.
ESG investing has gained popularity in recent years due to increasing awareness of the importance of sustainability and the impact of business practices on the environment and society. Some investors believe that companies with strong ESG practices may be better equipped to adapt to changing market conditions and may have long-term advantages over companies that do not prioritize ESG issues. The attack on ESG investing is a surrogate indicator for opposition to the transition to solar, wind, batteries, and other clean energy alternatives.
Leading the assault on ESG investing are more than a dozen Republican state attorneys general. According to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-29/republicans-prepare-to-ramp-up-their-anti-esg-campaign-in-2023#xj4y7vzkg">Bloomberg Law</a> (paywall), the primary concern of the AGs and others is "that environmental, social, and governance investing is part of a broader Democratic effort to prioritize climate change and other societal issues to the detriment of the fossil-fuel industry."
<h2>The issue at hand</h2>
The political assault by the right is backed by some of the party's biggest names, including former Vice President Mike Pence and the governors of Florida and Texas, Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott. Their efforts are intended to ensure a place in the sun for fossil fuels.
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Stakeholder capitalism is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda &hellip;&nbsp;It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employee, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to&nbsp;prosper.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
Nine states have announced divestment from BlackRock (Figure 2). The investment firm manages just under $8 trillion in assets and believes consideration of ESG factors mirrors the diversity of its client base and reflects the reality that corporations will be facing in the future because of climate change.&nbsp; Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R)&nbsp;<a href="https://news.ballotpedia.org/2022/12/16/voters-approved-71-of-constitutional-amendments-on-the-ballot-in-2022/">has accused</a> BlackRock of moving &ldquo;from a traditional asset manager to a political action committee.&rdquo;&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/cbaf96ca13abb6a3d523d0f53dbe37696511a611.png?" alt="States that have announced divestment from BlackRock" />
Miranda <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/could-texas-lawmakers-end-the-states-renewable-boom/">Willson</a> and Jason <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/could-texas-lawmakers-end-the-states-renewable-boom/">Plautz</a> point to Texas as the model of things to come&mdash;not just in the Lone Star State. They conclude that Texas's proposed preemption statutes "exemplify recent efforts in Republican-controlled states to boost fossil fuels at the expense of renewables amid rapid changes to the energy resource mix."&nbsp;
The actions by the Texas legislature are causing clean energy developers to have second thoughts. Judd Messer, the Vice President for the Advanced Power Alliance, phrases the concerns this way:
<blockquote>
"We've got billions of investment dollars that we're hoping to bring to Texas, and that's at risk if the government is going to be punitive."
</blockquote>
<h2>The spread of the contagion</h2>
Texas is hardly alone in attempting to thwart the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. <a href="https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/08/23/nine-ohio-counties-ban-wind-solar-projects-under-new-state-law/">In Ohio</a>, the state legislature passed legislation that allows counties to ban large-scale solar and wind farms. Ten predominantly red counties have already exercised their newly granted power, to the chagrin of clean energy developers.&nbsp;
Fossil-fuel reliant states like Ohio and Texas are among the most aggressive in the effort to limit the use of citizen-led state ballot initiatives (Figure 3).
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/6d8c1663dfd602aa651dd366035e2904e036e063.png?" alt="Fossil-fuel reliant states" />
Energy and climate are hardly the only targets of the 23 GOP-controlled states like Texas, whose trifecta state governments, i.e., legislatures, governors, and attorneys general, are under Republican rule. The list of topics is long. It includes abortion, voting rights; zoning; education; healthcare; LGBTQIA+; police powers; election reforms; ballot initiatives; and censorship.
Clarence Anthony, CEO of the National League of Cities, believes we're seeing "an increase of home rule grab type legislation." According to Anthony&mdash;
<blockquote>
"This year, there are 600 different preemptive laws that are being proposed by different legislatures throughout America. That, in fact, is a rise, and it's very concerning to our municipal leaders."
</blockquote>
The grab is a consequence of the deepening quarter-century divide between political parties and governing philosophies. Nowhere is the entrenchment of far-right ideologies more apparent than in Texas and Florida. The disdain that Texas Governor Greg Abbott and State Attorney <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/">Ken Paxton</a> have for renewables like solar and wind is <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/abbott-republicans-green-energy/">well-documented</a>. It appears to coincide perfectly with the current Texas legislature.
In terms of "rightness" and supporting actions, I would put Florida Governor Ron DeSantis atop the leaderboard&ndash;especially when it comes to vitriol and out-Trumping the big guy himself. Whether or not you agree with DeSantis, a recent Mason-Dixon voter survey showed that the soon-to-be presidential candidate has a nearly 60 percent approval rating.&nbsp;
The pandemic and inflation are partially responsible for another trend that may bode badly for red state-blue city relationships. CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/17/politics/2020-census-red-states-blue-cities/index.html">reported</a> in August of 2021.
<blockquote>
"Political and population trends are colliding as the steadily escalating tension between red states and their blue cities across the Sun Belt is reaching a breaking point over&nbsp;the volatile issue of school masking."
</blockquote>
Although of differing intensities, any of the earlier items on the list of "targets" mentioned above, e.g., abortion, could be substituted for school masking.&nbsp;
In the CNN report, the words most deserving of emphasis are political and population trends are colliding. Although arguments may be made that the shift of populations now going on from coastal cities to America's middle-western and southern towns and hinterlands might liberalize red states, an equally compelling argument could be made that voters are self-selecting the kind of politics they support by moving to places like Florida and Texas.&nbsp;
Florida's transition to the most MAGA state in the union has happened over the last decade. According to the <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3998391-how-florida-became-a-conservative-bastion/">Hill</a>, "the nation's largest and most volatile swing state, Florida has lurched to the right...becoming a mecca for the GOP's most influential luminaries and wealthiest donors."
It's been <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/567801-vote-with-your-feet-post-pandemic-florida-transplants-twice-as-likely-to-be-rs-as-ds/">reported</a> by L2, a data vendor, that fully 46 percent of the 394,000 new voters that moved into&nbsp;Florida during the pandemic registered as Republicans. In contrast, only 23 percent signed up as Democrats.&nbsp;
Texas, Arizona, and Nevada are becoming preferred destinations for Californians who feel the Golden State has become tarnished by ultra-left political policies and rising crime rates and homelessness. Is it enough to change the color of those states' politics? Maybe.
<h2>Threatening democracy</h2>
Something to watch for is any correlation between increasingly conservative state trifectas like Florida and Texas and the inflow of right-wing voters. Of course, the opposite could also be true in some situations.&nbsp;
Georgia has now elected two Democratic US senators to full terms. Were the results of Georgia's two recent runoffs dictated by the caliber of GOP candidates or an increasingly more moderate number of voters moving into Atlanta and elsewhere in the state?&nbsp;
According to <a href="https://www.ajc.com/politics/sharp-growth-in-georgia-voters-alters-landscape-for-2022-elections/HEZQQJR75NAP5CHY56SKB4TS54/">The Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a>, the number of registered voters in Georgia jumped 11 percent over 2018. Most new voters are under 35 and live in metro areas. With substantial increases in Hispanic and Asian voters, Georgia&rsquo;s new residents are racially more diverse than the current population. Such demographics better reflect the politics of independents and Democrats&mdash;cohorts that favor policies to combat climate change.
In states like Georgia, where GOP politicians might feel threatened by the influx of moderates, another question arises. Will state conservatives feel the need to protect their agendas by speeding up the passage of preemptive legislation?&nbsp;
It's possible. The Peach State, after all, preempted cities and counties from banning new natural gas hookups. Efforts to grab back the power of social policies are not directed solely at climate-related issues.&nbsp;
The migration numbers coincide with the research of Fivethirtyeight.com. According to the group,
<blockquote>
Americans have been moving south and west for decades. The pattern pops into view after the 2020 census when seven congressional districts moved to the receiving states; and it continues to be visible in the booming construction and job markets in cities across the Sun Belt.
</blockquote>
Climate activists, therefore, need to be mindful of how conservative governments may look to limit proactive efforts at combating climate change and other progressive policies in their states.
Scott Dance writes in the Washington Post that "some red state governments are working to restrict or even ban citizen-led ballot initiatives, which have been used by progressive groups to bypass conservative lawmakers." There are a variety of direct and indirect ways to limit ballot initiatives.&nbsp;
In 2022, 109 bills altering the citizen-led ballot initiative process were proposed. Of the 109, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/conservatives-look-curtail-ballot-measure-process-rcna62484">58</a> would have explicitly made the process more difficult. Arizona voters passed <a href="https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/08/arizona-proposition-128-129-132-election-results/10655619002/">Proposition 132</a> in the November 2022 elections.&nbsp;
The proposition requires 60 percent of voters to approve a tax via a ballot measure&mdash;up from a simple majority. The vote was 50.7 percent in favor, with 49.3 percent opposed.&nbsp;
The Ohio legislature approved&nbsp;<a href="https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Ohio-SJR-2.pdf">Senate Joint Resolution 2</a>, a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would increase the threshold to pass constitutional amendments from 50 to 60 percent.&nbsp;Unlike Texas, the Ohio resolution applies to all proposed ballot initiatives.
The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC) reports that&mdash;&nbsp;
<blockquote>
Attacks on direct democracy have been increasing since the 2016 election in response&nbsp;to progressive wins at the ballot box.
</blockquote>
BISC reports a five-fold increase since 2017 in bills that threaten the ballot process. Anything that threatens the ballot process makes it harder to use citizen-based initiatives as a weapon in the effort to combat climate change.&nbsp;
In 2022, a variety of climate-related initiatives showed up on state and local ballots. According to <a href="https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/policy/state-ballot-initiatives/">the Nature Conservancy</a>,
<blockquote>
"voters in 14 states considered&nbsp;ballot measures secures public funding and forward-looking policies to protect people and nature in 2022. The measures varied. Most had to do with issuing bonds to buy and maintain parklands and clean drinking water, reduce air pollution, upgrade infrastructure, and reduce climate change impacts, including flooding and deadly heat. Seventeen measures passed, totaling more than $7 billion for conservation."
</blockquote>
Under the best of circumstances, citizen-led ballot initiatives are complicated and expensive. How they fit into climate-related advocacy strategies is unclear. However, Jill Blanchard, director of Lawyers for Good Government's climate change program, believes&nbsp;
<blockquote>
"The less people feel like they can rely on their legislators to make good decisions and pass good laws for them at the state level, the more likely you're going to turn to these types of ballot&nbsp;measures to try and make sure that money goes into these funds."
</blockquote>
If Blanchard is right, then there's every reason to believe that the battles between red state (conservative) legislatures and blue (progressive) cities will increasingly find their way onto state and local ballots&mdash;changing the shape and complexity of future advocacy strategies.
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
This article is also published on the <a href="https://www.civilnotion.com/p/climate-change-can-blue-cities-be" target="_blank" rel="noopener">author's blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Climate change: can Blue cities be stopped by Red states?

Many on Capitol Hill — both Republican and Democrat — believe the nation’s long overdue for a streamlined approval process for energy projects

The two Joes and what they mean for US climate policy

You’ve seen the investments and jobs created by largely Democratic actors. Think of how much greater the economic and environmental benefits of investing in clean energy technologies could be if both Republicans and Democrats joined forces.

<h2>What's happening?</h2>
The budget battle brewing in Congress could see the US become a dead-beat debtor if the warring factions can&rsquo;t come to some arrangement on raising the nation&rsquo;s debt ceiling. In a proposed tit-for-tat deal, House Speaker McCarthy (R-CA) and members of the Freedom Caucus are looking to claw back the Inflation Reduction Act&rsquo;s (IRA) climate-related provisions, e.g., tax credits and incentive payments to homeowners to install heat pumps and other energy-saving improvements. In return for the proposed cuts, House Republicans will support raising the debt ceiling.
Predictably Democrats on and off Capitol Hill oppose the Speaker&rsquo;s swaps proposal. For reasons I&rsquo;ll explain shortly, there are Republicans on and off the Hill who are also staunchly opposed to the conservative&rsquo;s proposed hacking of the IRA.
As with most things in Capital City, the debate is mostly about money. In this case, it&rsquo;s about money flowing mainly into red state coffers from IRA programs. It will be interesting to see how red state governors respond to the deep cuts their most conservative congressional colleagues are proposing to make. Should those cuts be enacted into law, the House Freedom Caucus (HFC) and Speaker McCarthy will literally be taking money out of the pockets of red-state voters and their governments.
<h2>What's at stake?</h2>
However, before getting into that discussion, it&rsquo;s essential to understand the context in which the budget and debt ceiling battle is being fought and all that&rsquo;s at stake. What&rsquo;s at risk is greater than the IRA&rsquo;s climate-related provisions, although those portions are the focus of this discussion.
As explained by the Brookings Institute, &ldquo;the debt limit caps the total amount of allowable outstanding US federal debt.&rdquo; Should the cap not be raised, the government will be unable to pay its bills &mdash; our bills. Technically the nation hit its $31.4 trillion debt limit in mid-January.
The Treasury Department has undertaken &ldquo;extraordinary&rdquo; steps to put off the inevitable as far into the future as possible. According to Secretary Yellen, that future is only weeks away. Her most recent estimate of when the bucks will stop is as early as June 1st.
The need for raising the government&rsquo;s borrowing authority isn&rsquo;t about new programs and policies. It&rsquo;s about paying for already-incurred obligations like social security, Medicare, and interest on the debt. Interest on the $31.4 trillion balance is a big deal.
Net interest payments on the national debt rose from $352 billion in 2021 to $475 billion in 2022. Relative to the size of the economy, interest costs were 1.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level in 21 years.
Based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, the Peterson Foundation calculates the federal government spent about $1.3 billion per day on interest payments in 2022; by 2033, the daily payments would rise to $3.9 billion. Interest payments alone will go from 1.9 percent of GDP in 2022 to 3.6 percent in 2033.
The US has never defaulted on its debts, although it has come close on more than one occasion. According to the Washington Post, the 2011 battle between Republicans and President Obama &ldquo;resulted in months of political brinkmanship, generated panic globally, and yielded a decade of significant caps on domestic spending.&rdquo;
<h2>Divisions</h2>
The major battle over the debt ceiling is currently between the Republican House and the White House. President Biden has indicated that he wants a clean bill that raises the debt ceiling without contingencies until after the 2024 elections.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and a cabal of the most conservative members of the Republican House caucus view the occasion of a possible default as an opportunity to cut federal spending by substantial amounts. The spending cuts they&rsquo;re proposing would gut most of the climate-related program and tax credit provisions of the IRA.
The House Republican bill (H.R. 2811) goes by the name the Limit, Save, Grow Act (LSGA). According to the Washington Post, the House measure would roll back federal spending to levels adopted in 2022, potentially a roughly $131 billion cut, while capping the growth of agencies&rsquo; future budgets at 1 percent. Republicans already had promised to target reductions in health care, education, science, research, and labor programs.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has scheduled a hearing on the LSGA entitled The Default on America Act: Blackmail, Brinkmanship, and Billionaire Backroom Deals. The titles of the proposed act and the Senate hearing fairly bracket the current battle on Capitol Hill between Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left.
The Republican-only LSGA passed by a 217&ndash;215 vote. No Democrat voted in favor, and four Republicans voted against it. It appears, however, that some House Republicans voted in favor of the bill only as a gesture. The slim five-vote Republican House majority means Speaker McCarthy may have a great deal of trouble getting his caucus to &ldquo;yes&rdquo; when the final votes come to pass.
Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) claims he voted for the bill only to get President Biden engaged in negotiations that would lead to a final bill. Speaking for himself and others, Fitzpatrick had this to say:
<blockquote>
&ldquo;If there was a 1 percent chance of any of these provisions ever becoming law, a lot of us would have treated that very differently.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
Where the Senate is in all of this is on the sidelines. Although the most conservative members of the Senate, e.g., Scott (R-FL) and Johnson (R-WI) are indicating agreement with what McCarthy has going over at his house, while Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) is his ever-silent, inscrutable, sphinxlike self.
<h2>Shutdown looming</h2>
Without an agreement, the government shuts down as early as June 2nd. No one in either chamber actually believes that the Limit, Save, Grow Act has any chance of becoming law. However, it is not to say that a government shutdown isn&rsquo;t in the offing. At least one Republican representative, Ralph Norman (R-SC), is willing to use the threat of a shutdown to leverage the conservative position.
The stakes are high, and the threat of a shutdown already has Wall Street nervous. Should Congress and President Biden not come to a timely conclusion on raising the nation&rsquo;s borrowing authority, it would slam the nation into a deep recession.
Energy and the environment are at the heart of the debate. The LSGA incorporates &ldquo;the energy package the GOP passed in March.&rdquo; Their proposals heavily support oil, gas, and mineral exploration and extraction on and off public lands.
Speaker McCarthy swore he would broker no amendments to the LSGA. It turned out otherwise. Iowa House Republicans succeeded in amending &ldquo;the House bill to reverse cuts to certain biofuel tax credits.&rdquo;
<h2>Republican loyalties</h2>
McCarthy and the Republican House caucus are going to become increasingly conflicted over the climate-related provisions in the IRA, as well as in the CHIPS and Science Act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Why? For the simple reason that their states and districts are profiting from the programs.
According to POLITICO,
<blockquote>
&ldquo;In the five months since the Inflation Reduction Act became law, companies have announced tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy, battery, and electric vehicle projects that will benefit from incentives in&hellip; Biden&rsquo;s signature law, aimed at expanding domestic manufacturing in clean energy and reducing dependence on Chinese imports.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
Roughly two-thirds of major projects are in districts whose Republican lawmakers opposed the Inflation Reduction Act. One of the furthest right members of the House and rising power in the Republican caucus, Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) heralded the South Korean solar panel manufacturer QCells as a fantastic company &mdash; just after it announced a $2.5 billion expansion of the plant in her district.
Qcells announced its partnership with Virginia-based Summit Ridge Energy in early April to assemble more than 2.5 million solar panels. The project will be the largest community solar project in U.S. history.
The community solar project will bring 1.2 gigawatts of energy to power an estimated 140,000 homes and businesses.
Other examples of what Biden&rsquo;s &ldquo;socialist-woke&rdquo; climate agenda is doing for largely Republican-controlled states include &mdash;
<ul>
<li>In South Charleston, West Virginia, GreenPower Motor Co. has said its electric school bus facility benefited from the infrastructure law&rsquo;s clean school bus program. It has highlighted how its buses can also get tax credits worth up to $40,000 from the Inflation Reduction Act. (E&amp;E Daily)</li>
<li>In Clarksville, Tenn., for instance, which is part of Representative Mark Green&rsquo;s district, Texas-based Microvast Holdings plans to expand an existing facility with a new plant for battery components. In October, the Department of Energy picked the plant for a $200 million award under an infrastructure law program to boost battery materials processing and manufacturing. (E&amp;E Daily)</li>
</ul>
South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace raised with Speaker McCarthy her concerns that the LSGA language threatens the Palmetto State&rsquo;s budding solar industry. According to Mace,
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Solar is huge &mdash; not only in the low country but across the entire state of South Carolina, it&rsquo;s huge [the LSGA] would adversely affect solar.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
In the midst of the budget battle SPI Energy announced it &ldquo;intends to invest $65.9 million in Sumter County manufacturing facility that will create 300 new jobs.&rdquo;
Although Mace voted in favor of the Republican-only bill, it&rsquo;s well within reason to think she did so as a gesture rather than out of conviction. What of Jen Kiggins (R-VA)? She, too, voted with the slim LSGA majority, despite the possibility it would strip tax incentives that go to Dominion Energy, which is building a $9.8 billion offshore wind project in her district.
When asked to reconcile their conflicting positions between support and protection of clean energy projects in their districts that are largely the result of the IRA and Democratic initiatives, they rationalize their positions. Greene credits the Trump administration.
Other House Republicans follow along with the type of rationalization offered by Representative Garret Graves (R-LA). According to Graves,
<blockquote>
&ldquo;Just because you vote against a bill doesn&rsquo;t mean the entire bill is a bad bill.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
Graves goes on to say,
<blockquote>
&ldquo;I go out there and advocate for our district to try and get transportation funds, to try and get energy funds. That&rsquo;s my job. I am not embarrassed about it. I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s inconsistent with my vote.&rdquo;
</blockquote>
The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has a different opinion of things. LCV&rsquo;s vice president for political affairs, Craig Auster, believes,
&ldquo;It&rsquo;s the height of hypocrisy for [Republicans] to be blasting the president and all he&rsquo;s done to address climate change and build a clean energy economy that is directly benefiting people in their districts.&rdquo;
Although hypocritical, there&rsquo;s nothing surprising about Republican opposing the IRA &mdash; indeed of the climate policies of the Biden administration &mdash; while welcoming the factories and jobs that are fruits of federal investment. Truth be told, the Democrats would act the same if the shoe was on their foot.
Politics is politics, after all, and as we&rsquo;ve seen, hypocrisy and politics kind of go together. So, the answer to the question raised in the title is both &mdash; hypocritical and good politics.
But this story shouldn&rsquo;t end here.
<h2>The path for climate action</h2>
The red states being rewarded by largely Democratic policies and programs are targets of great opportunity for the climate activist community. They make the decades-old claim that combatting climate change is good for the economy and the environment real.
Rather than castigating Republican politicians for their hypocrisy, the community should embrace them as examples of knowing the value of a good thing when they see it. I urge activists to campaign positively in red states on the issues of climate change rather than against Republican candidates &mdash; using the factories built because of the IRA, Infrastructure, and CHIPS Acts as a backdrop.
It&rsquo;s unrealistic to think the transition to a low-carbon economy can come about without Republican and Democratic support. On-again, off-again federal policies have caused the nation to lose valuable time combating climate change. If the cycle is to be broken, then the support base must be broader.
The simple truth is that to decarbonize; the nation needs to depoliticize climate change. Money matters &mdash; more than scientific facts and sometimes even more than party loyalty.
The message should be simple.
You&rsquo;ve seen the investments and jobs created by largely Democratic actors. Think of how much greater the economic and environmental benefits of investing in clean energy technologies could be if both Republicans and Democrats joined forces.
<div class="css-16rcf8n">
<div>
This article was also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/red-states-and-the-inflation-reduction-act-environmental-hypocrisy-or-just-good-politics-e2698978bf6c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">author's blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
</div>
</div>

Red states and the inflation reduction act: environmental hypocrisy or just good politics?

Coal comes with a hefty social cost that until recently hasn’t been included in the price paid by consumers. That, too, is changing.

Turning a pain in the [coal] ash into an asset (Part 1)

Love it or hate it, the AI genies are out of the bottle and unlikely ever to go back in — making it imperative for the climate community to consider carefully what role these programs might play in efforts to decarbonize national and world economies.

I, ChatGPT: The case for climate action?

It’s been a year since Russian President Putin declared an unprovoked war on Ukraine. Much has changed since then — not just in Russia and Ukraine but worldwide.

The war’s true cost will prove incalculable. How do you cost account the scourge of a sovereign nation of 41 million people by an autocratic leader bent on empire?

It’s been a year since Russian President Putin declared an unprovoked war on Ukraine. Much has changed since then — not just in Russia and Ukraine but worldwide.
The war’s true cost will prove incalculable. How do you cost account the scourge of a sovereign nation of 41 million people by an autocratic leader bent on empire?
The Save the Children campaign estimates that eight million Ukrainians have become refugees since the war began, and six million are internally displaced<a href="https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine">; just under two million</a> of the eight million have returned. Many of the 14 million will have no homes to return to at war’s end and will likely seek new lives in foreign lands.
Many nations are paying the price of Putin’s war in different ways. For the US and the Western and NATO allied countries, there are the tens of billions of dollars for guns, missiles, tanks, and other implements of war. Let’s not forget the billions for humanitarian and economic aid.
Once the aggressor is defeated, billions more will be needed to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure — its cities and towns. Not all payments will be made in cash.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal has accused Russia of creating the largest minefield in the world on <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-largest-minefield-shmyhal/32214163.html">250,000 square kilometers</a> of prime agricultural lands. Those who work to clear the thousands of landmines now littering the breadbasket of Europe will add their lives and limbs to the debit column.
Global food security is being exacerbated by a drought in the Horn of Africa and unusually harsh weather in other <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-food-crisis.html">parts of the world</a>.
According to the Atlantic Council, an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council">American think tank</a>, Ukraine’s fertile fields could feed the world. If only Putin’s war had never started.
According to the OECD, lost agricultural production in Ukraine and Russia due to the war could add anywhere from 19 to 34 percent to the global price of wheat.
<blockquote>“We’re dealing now with a massive food insecurity crisis. It’s the product of a lot of things…including Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_edn1">[i]</a>.”</blockquote>
Putin’s war is having an immediate and deleterious impact on Earth’s environment. Global coal use in 2022 set an all-time high. Jason Bordoff, cofounding dean of Columbia’s Climate School, suggests “that the energy crisis has given countries like India and China a reason to accelerate their coal plans.”
The rise in coal use is mainly the fault of the war and inflationary pressures that have sent energy prices and utility bills soaring by 70 percent or more. The increased use fossil fuels means higher carbon emissions in the near term.
Most experts predict the immediate increases will be more than offset in the mid and long-term by an escalating deployment of clean energy alternatives like solar and wind. High fossil fuel prices and a desire for domestic energy security have sparked the transition to low-emission energy technologies.
<blockquote>“By attacking Ukraine, the breadbasket of the world, Putin is attacking the world’s poor, spiking global hunger when people are already on the brink of famine<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_edn2">[ii]</a>.”</blockquote>
An analysis by <a href="https://ember-climate.org/">Ember</a>, a global energy think tank, reports “that wind and solar produced 22 percent of the EU’s electricity over the year, while gas generated 20 percent. The report further shows that the rise in renewable electricity generation helped to avoid €10 billion ($10.89 billion) in gas costs.”
Solar led wind as the go-to technology. According to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2023/01/31/european-solar-and-wind-surpass-gas-power-for-the-first-time/?sh=7a48dfbd6c77">Forbes</a>, European solar “surged by 24 percent, delivering an additional 39 terawatt hours of electricity over the previous year.” Twenty EU nations have set records for the amount of solar used to meet their energy demands since the invasion began a year ago.
As a response to the war, the EU has <a href="https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/eu-needs-alternatives-russian-energy-heres-plan">announced</a> the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3131">RePowerEU</a> — an ambitious plan for achieving two goals: eliminating the need for Russian fossil fuels and having “45 percent of the bloc’s energy come from renewable sources by 2030, up from 22 percent in 2020.”
The UK no longer imports Russian natural gas and has drastically cut its importation of Russian oil and oil products. A parliamentary <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9523/#:~:text=This%20was%20the%20ninth%20month,%25%20gas%20and%209%25%20coal.">research brief recently reported</a> that “the UK imported no fossil fuel of any type from Russia for the first time since 2000.”
Putin’s war is hardly the only disruptive force in today’s world. Plaguing populations everywhere is the possibility of <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/human-cases-cambodia.htm#:~:text=February%2025%2C%202023%20%E2%80%94%20Two%20human,potential%20additional%20cases%20is%20ongoing.">new pandemics</a>, while inflation lowers the standard of living of all but the wealthiest. As is often the case, inequity flows down to the poor while wealth bubbles up to the rich.
The world continues to see an increase in the frequency and intensity of costly weather-related disasters attributable to Earth’s warming. While solar and wind have expanded their contributions to Europe’s power demand, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2023/01/31/european-solar-and-wind-surpass-gas-power-for-the-first-time/?sh=7a48dfbd6c77">hydro has suffered</a>from dry conditions across the continent.
Broken supply chains and inflation are everywhere. Developed and developing nations alike are seeing their economies and quality of life suffering from Earth’s changing weather.
<blockquote>“It’s been a nightmare. Traditional vegetables just don’t grow well in hot weather. They shut down. And on top of that, we’ve had massive inflationary costs<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_edn3">[iii]</a>.”</blockquote>
Wars and shortages, torrential rains in some places, scorching heat in others, and rising prices are sorely stressing the world’s economies.
There are lessons to be learned from these years of pandemics, armed conflicts, and changes to Earth’s climate. According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/26/yes-we-have-no-tomatoes-why-shelves-are-emptying-in-uk-stores#:~:text=The%20complexity%20and%20lack%20of%20resilience%20in%20many%20parts%20of%20supply%20chains%20extending%20across%20the%20globe%20were%20exposed%20by%20the%20pandemic.%20Experts%20warn%20that%20the%20vulnerabilities%20are%20systemic%20and%20require%20urgent%20attention">Richard Wilding</a>, emeritus professor at Cranfield University (UK), “Supply change strategies “were designed when there were very few ‘black swan’ events, and now we have…a flock of them coming at us.” (Emphasis added)
<blockquote>“Companies are now going to have to procure more for resilience rather than cost. We will be…able to get the stuff but it’s going to cost more.<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_edn4">[iv]</a>.”</blockquote>
Under the storm clouds of war, inflation, and Earth’s warming, policy-makers worldwide are re-examining what it means to be secure — in times of peace and war.
They’re asking themselves if a nation can ever be truly safe when its computer chips are manufactured elsewhere, its breads are made with foreign grains, and its energy and power needs are met with resources controlled by another nation — let alone by an enemy?
It’s been just over a year since Russia’s president ordered his troops to invade Ukraine. Sadly, there appears to be no prospect of peace on the horizon.
Energy has played a significant part in the war — in terms of world energy prices, supplies, and sources. Clean, domestically available energy alternatives like solar and wind will increasingly become a part of the energy mix of every EU and NATO-aligned nation. Why this will be is straightforward.
The considerable value of clean energy systems to society comes from their safety, security, and sustainability. Without a doubt, solar and batteries are playing a critical role in the military’s defense of the nation. Who could ask more of an investment?
Notwithstanding the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate-related, climate-friendly legislation, America remains divided on energy and environmental matters. I hope those political leaders who accuse alternative energy technology of being “woke” and unreliable will reconsider their positions.
I hope, too, that I’m not trivializing the war by bringing the discussion around to clean energy and climate. Speeding the transition to more secure and sustainable energy is a positive thing. It’s horrifyingly sad that it’s taking a war of naked aggression to show it.
Author&#x27;s note to readers:
Please, give what you can to support the people of Ukraine. Contribute to <a href="https://www.care.org/">CARE</a>, <a href="https://www.savethechildren.org/us/what-we-do/emergency-response/climate-change?cid=Paid_Search:Bing_Paid:TT_Climate:Nonbrand:090622&amp;s_kwcid=AL!9048!3!!e!!o!!save%20the%20children&amp;gclid=9aac7e9e1c83148015fe1d6098548349&amp;gclsrc=3p.ds&amp;msclkid=9aac7e9e1c83148015fe1d6098548349">Save the Children</a>, the <a href="https://www.icrc.org/">Red Cross and Red Crescent</a>, your church fund, or any of a dozen more relief agencies.
<h3>References</h3>
<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_ednref1">[i]</a> US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken
<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_ednref2">[ii]</a> Samantha Power, the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID.
<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_ednref3">[iii]</a> Guy Poskitt, a UK farmer.
<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b#_ednref4">[iv]</a> Richard Wilding
This article is also published on the <a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-climate-and-energy-impacts-of-putins-war-on-ukraine-e05d473ced1b">author&#x27;s blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Cover photo: UZHHOROD, UKRAINE Local residents make camouflage nets for Ukrainian defenders. Public domain photo by Ukrinform courtesy of <a href="https://depositphotos.com/550428274/free-stock-photo-uzhhorod-ukraine-february-2022-local.html">Depositphotos</a>​ </h6>

The Climate and Energy Impacts of Putin’s War on Ukraine

War offers a highly profitable opportunity for some industries, e.g., arms makers. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are among the Ukraine war’s biggest — if not the biggest — beneficiaries. The reason? Too much demand in the face of too little supply.

Putin’s war on Ukraine is approaching its one-year anniversary, with little to suggest it will be stopping any time soon. Looking at the nightly news footage of the savagery of Putin’s scorched earth policy, it’s impossible not to think that war is hell.
However, war offers a highly profitable opportunity for some industries, e.g., arms makers. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are among the Ukraine war’s biggest — if not the biggest — beneficiaries. The reason? Too much demand in the face of too little supply.
ExxonMobil recently announced record annual earnings for 2022. The company’s annual revenue was $95.43 billion, with net income of $55.7 billion. The record exceeded its 2008 high watermark of $45.22 billion.
Exxon is hardly alone in making a hefty profit off the Ukraine war. Chevron, too, recorded <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/27/chevron-cvx-2022-profit-doubles-to-record-36point5-billion.html">record annual earnings</a> — breaking its 2011 record by $10 billion. It did so despite missing its fourth-quarter earnings estimates by 6.6 percent. The shortfall was partly due to the company paying a windfall profit tax that it managed to avoid in the third quarter — more about such taxes in a moment.
Shell has also attained <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/shell-reports-record-profit-39-071219823.html">a new earnings record</a>. It reported just under $40 billion for 2022. It bested its previous best by over $11 billion. The company’s 2022 profit was double that of 2021 and the highest in its 115 years of existence.
<blockquote>Shell paid out more than £5 billion to shareholders in the fourth quarter of 2022, as much as five times more than what it labels investments in renewables and energy solutions.</blockquote>
The announcements came with little wonder to Wall Street. The war and tight supplies have conspired to make major oil companies windfall pro-fiteers. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/profits-at-worlds-seven-biggest-oil-firms-soar-to-almost-150bn-this-year-windfall-tax">Guardian has reported</a> on the impact of Putin’s war on oil company earnings.ow oil profits have surged and a relative ranking of which companies are taking in the most. Shell, ExxonMobile, and Chevron occupy the first, third, and fourth positions, respectively.
Although not responsible for starting the largest European conflict since WWII, Exxon, and other oil majors have done little to increase oil supplies, much to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/31/oil-profits-chevron-exxonmobil-earnings/">the concerns and consternation</a> of President Biden. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/01/biden-oil-companies-war-profiteering-windfall-tax-ukraine">According to the president</a>, oil companies are not profiting from doing something new or innovative. Their profits are a windfall of war, a windfall for the brutal conflict [that’s] ravaging Ukraine. (Emphasis added)
<blockquote>“Exxon made more money than God this year[i].”</blockquote>
Biden is hardly alone in his charge that oil companies are profiteering from the brutality of war. Jamie Henn speaking on behalf of the STOP — Stop The Oil Profiteering — campaign, believes “what Big Oil has done over the last year is <a href="https://www.salon.com/2023/01/31/the-definition-of-profiteering-chevron-posts-record-355-billion-in-profit-for-2022_partner/?ref=upstract.com">the definition of war profiteering</a>.”
As far as Merriam-Webster is concerned, Henn is right. Profiteering, according to the dictionary, is “the act or activity of making an unreasonable profit on the sale of essential goods, especially during times of emergency.” (Emphasis added)
Profiteering is an emotionally charged word that implies illegal or unethical practices. Mylan pharmaceutical was accused of illicit and immoral practices when it raised the price of its epinephrine injector pen from $57 to over $500 in just a few years<a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b#_edn2">[ii]</a>. Why did the company do it? Having 85 percent of the market meant <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/08/21/why-did-mylan-hike-epipen-prices-400-because-they-could/?sh=4f9dab42280c">it could</a>, and because they wanted to.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/73cea09911c7bccfbb3a19d848a7aa6421ca934f.webp" alt="undefined">
Are the oil companies guilty of the same ethical breach as Mylan? President Biden thinks the answer is yes because the companies and OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia have rebuffed his efforts to increase oil and gas supplies for duration of the war. Although having no known hand in the illegal incursion of Putin’s army into Ukraine, the president is accusing them of actively choosing not to ease the burden on consumers brought about by $5 a gallon gasoline and the inflationary pressures on the U.S. economy.
Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are sharing their <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/01/exxon-chevron-earnings-buybacks-show-cheap-gas-isnt-coming-back.html">bounties</a> with stockholders. Chevron has announced a $75 billion buyback of its stock and raised its dividend to 3.44 percent. In 2022, ExxonMobil paid out $30 billion in dividends and buybacks. Shell has announced a $4 billion share buyback and a 15 percent rise in its dividend.
As reported by <a href="https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Windfall-Taxes-Sweep-Through-The-Global-Energy-Sector.html">OilPrice.com</a>:
In 2022, U.S. oil company share buybacks increased 1,043%, dwarfing the 64% increase for S&amp;P 500, while dividends were up 33%, more than three times the rise for all the companies in the index.
Unlike the U.S., other nations have enacted or are considering enacting a windfall profit tax. <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/windfall-taxes-sweep-global-energy-000000939.html">The European Union</a>, the U.K., and India have already begun to levy taxes on oil and gas companies, as have Spain, Italy, and Romania. Other nations, including Poland and the Czech Republic, are proposing such measures, while France, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Finland, and Ireland have indicated their intentions to follow suit. (See Figure 2)
Tax rates and the threshold at which the taxes are triggered are not the same among the nations. According to Tax Foundation, the Council of the European Union <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/windfall-profits-tax-eu-energy-security/">agreed to impose</a> a “temporary solidarity contribution” on energy companies that realize “above a 20% increase of the average yearly taxable profits since 2018”.
Dubbed the Solidarity Contribution, the E.U. tax is calculated on eligible earnings above a 20 percent increase of the average yearly taxable profits since 2018. It will be levied <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/windfall-profits-tax-eu-energy-security/">on top</a> of the taxes these companies already owe in their countries. The E.U. anticipates the policy will raise about €140 billion.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c8d0613f5408d5bc723b3650933c0066f720d2ce.webp" alt="undefined">
Some E.U. members and the U.K. have their own windfall profit schemes.
Germany introduced a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-plans-33-windfall-tax-gas-coal-oil-firms-sources-2022-11-23/?rpc=401&amp;">33 percent windfall profit tax</a> starting on December 1, 2022. The new levy will affect oil, gas, and coal companies whose profits for 2022 and 2023 exceed by 20 percent or more than their 2018–2021 average.
In December, Finland proposed a <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2022/12/30/uk-ukraine-crisis-finland-energy">temporary windfall tax</a> on profits from the country’s electricity companies as part of a European Union response to soaring power costs. The proposed 30% tax would apply to any profits exceeding a 10 percent return on capital in 2023, with the government estimating it could bring in between 500 million and 1.3 billion euros ($533 million-$1.9 billion).
The U.K. <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60295177">announced plans</a> in November to levy a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ profits to 35 percent between January 1, 2023, and March 2028.
India has also <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/1/20/indias-windfall-tax-hits-reliance-industries">raised its windfall tax</a> on crude oil, petroleum, and aviation turbine fuel. The levy on crude is an increase of 24 percent.
The closest the U.S. has come to a windfall tax is found in the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/cleanenergy/inflation-reduction-act-guidebook/">Inflation Reduction Act</a>’s one percent tax on corporate share buybacks. Oil and gas companies will primarily bear the burden of the provision.
The revenues generated by the recent windfall taxes will be used for various purposes. Subsidization of utility ratepayers is the primary use of the levies. The U.K. tax will help to offset the cost-of-living crisis and shore up the U.K.’s finances.
Windfall taxes are also being levied on electric power producers. Finland is proposing a <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2022/12/30/uk-ukraine-crisis-finland-energy">temporary tax</a> on profits earned by electric utilities as part of a European Union response to soaring power costs. As proposed, the 30 percent tax would apply to any profits exceeding a ten percent return on capital in 2023.
Finland’s proposed tax is estimated to bring in between $533 million-$1.9 billion. If Finland passes the proposed levy, it will join the UK, Germany, and other E.U. members that have already taken such steps.
Electricity generator levies apply even to utilities using solar, wind, or other climate-conscious power sources. The levy appears to be at cross-purposes with the transition to a low-carbon economy. Writing about the U.K.’s levy, Gus Wood <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-electricity-generator-levy-means-renewables-/">states</a> that:
“The quantum of the Levy (45%), as well as the term of 63 months, will be met with surprise and disappointment by the renewables investment community.”
Are windfall taxes a good thing? It depends on who you ask. <a href="https://storage.pardot.com/131501/1674643407ZIg30h1a/global_upstream_fiscal_systems__4_things_to_look_for_in_2023__1_.pdf">Wood Mackenzie</a> analysts believe that the villainization of Big Oil through windfall measures are not the way to go. Their analysis suggests the levies will distort the market and risk prolonging the transition to low-carbon economies because lower prices for oil and gas will increase demand.
Julieta Biegner at Global Witness and many in the climate community are offended by the oil companies “using the [Ukraine] crisis as a proxy to expand U.S. energy exports.” Beigner, Henn, and others in the climate community — including progressive members in Congress — take offense at the oil companies making off with such wartime profits. It doesn’t help any when Chevron’s CEO calls the $40 billion the company earned in 2022 “a modest return,” when so many families are faced with agonizing decisions like — food or fuel.
Moreover, many in Washington and the clean energy and climate communities rare offended by oil and gas producers claiming the need for new lands to explore and from which more fossil fuels can be extracted. <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/feb/2/democrats-reignite-price-gouging-furor-against-big/">Senator Ed Markey</a> (D-MA), a leading proponent of renewable energy, is quick to point out that oil and gas companies “already have an area the size of Indiana that they have leased from the American people that they are not drilling upon. If they really do have a concern about the need to drill for more oil and [natural] gas, there has been nothing stopping them over the last decade.”
<blockquote>“The reality is they profit from having a shortage of supply.”</blockquote>
Where is the U.S. in the matter of windfall taxes? Biden has indicated that he’s at least thought about it. Although to what avail is unclear.
Democrats in the House and Senate introduced windfall profit legislation in the 117th Congress. The proposal was a per-barrel tax equal to 50 per-cent of the difference between the current price of oil and the average price per barrel between 2015 and 2019.
Even in this topsy-turvey political era, it’s inconceivable that Congress would enact anything approximating the windfall profit taxes of other nations within term of the 118th Congress. In truth, it’s unlikely that any new tax on fossil fuels has a snowball’s chance of passage in this warming world.
There are issues at work here that shouldn’t go unnoticed by either our elected representatives or ourselves. There are societal questions that need to be addressed.
Companies and investors are entitled to compensation for their actions and the risks they take. But how much of a profit is just? Where is the a line to be drawn between profit and profiteering?
Does it make a difference how the gains were gotten and from where? Take, for example, conflict or blood diamonds.
<a href="https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&amp;&amp;p=4d525f821aeaa700JmltdHM9MTY3NTIwOTYwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNmY5M2FhNS1kOWJkLTYwYmUtMmZjZi0yYWFjZDgwYTYxNWQmaW5zaWQ9NTQxNQ&amp;ptn=3&amp;hsh=3&amp;fclid=36f93aa5-d9bd-60be-2fcf-2aacd80a615d&amp;psq=un+definition+of+conflict+diamonds&amp;u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYnJpdGFubmljYS5jb20vdG9waWMvYmxvb2QtZGlhbW9uZCM6fjp0ZXh0PSUyMGJsb29kJTIwZGlhbW9uZCUyQyUyMGFsc28lMjBjYWxsZWQlMjBjb25mbGljdCUyMGRpYW1vbmQlMkMlMjBhcyxzb2xkJTIwdG8lMjBmdW5kJTIwbWlsaXRhcnklMjBhY3Rpb24lMjBhZ2FpbnN0JTIwdGhhdCUyMGdvdmVybm1lbnQu&amp;ntb=1">The U.N. defines a blood diamond</a> as originating from “areas controlled by forces or factions opposed to legitimateand internationally recognized governments, and are used to fund military action in opposition to those governments, or in contravention of the decisions of the Security Council.” (Emphasis added) It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Is there such a thing as conflict oil and gas? Was it right for President Biden to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2022/11/26/biden-administration-allows-chevron-to-pump-oil-in-venezuela-heres-why-its-so-controversial/?sh=5882485fae5f">grant a license to Chevron to resume oil production in Venezuela</a> — easing sanctions imposed on the country in 2019 over corruption and human rights concerns?
What of the president’s overture to Saudi Arabia — a nation led by a prince who likely ordered the death of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi? When does necessity override morality?
<blockquote>Exxon has known climate change is real for decades but hid it from the public<a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b#_edn1">[i]</a>.</blockquote>
Do oil companies and their investors have a paramount right to profits earned through no sweat of their brows over families who, through no fault of their own, are forced to make decisions between food and fuel, between keeping the lights on and life-saving medicines?
What are the obligations to society of oil and gas companies who have long <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/exxon-has-known-climate-change-is-real-for-decades-but-hid-it-from-the-public-legal-action-imminent/ar-AA16jqav">known the climate-related consequences</a> of burning their fuels and yet fight tooth and nail against solutions to the problems they’ve caused? These and other questions concerning the conduct of oil companies and their influence over governments and their impacts on Earth’s environment have gone unanswered for too long.
If not now, when?
<h3>References</h3>
<a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b#_ednref1">[i]</a> <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwip2q_Kpfj8AhUpF1kFHblQDX8Q378JegQICBAE&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2023%2F01%2F12%2Fclimate%2Fexxon-mobil-global-warming-climate-change.html&amp;usg=AOvVaw24nJFNTWD2-2bJlcxrq2Hs">New York Times</a>​ 
<a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b#_ednref1">[i]</a> President Joe Biden
<a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b#_ednref2">[ii]</a> Claims vary. <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/epipen-maker-pay-264-million-settle-lawsuit-rcna18082">Some reports</a> use the figure of $100 when Mylan obtained the EpiPen in 2008 and the spawning of public outrage in 2016 when the price jumped to $600.
This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/oil-companies-and-the-windfalls-of-war-9d3980ea0a1b">author&#x27;s blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Cover Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@sokardash?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Sonia Kardash</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/LdkywHbS5Gs?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>

Oil Companies and the Windfalls of War

How’s this for irony: the lion’s share of funded projects under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have gone to states whose Republican senators and representatives voted against it? A POLITICO analysis concluded that of the first 33 projects that received IRA funding, "21 were in Republican-held congressional districts, while 12 were in Democratic districts”.

How’s this for irony: the lion’s share of funded projects under the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_vOP8gcX8AhXJF1kFHYY3C0sQFnoECAwQAw&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fappropriations.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.appropriations.house.gov%2Ffiles%2FFY23%2520Summary%2520of%2520Appropriations%2520Provisions.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1m3l58PE71OphxZTwXoUUq">Inflation Reduction Act</a> (<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_vOP8gcX8AhXJF1kFHYY3C0sQFnoECAwQAw&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fappropriations.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.appropriations.house.gov%2Ffiles%2FFY23%2520Summary%2520of%2520Appropriations%2520Provisions.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1m3l58PE71OphxZTwXoUUq">IRA</a>) have gone to states whose Republican senators and representatives voted against it? <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/23/red-states-are-winning-big-from-dems-climate-law-00078420?mkt_tok=ODUwLVRBQS01MTEAAAGJgup1o-tIbElbHOl3GFTdstG6GL9sQcFTPMjjicbxE0XwkDKcncn685B4Iw9QUr6q9y-7C-NPT33hjiiC61ctjIqobVa6K2l5s06JOrcZu4w">A POLITICO analysis</a> concluded that of the first 33 projects that received IRA funding, &quot;21 were in Republican-held congressional districts, while 12 were in Democratic districts”.
Is this a good thing? Overall, I would say yes. But, like most things in the world, it’s what you make of it.
The IRA, for those unfamiliar with it, is the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj_vOP8gcX8AhXJF1kFHYY3C0sQFnoECAwQAw&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fappropriations.house.gov%2Fsites%2Fdemocrats.appropriations.house.gov%2Ffiles%2FFY23%2520Summary%2520of%2520Appropriations%2520Provisions.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1m3l58PE71OphxZTwXoUUq">$1.7 trillion omnibus appropriations bill</a> that included $369 billion to fight climate change. The IRA is important for two reasons
First, it’s the most integrated federal approach to combatting climate change in US history. Second, the IRA is an appropriations bill. An appropriations bill means the money is there. All that’s left is how to spend it, and that’s the work of an authorizing bill.
The IRA’s appropriation is vital because it provides a lot of protection from any future efforts to claw the money back by a future Congress and White House opposed to climate and clean energy policies. Appropriations, in general, are difficult to undo.
In the case of the IRA, much of the money goes to the states to implement and administer. No state — red or blue — is going to refuse the receipt of federal funds. Moreover, states are already benefitting from the “tens of billions of dollars in renewable energy, battery and electric vehicle projects that will <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/23/red-states-are-winning-big-from-dems-climate-law-00078420?mkt_tok=ODUwLVRBQS01MTEAAAGJgup1o-tIbElbHOl3GFTdstG6GL9sQcFTPMjjicbxE0XwkDKcncn685B4Iw9QUr6q9y-7C-NPT33hjiiC61ctjIqobVa6K2l5s06JOrcZu4w">benefit from incentives</a>.”
Expanding the domestic clean energy industry is excellent, no matter where new battery factories, the needed electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and solar and wind farms are being built. The transition to a low-carbon economy means hundreds of thousands of new jobs and billions of dollars of investments in the domestic economy, which is another excellent thing.
So, what’s the problem? The downside is that in many red states, the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats continues to exist. Caught up in the battle is US climate policy. Consequently, red state leaders often fail to attribute a project to the Democratic-only IRA.
Granted, this is nothing so horrible that it can’t be fixed with a bit of activism on the part of the climate and clean energy communities. It’s something I highly recommend.
Many red states are willing to take the benefits of the largely Democratic climate agenda with one hand while bashing it with the other. A case in point is the attack by red state attorneys general over socially responsible investing, often referred to as ESG.
The acronym ESG stands for environmental, social, and corporate governance. The force behind socially responsible investments is the willingness of investors to put their money where their beliefs are.
ESG investing has gained popularity in recent years due to increasing awareness of the importance of sustainability and the impact of business practices on the environment and society. Some investors believe that companies with strong ESG practices may be better equipped to adapt to changing market conditions and may have long-term advantages over companies that do not prioritize ESG issues.
We’re talking big bucks here. It’s estimated that there are currently <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/republicans-prepare-to-ramp-up-their-anti-esg-campaign-in-2023">$8.4 trillion of investments being made</a>, and the number is rising. ESG investing addresses issues other than climate, i.e., abortion LGBTQIA, and voting rights. Consumerism has long been a form of ESG investing. I doubt many Democrats have lately bought pillows from <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/mike-lindell-says-mypillow-lost-100-million/">Mike Lindell</a>.
Many investment firms offer products and services that incorporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. Some of the leading ESG investment firms are Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street Global Advisors, and UBS Management. These firms and others offer a variety of investment vehicles, including mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and individual securities.
The sum and substance of the Republican-only legal and regulatory challenges seem to be the belief that the investments are frivolous attempts by Democrats to transition to a socialist economy.
As reported by Bloomberg Law:
<blockquote>More than a dozen Republican state attorneys general have blasted ESG financial practices, while Republicans in Congress plan to increase their scrutiny of what they call “woke capitalism.” One of their main complaints is that environmental, social, and governance investing is part of a broader Democratic effort to prioritize climate change and other societal issues to the detriment of the fossil-fuel industry.</blockquote>
<blockquote>The political assault by the right is backed by some of the party’s biggest names, including former Vice President Mike Pence and the governors of Florida and Texas, Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott.</blockquote>
There’s a clear partisan divide. (See Figure 1) The Republican-only assault on social investing includes the attorneys general from states like Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia. Their oppo-sition to ESG investments can be somewhat confusing — one might say hypocritical.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/d173336ac4676e659694d487d54aa381599fe8d5.webp" alt="undefined">
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is as big a foe of ESG investing as Governor Abbott. Both agree that ESG funds are being used to “promote certain social or political causes, such as climate change, at the expense of financial returns for investors.”
Paxton has issued an AG opinion that state government entities should not invest in companies that promote socially or politically controversial is-sues. In 2020, he also issued a subpoena to the world’s largest asset man-ager, BlackRock, and other investment firms for information about their ESG investment strategies.
And yet, Texas has the largest installed wind power capacity in the United States and is the leading state in terms of installed solar capacity. The state has implemented policies, e.g., a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) transmission line pro-gram, that have led to a significant increase in wind and solar power generated in the state.
Opposition to ESG investments has capital and reputational consequences that could slow the nation’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Governor DeSantis announced in December “that <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/12/01/florida-desantis-blackrock-esg-woke/10812382002/">Florida was yanking $2 billion worth of state assets</a>managed by BlackRock, escalating the GOP standoff with the world’s largest money manager over its ESG investment policies.
Kentucky is also among the states planning to pull its deposits from comp-anies “found to be in an active boycott of fossil fuel companies.” The move is endorsed by Kentucky’s Democratic governor, Andy Beshear — showing the potential for the ESG issue to jump across the aisle — at least in fossil fuel states.
<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Opposition_to_environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance_(ESG)_investing">According to Kentucky State Treasurer Allison Ball</a>, 
<blockquote>“Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia have already announced they will divest hundreds of millions of dollars from banks engaging in energy boycotts. Texas and Oklahoma have taken legislative steps akin to Kentucky’s that will likely soon lead to divestment.”</blockquote>
Republican state treasurers have a website, <a href="https://ourmoneyourvalues.com/">Our Money Our Values</a>. Breitbart <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/11/21/republican-state-treasurers-plot-anti-esg-strategy/">reports</a> that the Republican treasurers are just getting started when it comes to moving state assets, e.g., retirement fund monies, away from companies and investment firms that pay heed to ESG investing.
Nebraska State Treasurer John Murante has <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/11/21/republican-state-treasurers-plot-anti-esg-strategy/">said</a> of the effort by Republican treasurers:
<blockquote>“We’re committed to our fiduciary responsibilities to our constituents. We’re not seeking a political agenda. We’re not seeking to politicize or weaponize the assets that we have under management. We are seeking to get the best financial returns.”</blockquote>
Most recently, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-state-officials-question-proxy-advisers-iss-glass-lewis-over-esg-2023-01-18/">Republican attorneys general have begun asking proxy advisory firms</a> Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis if their voting recommendations on climate-related and diversity issues violated their fiduciary duties.
Ron O’Hanley, president and CEO of State Street Investors, has <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/climate-investing-is-a-matter-of-value-not-values-says-state-streets-ohanley/ar-AA16EofT">said</a>:
<blockquote>The arguments against ESG have left facts aside and lost sight of the needs of long-term shareholders who might be exposed to stranded assets in oil or outmoded technologies.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Climate investing is a ‘matter of value investing.</blockquote>
According to Climate Nexus, at least 34 anti-ESG bills have already been introduced in January alone.
Unquestionably, some ESG investments are not competitive with other short- or long-term opportunities. However, the corporate world is moving away from fossil fuels. All major old car companies are going electric. New EV-exclusive auto companies and those having to do with supply chains are cropping up everywhere — in red and blue states alike.
Most new electric generation in the country is being supplied by wind and solar — whether grid-connected or stand-alone. They all need the batteries that new manufacturing facilities in multiple states will be manufacturing because of the incentives in the IRA.
Manufacturers and power producers are not the only ones who have concluded that the transition to a low-carbon economy makes good business sense. Sense enough that the Federal Reserve (Fed), the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and financial institutions worldwide understand the critical importance of climate change to Earth’s environment and economies.
While even Arab oil-producing nations are looking to clean energy sources like solar and wind, Republican state administrations and House members are threatening what Fox Business headlines as “Republican states are planning an all-out assault on woke banks.”
No one is mandating that individuals or the states make ESG investments. Given the scientific and anecdotal evidence that Earth’s warming and because of the ever-increasing amounts of harmful fossil fuel emissions, it’s probably prudent for financial institutions to gain insights into how companies plan to contend with such externalities.
The attack on ESG investing is eerily like <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/14/donald-trump-climate-change-mentions-government-websites">the Trump administration’s efforts to write out</a> the phrases climate change, Earth’s warming, and harmful fossil fuel emissions from every federal government website and report. I take as much issue with this as I do with far-left activists forcing the cancellation of speeches by anti-abortionists or nearly everyone who disagrees with their positions.
I understand that words matters. However, it’s my experience that it’s what you don’t know that’s most likely to bite you in the a*s.
State treasurer Murante is right to want to get the best return on the dollar he can. But whose weaponizing and politicizing ESG investments to the point that even information about fuels other than fossil should be flowing out for investors to consider?
If Nebraska doesn’t want to invest in alternative energy — including corn-based alcohol — then instruct your investment companies — why all the drama? A silly question, I know.
The moral of my story is simply this. It’s critically important for activists to steal back the narrative from any policymaker who says a transition to a low-carbon economy is the nose of socialism or the hand of communism under the tent.
IRA projects and those climate-related provisions attributable to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs and the CHIPS and Science Acts are evidence of the economic and environmental benefits of a transition to a low-carbon economy. What better proof is there that capitalism still rings true in America?

This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/whats-wrong-with-investing-your-environmental-values-7d736d6783e5">author&#x27;s blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

What’s Wrong with Investing Your Environmental Values?

There’s only one word to capture the energies of the 118th Congress — chaos. Had there been any doubt that the 118th Congress would prove a combative body, the election of Kevin McCarthy as the 55th Speaker of the US House of Representatives has confirmed it. It bodes badly for US climate policy.

There’s only one word to capture the energies of the 118th Congress — chaos. Had there been any doubt that the 118th Congress would prove a combative body, the election of Kevin McCarthy as the 55th Speaker of the US House of Representatives has confirmed it. It bodes badly for US climate policy.
Being at the top of the heap comes with certain powers and privileges. McCarthy, as the people’s leader in Congress, is second in succession to the President — just behind the vice president and ahead of the president pro tempore of the Senate.
Speakers usually oversee the House rules committee that controls what gets to the floor for a vote and the rules of engagement. Working with the rules committee McCarthy will create special or select committees — including the number of members and whether the committee will have subpoena or legislative powers.
The vote on the rules package will be the first order of business for the new 118th House of Representatives and its new speaker. With few votes to spare, it will be the first opportunity for McCarthy to test his control of the slim Republican majority and whether moderate Republicans have bought into the deals made by the speaker.
Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) has been vocal in her opposition to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/01/04/us/politics/house-speaker-republicans-vote-against-mccarthy.html">gang of 20</a>. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Mace <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-says-she-might-oppose-house-rules-package-calls-gaetz-a-fraud/ar-AA166KDC">expressed</a> support for much of what is likely to be in the rules package but is opposed to a small number of pe-ople trying to get a deal done or deals done for themselves in private, in secret. Mace clearly had Congressman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_rule">Matt Gaetz (R-FL) on her mind</a> when she said it.
Mace indicated she was “on the fence” about voting in favor of the package. Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX) had no qualms about expressing his opposition to the rules package. Also, on Face the Nation, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3804864-this-week-house-begins-legislative-business-after-speaker-spectacle/">the Texan took issue</a> with “a proposed billions-of-dollars” defense cut — calling it a horrible idea in a time of Russian aggression in the Ukraine war and recent saber-rattling by China.
McCarthy, as the leader of the Republican caucus, influences House committee assignments. The power to oversee committee assignments is given to the leaders of both political caucuses. Hakeem Jeffries as the new House minority leader is given similar authority over committee assignments.
McCarthy’s rise to the speaker’s chair is about what he’s been willing to give up to get there. His run started eight years ago. Upon John Boehner’s (R-OH) sudden retirement as Speaker of the House in 2015, McCarthy was thought to be his natural successor having held the second most powerful position as House Majority Leader. In the end, Paul Ryan was elected.
McCarthy’s successful 2023 run bears a close resemblance to his losing his 2015 campaign when the most conservative Republican House members, i.e., the Freedom Caucus, stood between him and his destiny. The far-right accused him of being too establishment for their liking.
Since his failure to make the grade in 2015, McCarthy has done whatever he thought needed to be done to secure his place in history.
McCarthy has succeeded in gaining the gavel but has given up considerable power in the process. What he has promised the most conservative members of the Republican caucus all but guarantees chaos and division within both chambers of Congress.
Speaker McCarthy has agreed to the following demands of 20 House members who withheld their support through 14 ballots.
<ul><li>A vote to oust the speaker, i.e., a motion to vacate the chair can be called by a single House member.</li></ul>
<ul><li>A floor vote on congressional term limits will be brought to a vote of the House.</li></ul>
<ul><li>A member(s) of the Freedom Caucus will be appointed to the Rules Committee.</li></ul>
<ul><li>The McCarthy backed Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) has promised it will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe GOP districts. The agreement offers far-right candidates a better chance to win their primaries as CLF favors more establishment candidates.</li></ul>
<ul><li>The charge of the Subcommittee is to investigate all active criminal investigations going on within the executive branch, e.g., into Donald Trump and those of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2020. Particular emphasis will be placed on the Department of Justice and the FBI.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Under McCarthy’s leadership the House must now allow 72 hours before being brought to the floor for a vote. Something that will undoubtedly be supported on members on both sides of the aisle.</li></ul>
<ul><li>It also includes reinstating a provision to allow lawmakers to propose amendments to appropriations bills. As Speaker, McCarthy has agreed to creating a select committee on the weaponization of government. The Select Sub-Committee on the Weaponization of Government will be established as part of the rules package.</li></ul>
<ul><li>The new Speaker has vowed to revive <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_rule">the Holman rule</a> as a way to reduce spending by cutting the number and salaries of federal officials. It could also be used to reduce the compensation of any person paid out of Treasury funds and to reduce the amount of money spent through an appropriations bill<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-118th-congress-and-climate-and-clean-energy-policy-d8a4364e15ad#_edn1">[i]</a>.</li></ul>
McCarthy has ceded a great deal of his power as speaker to the 20 holdouts.
Being subject to a vote of confidence by a single House member is a testament to how little confidence the “Never Kevins” have in him. Since 2015, McCarthy has done everything and more asked of him by Trump and very often members of the Freedom Caucus. And, yet, it appears that it’s not been enough.
It’s fair to ask if McCarthy was willing to give all that up to get the job of Speaker of the House, what will he do to keep it — knowing the ax can drop at any time?
It is not an exaggeration to conclude that the House agenda will be Revenge 1.0. The concessions McCarthy has made is a recipe for more than just gridlock. The 20 holdouts — called “terrorists” by Texas Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) — believe that government is the enemy. An enemy that apparently can’t be fixed without first tearing it apart.
Crenshaw <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/08/republicans-house-speaker-deals/">said</a> after the final vote was taken that —
<blockquote>&quot;&#x27;This could have been done without all the drama. There was no reason for us to keep voting and keep voting’ and allow Republicans to make speeches that ‘degraded and just diminished and insulted Kevin McCarthy.&#x27;&quot;</blockquote>
The Freedom Caucus and McCarthy are betting big that what they have to offer is what America wants to see happen. It’s a judgment unsupported by the midterm elections.
The red wave that never was, was a repudiation of aggressive populism. As the former president discovered, the character of the candidates matters. For the most part, the most extreme of the Republican candidates lost to more moderate Democratic contenders — at both the national and state levels.
Coveted women and suburban voters in the 2022 midterms were instru-mental in turning the wave into barely a ripple. Although ultra-conservatives like Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-FL) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) held onto their seats, the fact remains that candidates who campaigned on Trump’s big lie did not fare well. In any event, the slim Republican House majority hardly suggests that the far-right members who successfully stripped McCarthy of much of the powers associated with the speaker’s chair have a license to rule.
To listen to one of the leaders of the group of 20, Chip Roy (R-TX), chaos in the future should be expected. Roy is on record saying the process of selecting McCarthy was good for Americans to see because it gave Americans the chance to see pushback to power brokers.
<a href="https://shared.outlook.inky.com/link?domain=www.washingtonpost.com&amp;t=h.eJxFjUFuwyAQRa8Ssa6NAWPsrHIVsCeYhDCIwfWiyt1TuunqS_9J7_2wo0R2vbC91kxXzs_z7E9Le0i-YspItV_xxTPGUMNKXA5S8UHwYeYF8uFiWG2ibseDoKMM9gml28BG4uzrwp7NnaBi8fcqxahGLfiDasHkoPjbGr5DTFgDpr-OFpNe5mlSi3Z3CXoDZaR0ahvm3xkXLiajpJilNr0yrQCtUHd4OPIFj2zmm3_ZEJuu8a3x_-f9ASluTPY.MEUCIQD4l0nFNK11jWt2grfrOFbeJjwnSzxkEB0wYBbn-A7pNwIgEHGx2s7NVCHS0Zg0vQZ9xKPCJlZvq1mPkrv9srQdQf8">According</a> to Roy:
<blockquote>“When you push back on the swamp, the swamp’s going to push right back. We saw that on display. That’s okay,”</blockquote>
What’s disconcerting about Roy’s statement is the far-right’s following the Trump line that anyone who disagrees with me on anything is a swamp creature.
Of the many actions of the 117th Congress and the Biden White House that the Freedom Caucus is most angry about is the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill that included the Inflation Reduction Act — the most important climate-responsive legislation in US history.
It’s significant that the $370 billion appropriated for climate-related policies and programs was not the cause of any hue and cry by midterm voters as the beginning of a socialist takeover of the state. In fact, it was hardly mentioned at all — being overshadowed by the issues of inflation, abortion, and the economy. The new Republican majority is going to make it its business to try to claw back funding for both defense and discretionary programs. One avenue for that could be lowering federal pay scales — with the reinstatement of the Holman rule.
There’s a real danger that the federal government will be brought to its knees over budget, appropriations, and the nation’s debt ceiling which needs to be raised in the coming months. The House Freedom Caucus had few qualms about Trump’s shutting down the government for 35 days over his demand for $5.6 billion for his southern wall.
Whatever else they think Freedom Caucus members and allied MAGA supporters know they may never have the opportunity again to put their stamp on the national agenda. They’ve found in McCarthy a man desperate enough for the trappings of the speaker’s chair to give up the power of the position.
It’s unclear how long more moderate “establishment” Republicans will be willing to go along with Speaker McCarthy’s willingness to cave to conser-vative pressures. It takes only five Republican representatives voting with the Democrats to thwart the speaker’s agenda.
Fareed Zakaria writing in the Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/05/populists-2023-policies-poor-governance/">opines</a> that:
<blockquote>Populism thrives as an opposition movement. It denounces the establishment, encourages fears and conspiracy theories about nefarious ruling elites, and promises emotional responses rather than actual programs (build a wall, ban immigration, stop trade).</blockquote>
The capacity of Speaker McCarthy and the new Republican House majority to govern is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the ability of the Democrats and President Biden to block many of the Republican efforts. Depending on the topic and his own agenda, they will have Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s (R-KY) support.
McConnell is no friend to the MAGA movement. It’s unlikely that he’ll allow many opportunities to torpedo the far-right agenda to pass him by. For the Kentuckian and many establishment Republicans, the next two years will be a time to take back the GOP from former President Trump and the MAGA movement.
What will the congressional Democrats and President Biden be doing while the Republican intra-party battling goes on? They’ll be sitting back watching the drama play out, defending and implementing the works of the 117th Congress, including the Inflation Reduction, the Investment Infrastructure and Jobs, and CHIPS and Science Acts.
What does it all mean for the climate community? Beyond the defensive plays that will be needed to preserve and protect the climate record of the 117th Congress and the Biden administration, climate activists should turn their attention to what’s happening at the state and local levels in terms of implementing the IRA, IIJA, and the CHIPS legislation.
The climate activist community, working with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, should be using the next two years to develop and test various proposals in anticipation of the 2024 elections. The community would also do well to create alliances a set of common themes that activists on both the right and left can support.
I’ve written before and will continue to send the same message to climate champions.
To decarbonize the economy, it is necessary to depoliticize the needed response to Earth’s warming.
Doing this requires compromise on the parts of the right and the left.
Based on the 2022 midterm election results the nation appears tired of the partisan bickering and is ready for members of Congress and the White House to find common ground and get on with the business of governing. The next two years will tell the tale.
A final note to readers: This is an on-going story.
This article is also published on the <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/118th-congress-climate-clean-energy-policy-joel-b-stronberg/?published=t">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h3>Footnotes</h3>
<a href="https://thejbsgroup78.medium.com/the-118th-congress-and-climate-and-clean-energy-policy-d8a4364e15ad#_ednref1">[i]</a> The Holman Rule was first passed in 1876. It’s been used by Congress on and off for decades since then. Most recently, it was eliminated in 1983 but reinstated in 2017 and then eliminated in 2019.

The 118th Congress and Climate and Clean Energy Policy

The state of federal climate policy is a good news, bad news story. The bad news will likely come in on the developing red tide that looks to flip one or both chambers of Congress to Republican control.

Although a Republican Congress would be hard-pressed to rescind the recently passed infrastructure and inflation reduction acts, it could force reductions in funding levels, delay implementation, and loosen rules on how the funds can be used to a point where the promised reductions in harmful emissions are never realized.

The good news is Congress, and the White House were able to pass three historic pieces of legislation—the IIJA, IRA, and the CHIPS and Science Act before the elections. The bills take direct aim at combating climate change through funded policies and programs.


The state of federal climate policy is a good news, bad news story. The bad news will likely come in on the developing red tide that looks to flip one or both chambers of Congress to Republican control.
Although a Republican Congress would be hard-pressed to rescind the recently passed infrastructure and inflation reduction acts, it could force reductions in funding levels, delay implementation, and loosen rules on how the funds can be used to a point where the promised reductions in harmful emissions are never realized.
At a minimum, the next Congress will be plagued by a lot of <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11361027/house-republicans-biden-strategic-oil-reserves.html">shoe banging</a> over Biden&#x27;s motives to bring down the cost of gasoline and rehashing the scientific basis of Democratic efforts to speed the transition to a low-carbon economy. Much of the climate-related work of a Republican House and possibly Senate will be in the form of oversight hearings to rehash the urgency of responding to the climate crisis and the need to amp up fossil fuel production.
The good news is Congress, and the White House were able to pass three historic pieces of legislation—the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/">IIJA</a>, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/15/by-the-numbers-the-inflation-reduction-act/">IRA</a>, and the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/">CHIPS and Science Act</a> before the elections. The bills take direct aim at combating climate change through funded policies and programs.
The legislation marks the first time in US history that anything approximating an integrated national energy and environment strategy has been put into place. The question now is: how will they be put into practice? More pointedly, will the hyperpartisanship that has marred decades of climate policymaking carry down to the state and local levels?
<h2>To the winners go the spoils</h2>
A trifecta state is one in which a single party controls the governor&#x27;s mansion, the legislature, and the office of attorney general. There are currently 37 trifecta states—14 Democratic and 23 Republican. (Figure 1). According to <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Trifecta_vulnerability_in_the_2022_elections">Ballotpedia</a>, elections for one or more trifecta offices are taking place in:
<ul><li>22 of the 23 states with Republican trifectas,</li></ul>
<ul><li>13 of the 14 states with Democratic trifectas, and</li></ul>
<ul><li>11 of the 13 states with divided government.</li></ul>
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/659d4306a7ccac2eac311b2d1270099b49ffc44b.png" alt="undefined">
Ballotpedia is <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas#Trifecta_vulnerability_in_the_2022_elections">predicting</a> the following outcomes in key trifecta states.
<ol><li>The Democratic trifecta in <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Delaware">Delaware</a> is highly vulnerable.</li></ol>
<ol><li>Democratic trifectas in <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado">Colorado</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Maine">Maine</a>, and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada">Nevada</a> are moderately vulnerable.</li></ol>
<ol><li>Three Democratic trifectas—<a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois">Illinois</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon">Oregon</a>, and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Washington">Washington</a>—are considered somewhat vulnerable.</li></ol>
<ol><li><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona">Arizona</a> is the only highly vulnerable Republican trifecta this year.</li></ol>
<ol><li>The governor&#x27;s race is rated as a Tossup, and Republicans have a one-seat majority in the state House and Senate.</li></ol>
<ol><li>Three Republican trifectas in <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia">Georgia</a>, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/New_Hampshire">New Hampshire</a>, and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Texas">Texas</a> are classified as moderately vulnerable.</li></ol>
<ol><li>The Republican trifectas in <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Florida">Florida</a> and <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Iowa">Iowa</a> are somewhat vulnerable.</li></ol>
<h2>Gubernatorial elections – selected states</h2>
Not a single congressional Republican voted in support of the IRA. The infrastructure bill received 19 GOP votes in the Senate and just 13 in the House. All of the Republicans voting for the bill have incurred the wrath of former President Trump. The IRA was passed with no Republican votes.
There are reasons to believe that politics will play nearly as big a part in how the legislation is implemented as they played in how they were passed. 
Texas leads the nation in <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=TX">energy production and consumption</a>. In 2021, Texas produced almost 12 percent of the nation&#x27;s total net energy generation.
Notwithstanding the significant economic, energy, and environmental contributions of wind and solar energy sources in Texas, Republican Lone Star state politicians like Governor Greg Abbott, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressmen Dan Crenshaw and Rony Jackson have little good to say about them. Most concerning is their willingness to lie.
Abbott erroneously blamed the state&#x27;s 2021 power outage on the feet of wind turbines and solar panels. In an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/17/texas-abbott-wind-turbines-outages/">interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Abbott said this:</a>​ 
<blockquote>&quot;This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.&quot;</blockquote>
The same year, Jackson <a href="https://twitter.com/blkahn/status/1361683208308461571?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">tweeted</a> that Texas electricity problems were what &quot;the Biden/Harris plan for our energy sector gets us. Corrupt &#x27;green&#x27; policies that leave us in the dark.&quot; (Emphasis added)
Cruz has &quot;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/17/abbott-republicans-green-energy/">mocked</a> California&#x27;s advisories calling for consumer-led energy conservation by <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1296134869320380419?s=20">tweeting</a>, &#x27;Hope you don&#x27;t like air conditioning!&#x27;&quot; However, the truth is otherwise. According to <a href="https://kesq.com/news/national-world/cnn-national/2022/06/14/wind-and-solar-power-are-bailing-out-texas-amid-record-heat-and-energy-demand/">others</a>, Texas air conditioners would have been silenced if it weren&#x27;t for solar and wind.
The most visceral claims about wind have come from Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller.
<blockquote>&quot;Those ugly wind turbines out there are among the main reasons we are experiencing electricity blackouts... So much for the unsightly and unproductive, energy-robbing Obama Monuments. At least they show us where idiots live.&quot; (Emphasis added)</blockquote>
Texas Republicans are hardly the only ones who dismiss the critical importance of the nation&#x27;s transition to a clean energy economy. Florida&#x27;s governor, Ron DeSantis (R), has said that Biden&#x27;s climate agenda has &quot;kneecapped American energy production.&quot;
DeSantis has put forward a three-year plan for addressing some of the major problems resulting from weather-related events like coastal erosion. At the press conference in which he introduced his proposal, DeSantis made clear <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/de-santis-proposes-adapting-to-climate-change-without-doing-any-left-wing-stuff-194130311.html">where he stands on the Democratic response to Earth&#x27;s warming.</a>
<blockquote>&quot;What I&#x27;ve found is when people start talking about things like global warming, they typically use that as a pretext to do a bunch of left-wing things that they would want to do anyways. And so, we&#x27;re not doing any left-wing stuff.&quot; (Emphasis added)</blockquote>
Abbott and DeSantis reflect the character of the ongoing culture war between Republicans and Democrats. Conflicts that the former president is continuously stoking. Starting November 9th, everything will be done in anticipation of the 2024 elections.
Just days before the election, governor races in New York and Arizona show a surge in support for the Republican candidates. Governor Hochul (D) is losing ground to a Long Island conservative—Lee Zeldin—who is currently serving in the US House. <a href="https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/11616-hochul-zeldin-differ-vastly-climate-change-environment-energy#:~:text=Zeldin%2C%20however%2C%20has,to%20live%20here.">Hochul</a> looks to continue the implementation of New York&#x27;s sweeping shift to renewable energy and advance many policies related to environmental protection.
Zeldin has followed the Republican line of increasing US fossil fuel production, including through fracking. Although he&#x27;s said little about renewable energy sources like wind and solar, it&#x27;s a fair bet he&#x27;ll adopt Trump&#x27;s attitudes toward the resources. He owes a lot to Trump, as the former president has been vocal in his support.
In Arizona, the ultra-conservative Kari Lake leads her Democratic opponent Kati Hobbs in her bid for the governor&#x27;s mansion. Hobbs, the current Secretary of State, by a few percentage points. Hobbs has been accused of running a lackluster campaign, while Lake has pulled generous contributions from Republican contributors and has Trump on her side.
Although Lake has said little about climate change, she will, in all probability, follow Trump&#x27;s lead on the issue.
<h2>Attorneys General elections</h2>
Fourteen Republican and 16 Democratic AGs are up for election in November. In Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Wyoming, the governor appoints the attorney general. In each of those states, &quot;governor&quot; is on this year&#x27;s ballot. The Tennessee supreme court appoints its AG; in Maine, the AG is elected by the state legislature for a two-year term.
Environmental defenders need to pay particular attention to the outcome of the state attorneys general (AG) elections. According to <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/15-state-ag-races-to-watch-on-the-environment/">Lori Kalani</a> at the firm Cozen O&#x27;Connor, &quot;Energy and environmental regulation [is] one of the areas where AGs are most divided down partisan lines.&quot;
Kalani explains, &quot;Attorneys General have a wide range of tools to address pollution and climate change. They are the chief enforcers of state environmental laws.&quot;
For nearly a quarter century, the pattern has been red state AGs suing blue administrations and blue state AGs returning the favor when red administrations are in control.
Hot climate topics for state attorneys general include the legal battles that will be mounted in the wake of the Biden administration&#x27;s issuing its replacement for the Obama Clean Power Plan, water regulations, and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements, e.g., corporate disclosure rules and unfair trade practices.
According to Reuters, a &quot;group of state attorneys general are currently investigating the ESG practices of the country&#x27;s six biggest banks. The participating AG offices are all alleging the environmental, social, and governance-related (ESG) practices hurt the American energy industry.&quot; by which they mean fossil fuel companies and contributors.
Blue-state AGs are as active as their red-state counterparts. The Democrats, for example, are suing oil and gas companies seeking damages based on the company&#x27;s knowing the dangers of burning fossil fuels and choosing to stay mum.
The legal theories put forward in these cases are similar to those used successfully in the tobacco cases of the late 90s. It&#x27;s all about what did they know, when did they know it, and why didn&#x27;t they do something about it?
<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90797130/states-ban-esg-investing-utah-texas">As reported by Fast Company,</a> Texas implemented a ban on municipalities doing business with financial firms that won&#x27;t do business with fossil fuel companies. In August 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved a resolution <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/florida-adopts-anti-esg-rule-for-state-s-186b-pension-plan-71569179">barring</a> his state&#x27;s $186 billion pension fund from considering ESG factors in making investment decisions, ordering them to &quot;maximize&#x27; financial return over and above other considerations.&quot;
Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming have all enacted similar legislation, and several other states are working on it. When the Utah legislature reconvenes next January (2023), it will have at least four anti-ESG bills to consider.
With the new legislation will come new regulations. Between now and the 2024 presidential elections, the Biden administration will be issuing a raft of proposed rules as required by the IIJA and IRA.
With new regulations will come new litigation. State attorneys general will lead the charge up the US Supreme Court&#x27;s steps. And, the red/blue, blue/red cycle begins anew.
Selected AG Races of particular interest include:
<ul><li>Arizona, which is considered a tossup. The Republican is Abe Hamadeh. The Democrat is Kris Mayes. Former President Trump supports Hamadeh.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Kansas, which is rated a tossup. According to NBC, Republican Kris Kobach, the former secretary of state, is his party&#x27;s nominee. He&#x27;s long been a controversial figure in his own party, a hard-liner on immigration and voting laws who was the de-facto chair of Trump&#x27;s Election Integrity Commission. He lost his 2018 bid for governor, as well as a 2020 primary bid for Senate. He faces Democratic prosecutor and former police officer, Chris Mann.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Michigan, which leans Democratic. The Democratic candidate is Dana Nessel. With the auto companies so heavily invested in electric vehicles, Michigan stands to gain from a Democratic victory at all levels of government. The Republican candidate is Trump-endorsed Mathew DePerno. Trump has spent considerable political capital on Michigan Republicans.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Minnesota, which is considered a tossup. The Democratic candidate is Keith Ellison, who&#x27;s running for re-election. He&#x27;s a progressive in a state that could be turning more conservative largely over crime. The Republican nominee is Jim Schultz.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Nevada, which is considered a tossup. The Democratic candidate is Aaron Ford, who is up for re-election. According to NBC: Attorney Sigal Chattah is the GOP nominee facing Ford. She drew notice for suing the state over Covid restrictions during the height of the pandemic. Republican officials, including former state Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson and former GOP Chairwoman Amy Tarkanian, have endorsed Ford over Chatta.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Texas leans Republican. The current Texas AG is Ken Paxton. He has joined other fossil fuel states in suing Democratic administrations over their environmental and clean energy regulations. The Democratic nominee is Rochelle Garza.</li></ul>
<h2>Ballot measures</h2>
Another bellwether climate champions should consider are the few climate-related measures on the ballot in November at both the state and local levels. New Yorkers will have a chance to vote on Proposition 1, which permits the state to issue $4.2 billion in bonds to advance environmental and infrastructure projects.
Industrial-scale wind and solar projects suffer from the NIMBY syndrome. In 2021, the Ohio legislature passed <a href="https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&amp;&amp;p=d385d06cdaed5bd5JmltdHM9MTY2NzY5MjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0zNmY5M2FhNS1kOWJkLTYwYmUtMmZjZi0yYWFjZDgwYTYxNWQmaW5zaWQ9NTE3Mw&amp;ptn=3&amp;hsh=3&amp;fclid=36f93aa5-d9bd-60be-2fcf-2aacd80a615d&amp;psq=sb+52+ohio&amp;u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGVnaXNsYXR1cmUub2hpby5nb3YvbGVnaXNsYXRpb24vbGVnaXNsYXRpb24tc3VtbWFyeT9pZD1HQTEzNC1TQi01Mg&amp;ntb=1">SB 52</a>, allowing counties to block the development of large solar and wind installations. On November 8th, residents of Crawford County will have the chance to exercise their vote on a proposed wind project.
Opposition to the project is fierce, and its opponents are <a href="https://www.crawfordantiwind.com/">spouting</a> many of the same alternative facts as those used by former President Trump, Governor Abbott, and Senator Cruz. Elections matter.
Although there are too few climate-related measures on the 2022 ballots to identify a pattern, successful NIMBY campaigns this time around could be used as models in future elections.
<h2>What now?</h2>
The bleak outlook for Democrats in the 2022 elections is very likely to implement the IIJA, IRA, and CHIPS Acts as they were intended. Climate is once again outranked on the list of voter priorities, with the economy at the top of the list—followed by inflation and crime.
I&#x27;ll leave readers with this parting thought by Jack Ewing of the New York Times:
<blockquote>&quot;Ideology has not prevented red-state politicians from trumpeting green investments in their districts.&quot;</blockquote>
No matter the outcome on November 8th, climate champions would do well to emphasize community adaptation and resilience in their messaging into the 2024 presidential elections. It&#x27;s never too early to get ready for the next election.
Author&#x27;s note to readers: This is the first in the series Today’s Politics Are Tomorrow’s Climate Policies. You can read <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/9851fa58-9e34-4882-9562-89cef4f29b45">Part 1 here</a> and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/f9a8e74a-899b-492b-8baf-8861c61392f2">Part 2 here</a>. 
Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Today’s Politics Are Tomorrow’s Climate Policy (part 3)

1) The next three weeks are crucial to both Republicans and Democrats standing for election.

2) As Americans continue to put the economy and inflation at the top of their priority lists, the momentum has swung back to Republicans, who rank higher with voters on these issues.

3) The House of Representatives is much more Trump-centric than the Senate.

4) Realistically, Congress is finished passing major climate legislation for at least the next two years—probably four or more, depending on the outcome of the 2022 and 2024 elections. The most that can be hoped for are refinements to the already passed legislation based on experience.


Part 1 of the series, <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/9851fa58-9e34-4882-9562-89cef4f29b45">Today’s Politics Are Tomorrow’s Climate Policies</a>, focused on the politics of the 2022 midterm elections surrounding the US Senate. Control of the Senate is still something of a 50/50 proposition, although in recent weeks there’s been a shift of momentum towards the Republicans.
Whatever the outcome of the Senate elections, the upper chamber will be a moderating influence on a Republican controlled House of Representatives. More Trump-centric than the Senate, the House under the leadership of Kevin McCarthy will be ground-zero in the continuing culture wars.
Throughout the 2022 election cycle, it’s been predicted that the US House of Representatives would flip from Democratic to Republican. For that to happen, Republicans will need to gain a net of just five seats
Although Republican control of the peoples’ House is still anticipated, the margin of victory has been coming down since mid-summer, when a blowout was predicted. The catalyst for the change was the US Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) decision in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/">Dobbs v. Jackson</a> that overturned a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, as established by <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/">Roe v. Wade.</a>
There’s growing evidence that the abortion issue is not what most voters have at the top of their priority lists. The top spots are, unsurprisingly, the economy and inflation. President Biden has called the economy <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/10/16/joe-biden-insists-us-economy-is-strong-as-hell-as-he-munches-an-ice-cream-cone/">“strong as hell.”</a> While eating an ice cream cone, Biden expressed what he’s worried about--​
<blockquote>“I’m not concerned about the strength of the dollar; I’m concerned about the rest of the world. Does that make sense?</blockquote>
As I’ll discuss further in a moment, those words may come back to haunt Biden once the gavel comes down to call the 118thCongress into session.
<a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/house/?cid=rrpromo">FiveThirtyEight</a> predicts the chances of the Republicans capturing the House are 72 out of 100. Adding fuel to the prediction is a recent <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/17/upshot/times-siena-poll-likely-voters-crosstabs.html">New York Times/Siena College poll</a> that found 49 percent of likely voters in congressional races were planning to cast their ballots for Republicans. Support for Democrats came in at 45 percent. It marks a significant change from the month before.​ 
The Democrats held a one-point advantage in September’s generic poll over the GOP. According to Larry Sabado at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, when Republicans lead on the generic ballot, they almost always win control of the peoples’ House. The question is whether such history will repeat itself in 2022.
A Republican House majority is not simply about gross numbers. It is also about individual political philosophies and loyalties. In an age of very slim majorities, a relatively small group of members can have an outsized impact on what does and doesn’t get passed into law.
A Republican group that has enjoyed such a position is the House Freedom Caucus (HFC). The Caucus has had a stranglehold on the lower chamber for years.
HFC doesn’t list its membership, although it is fair to say that the group hasn’t exceeded 70 members at its acme. Whatever the number, the HFC has consistently punched well above its weight.
The group has chased two former House speakers—John Boehner and Paul Ryan—out of Congress. Both men are establishment Republicans in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Neither is a supporter of former president Trump.
​However, who is a supporter of the ultra-conservative agenda, is the current House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). He served as House Majority Leader<a href="#_ednref1">[i]</a> under both Boehner and Ryan. He is currently the House Minority Leader and is in the best position to become Speaker of the House.
McCarthy has spent the last five or six years trying to convince Donald Trump of his loyalty and ability to perform as the ex-president’s avenging angel. Unlike Senate Minority McConnell, the Californian has shown what he stands for and the agenda he intends to promote in the 118th Congress.
<blockquote>“I think I can win [the speakership] with any seat majority.”</blockquote>
At the end of September, McCarthy released his <a href="https://www.republicanleader.gov/commitment/strong-economy/">Commitment to America.</a> It’s a play on Newt Gingrich’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America">Contract to America</a>. (See image<a href="#_ednref2">[​ii]</a>)
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/e481275594c83cd5f3a1437c4bec637192a1e8cd.png" alt="A section of Rep. McCarthy's "Commitment to America"">
The Commitment speaks in generalities combining traditional Republican themes, e.g., increasing domestic oil and gas production, with more extreme positions. Under the heading, A Government That’s Accountable, is the commitment of House Republicans to uphold free speech and protect the lives of unborn children and their mothers.
Based on things he’s said before, the meaning of these words come to life. McCarthy has shown <a href="https://www.kwwl.com/news/politics/house-republicans-eye-15-week-abortion-ban-after-roe-ruling/article_56e7b343-e44c-50d6-8673-699c60ca04d7.html">support for a national ban on abortion at 15 weeks</a>. Abortion isn’t all that’s included under the heading Preserve Our Constitutional Freedoms.
McCarthy’s promise to uphold free speech means there should be no restrictions placed on the former president’s use of Twitter and other social media websites. True or not, the Minority Leader sees no reason to cancel Trump—or, for that matter, any other Republican no matter how outlandish or harmful a statement may be. One wonders whether McCarthy thinks it’s alright to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
The Minority Leader showed what’s likely in store for members of his caucus who fail to follow the Trump-party line. Consider the fate of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the January 6th insurrection.
Of the ten, only two, Dan Newhouse (R-CA) and David Valadao (R-WA), have a chance to be re-elected. Four chose to retire, and four lost to largely Trump-backed challengers.
A special place in Republican hell was reserved for Liz Cheney (R-WY). Immediately after the impeachment vote, Cheney was stripped of her leadership position.
Cheney was replaced by Elise Stefanik (R-NY)—who has now predicted a Republican pickup of 35 House seats. Stefanik stands as an example of the willingness of some Republicans to put their loyalty to Trump above all.
The New York representative went from being a moderate to a Trumpster overnight. Peter Wehner of the faith-based <a href="https://www.ttf.org/mission-vision/">Trinity Forum</a> writes:
<blockquote>There was a time in 2016 when Elise Stefanik, now the third-ranking Republican in the House, was so disgusted by Donald Trump she would <a href="https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/Elise-Stefanik-won-t-say-Donald-Trump-s-name-but-7396796.php">barely mention</a> his name. Today he proudly refers to her as ‘<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/us/politics/elise-stefanik.html">one of my killers</a>’.”</blockquote>
As Chair of the House Republican Caucus, Stefanik wields significant power. She has performed so well—in fact—that she’s being talked about as a possible vice-presidential candidate should Trump run again.
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), another fallen RINO<a href="#_ednref3">[iii]</a> and one of the two Republicans on the House January 6th Committee, predicts that a Republican House majority would demand an impeachment vote on President Biden weekly. Although a bit extreme, what is likely is McCarthy’s appointing a seemingly endless train of oversight committees to investigate everything and anything—including on the President’s son Hunter Biden.
Emblematic of McCarthy’s willingness to court Trump’s favor is his embrace of Representatives Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Both are off the far-right scale and have been frequent and prominent Mar-a-Lago visitors.
Following the assault on the Capitol, Gaetz blamed Democratic rhetoric and anti-fascists pretending to be Trump supporters.
<blockquote>“The people who breached the Capitol today were not Trump supporters. They were masquerading as Trump supporters. And in fact, they were members of the violent terrorist group, Antifa.”</blockquote>
Greene has been stripped of her committee assignments for things she’s said—particularly as <a href="https://newjerseymonitor.com/2022/03/01/marjorie-taylor-greene-spoke-at-an-event-led-by-a-white-nationalist-and-has-no-regrets/">a primetime speaker at a white supremacist meeting.</a>
Not for the first time, Greene has warned McCarthy that he’s no shoo-in for House Speaker. In a recent interview with the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/17/magazine/marjorie-taylor-greene.html">New York Times,</a> Greene was quoted as saying:
<blockquote>“I think that to be the best speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway,”</blockquote>
Greene claimed she wasn’t saying that as a threat. It was, in her terms, just the “reality of it all.”
There are three likely congressional outcomes in the 2022 midterm election cycle.
<ul><li>Republicans take both the House and Senate</li></ul>
<ul><li>Democrats maintain a narrow Senate majority while Republicans capture the House</li></ul>
<ul><li>Democrats keep their majorities in both the House and Senate.</li></ul>
No matter which of these comes to pass, the historic Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure framework are more or less safe in the halls of the next Congress—although they may not be in the passageways of the Supreme Court.
The real threats to the environment over the next two years will come in the form of Republican pressure on the White House to expand significantly domestic oil and gas production. Moves will be pitched as a way to offset the high cost of gasoline and as a way to help western allies in their efforts to wean themselves off of Russian resources.
A Republican House majority while Biden is in the White House—no matter the outcome of the Senate elections—guarantees gridlock and brinksmanship. The question in a Republican House is how much of the majority’s time will be spent on payback investigations versus the passage of substantive legislation.
Trump will continue to refer to the Green New Deal as a shorthand for SOCIALISM. The more often he mentions it, the less likely it will be that climate policy is anything more than a Republican whipping post. Although such hyperpartisanship will please Trump, it risks losing younger Republican voters in future elections.
Even with Republican victories in the House and Senate, Trump Republicans will be hard-pressed to put their substantive agenda—whatever it might be—into play as anything other than messaging. As long as McConnell continues to be at the top of the Senate Republican heap and there are Democrats ready to filibuster, very little of a Trump-approved platform will ever find its way onto the chamber’s floor for a vote.
Under any scenario in which Republicans have majority status, efforts by Democrats to pass substantive climate legislation are also likely to end up as messaging exercises. It’s not hard to imagine that subject matter committee chairs under a McCarthy regime won’t be encouraged to hold hearings that question the reliability of scientific data and the conclusions drawn from it.
Under any of the three scenarios, Biden will continue to exercise his executive powers to combat Earth’s warming and expedite the nation’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Whether those actions have any staying power beyond Biden’s first term will depend on the 2024 presidential elections.
Realistically speaking, lasting progress on climate matters at the federal level is possible only under the third scenario—the Democrats maintaining control of Congress. There are caveats to this conclusion to consider.
Senator Manchin (D-WV) has been the goat and champion of climate policy over the past two years. Should the Democrat’s Senate majority continue to be contingent on all 50 Democrats voting together, any new legislation is unlikely to be enacted—at least until he gets his way on streamlining the permitting of fossil fuel and energy projects.
The victim most threatened in the coming elections is bipartisanship. Even if Trump announced he wasn’t running again, his successor would try to out-trump Trump to capture his base.
The 2022 midterm elections will be a time of learning. All eyes will be on the win rate of Trump-endorsed candidates. Will character and truth be valued above party loyalty? Are Republicans any more capable of corralling inflation and restarting the economy once the Fed is through tightening?
The 118th Senate—whether under Democratic or Republican control—will serve as a tempering agent to a Trump-centric House. For as long as he is the mix, the former president will keep pressure on McCarthy through messages on his Twitter alternative—Truth Social—and by triggering supporters like Representatives Greene and Gaetz.
It’s fortunate for the nation’s environment that Congress passed the infrastructure and jobs act, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the CHIPS and Science Act before the elections. It’s unlikely such seminal legislation could ever make it through a Republican-controlled House.
Politics at the state and local levels will ultimately determine how and even if the IRA, IIJA and CHIPS will be implemented. It’s the focus of Part 3 in the series Today’s Politics Are Tomorrow’s Climate Policies.
<h5><a href="#_ednref1">[i]</a> The position of House Majority Leader is number 2 on the leadership chain.</h5>
<h5><a href="#_ednref2">[ii]</a> Note that the image is only a partial representation of the Commitment.</h5>
<h5><a href="#_ednref3">[iii]</a> Republican in Name Only</h5>
Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

Joel B. Stronberg

Joel B. Stronberg

Climate change: can Blue cities be stopped by Red states?

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?