Posted on 11/05/2014 8:30:39 AM PST by dead
For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races. The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections. The outcome brought gloating from Republicans and fossil-fuel supporters even before the results rolled in — and raised questions about whether greens can fulfill their pledge to make climate change a decisive campaign issue in 2016. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 5 November 2015
Climate Change: This was one of the dogs that didn’t bark in the 2014 election, even after liberal billionaire Tom Steyer spent an estimated $70 million to promote the issue and a new U.N. report Sunday warned of “severe, pervasive, and irreversible” global warming that will worsen without environmental policy changes. Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, said a GOP-led Congress is more likely to try to stop Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency from imposing new regulations on power plants than endorsing any additional steps to reduce U.S. carbon pollution. Said Brulle: “I am not an optimist about us doing anything – I think it looks bad for political action on climate change in any way.” –Will Bunsch, Philadelphia Daily News, 5 November 2014
The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties [after] Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections. The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, states that “none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” –Denis Fitzgerald, UN Tribune, 4 November 2014
The Keystone XL pipeline won big Tuesday night. Following an election night that saw anti-Keystone Democrats replaced by pro-Keystone Republicans, the oil-sands pipeline project now appears to have at least 60 supporting votes. That means legislation forcing approval of the long-delayed project may be headed to President Obama. Before the election, at least 57 senators could be counted on to support pro-Keystone legislation, but that was never enough to beat a filibuster from the project’s opponents. Tuesday night’s results appear to change that. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 5 November 2014
The expected Republican majority in the U.S. Senate after Tuesday’s mid-term elections is likely to seek to roll back federal regulations on power-plant emissions, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, expand oil and gas development on federal lands and work toward ending the 40-year ban on U.S. crude oil exports, energy experts said. “The Republicans will go to Obama and say, look, ‘We’ve got to get this done; your own government is saying this is fine. The election is over so you don’t have to worry,'” Lynch said. –Jon Hurdle, The Street, 4 November 2014
President Obama will continue to take action on policies to fight climate change whether or not Republicans take control of the Senate, the White House said. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Obama plans to keep using his executive powers to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. “The president will use his executive action to take some additional steps.” –Timothy Cama, The Hill, 4 November 2014
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma will take over as chairman of the Environmental Committee. He’s not as resourceful or respected as Grassley or McCain. A global warming skeptic, he opposes most of the Obama administration’s environmental regulations.
The 79-year-old Inhofe’s term doesn’t expire until 2018. He probably can’t muster the votes to pass anti-regulatory measures outright. But there is a weapon available to the leadership: adding such measures as riders to appropriations bills, making it harder for the administration to veto or thwart congressional actions. Inhofe’s term doesn’t expire until 2018.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/albert-hunt-gop-chairman-obama/2014/11/05/id/605342/
Now it’s time to turn off the government “research” money spigot and dry up the funds for these money suckers and their phony science. Let’s see them blow $85 million on Dems after the free government handouts stop. The whole thing is a scam to dole out climate change funding and recycle it back to Dem candidates.
Inhofe will be amazing in this role.
Up until 2000 there was no global warming... and then Bush stole the election.
Now with Republicans in control of Congress, I forsee the planet’s climate becoming remarkably stable again.
Hi Tom - Thanks ever so much for helping the economies in so many states by spending huge amounts of your capitalist dollars in a losing cause. Please keep funneling all that dirty money into the economy. Clearly, you had zero impact on the election, but were very effective in buoying the income for printers, media outlets and garbage collectors.
Crush the Climate Pretenders.
"Call me ma'am" Boxer will have lots of fun as ranking member. Inhofe will enjoy telling her the facts of life about the climate.
One major quibble with this article is the use of “carbon pollution”.
Don’t let the opposition define the terms. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, all life on earth is wholly dependent on it. Even the use of “carbon emissions” can raise eyebrows, as people have been conditioned to react negatively to phrases like the above.
Use of a phrase like CO2 production has far fewer negative connotations. Use of undeniably positive adjectives, verbs abd adverbs will do more to take the wind out of the sails of the radical anti-growth lobby than any amount of truth that allows the anti’s to define of the terms of discussion.
We need to redefine the terms back to neutral and positive so the truth can come out loud and clear.
Agreed,there is no “carbon pollution”. I read some figures once about how much CO2 we would have to have in the atmosphere before it actually became a problem & it is a big percentage number. I don’t think we have anything to worry about as far as any so-called “carbon pollution”.
“Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, all life on earth is wholly dependent on it.”
Great point, Don W. Preach it, brother. Don’t let the eco-nazis define the terms. Or as my English cousin tells me: If the commies don’t agree with you, stomp their nuts into the concrete.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.