By
Marianne Lavelle, The
Daily Climate
The lesson for climate
activists from this midterm election may be climate change, like politics, is
local. Frack Free Denton, a grass-roots group, prevailed in its campaign asking
voters to ban hydraulic fracturing in Denton, Texas, despite being outspent
10-to-1 by pro-fracking groups. Above, Frack Free volunteers work a table at
University of North Texas' Earth Day festival in April. Photo by Crystal J.
Hollis/flickr.
The 2014 midterms may disappear into history as the election
where moneyed environmental interests tried - and failed - to defeat far larger
moneyed energy interests.
But the more important lesson could be that local concerns and
grass-roots rabble-rousing trumps Big Green and can even beat Big Oil.
In north Texas, Denton voters said "no" to hydraulic
fracturing despite a 10-to-1 fundraising advantage by pro-fracking forces
backed by Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, XTO Energy, and others.
Frack
Free Denton, a grassroots campaign spearheaded by a local nurse,
prevailed. Its argument: fracking saddled the town's citizens with the state's
most unhealthy air and highest childhood asthma rates, while sharing in little
of the economic gain generated by oil and gas development.
City vs. refinery in
California
Similar home-grown concerns propelled a slate of anti-Chevron
candidates to victory in a city council race in Richmond, Calif. The town is
uneasy home of the company's 3,000-acre refinery – one of the region's top
polluters as well as the state's No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases.
Chevron, planning a major expansion of the facility, sunk a
reported $3 million into political action committees to influence the make-up
of the local body that will oversee its plans. Voters, who have coped with
economic blight as well as high rates of cancer, heart disease, and asthma,
instead overwhelmingly chose candidates who have been critical of
Chevron.
The David-versus-Goliath local victories against oil industry
money stood in stark contrast to the losses in races that will set national
policy on energy and climate change over the next two years.
Pro-climate-action billionaire Tom Steyer and green groups spent
an unprecedented $85 million on the effort to elect Democratic Senators and
governors who would take bold steps on global warming.
But they were soundly
outspent by anti-regulatory forces; the Koch brothers' network alone spent $100
million on the election.
Key wins
In gaining control of the Senate, the GOP added at least four
additional reliable votes (from Colorado, Iowa, South Dakota and West Virginia)
for fossil-fuel agenda items like approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and
curbs on the Obama administration's plan to regulate coal power plant
emissions.
Obama has portrayed those coal plant rules as his most
significant climate change legacy-in-the-making, and GOP wins in key governors'
races like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida may prove especially important. Scott
Segal, who lobbies on behalf of energy industry clients as founding partner of
Bracewell & Guiliani's Policy Resolution Group in Washington, D.C., noted
that state regulators and elected officials have "the hardest tasks that
anybody has been given" when it comes to implementing the new regulations.
"Does more than the usual uptick in Republican governors
make a difference? In my view, it makes a huge difference," said Segal,
raising the possibility that there may be "recalcitrant states." As
with the Obama health care plan, some states may simply opt not to implement
the federal mandate; since state lawmakers will have to pass legislation in
some cases to put the required curbs on power plant emissions, it is likely to
be a long-running battle in any case.
Seeing the positive
Some environmentalists on Wednesday emphasized the positive in
the wake of Tuesday's grim results. "This election marked a pivotal change
in how candidates confront the climate crisis," said Sierra Club Executive
Director Michael Brune in a statement. "Even the most anti-environmental
candidates were compelled to greenwash their voting records and change their
tune on climate denial.
The climate on climate is changing."
The key challenge for climate advocates is not convincing voters
of the science but having its urgency hit home in a meaningful way. This fall,
Pew Research found that 61 percent of Americans believe that global warming is
happening, but they rank it far below the militant Islamic State group, Iran's
nuclear program, or North Korea's nuclear program as a major concern.
Economic concerns
The climate action movement also must grapple with and address
the very real short-term economic concerns that seem always to tip the scales
against long-term environmental action at the ballot box.
One of the bluest of
blue states, Massachusetts, voted Tuesday to keep gasoline prices low by
preventing them from increasing with the cost of living. That doesn't bode well
for political support for any effort to have fossil fuel prices reflect the
carbon emissions cost to the atmosphere.
A way forward
But again, Tuesday's few victories against fossil fuel do point
the way forward. Voters were stirred against the California refinery and Texas
fracking not just because of noise, foul smells, and health concerns, but
because they believed the operations were hurting their communities
economically, lowering property values and delivering few jobs.
The economic costs of climate change were literally spelled out
in only one ballot question on Tuesday – a post-Hurricane Sandy measure to
approve $3 million in bonds for flood prevention measures in Rhode
Island.
That is likely to amount to only a small down-payment on the
resilience measures that will be needed in the coming years on the Ocean
State's coastline of more than 400 miles. But its approval by 71 percent of
voters shows that some citizens are beginning to understand that climate
change, like all politics, is local.
Marianne
Lavelle is a staff writer for The Daily Climate. Follow her on Twitter @mlavelles.
Photo
of Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif. courtesy Scott Hess Photo.
The
Daily Climate is an independent, foundation-funded news service covering
energy, the environment and climate change. Find us on Twitter@TheDailyClimate or
email editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer [at] DailyClimate.org