Tuesday’s midterm elections have substantially changed priorities related to environmental issues. They essentially realigned not only national congressional voting blocs but also a large number of state legislatures. This will affect environmental legislation for at least the next few years. The rise of the Tea Party movement and the success of Republicans in taking the House of Representatives dealt a serious blow to the prospect of far-reaching environmental regulation.

To put it simply, climate denial and the rejection of cap and trade espoused by most Republicans, even several conservative Democrats, are dangerously irresponsible. The success of candidates who have actively rejected this scientific consensus throws into question the ability of our current lawmakers doing anything in the next few years to deal with one of the biggest long-term problems facing our country. The focus must change if we are to begin the transition to a green economy and try to achieve a sustainable energy platform.

Exit polls suggest the obvious: The economy and the unemployment rate were the biggest concerns on voters’ minds. Every piece of legislation that should be discussed in the next few years must focus on assuaging these concerns. It’s not worthwhile to fight the anti-science Republicans and conservative Democrats on the merits of climate change. But it’s still worthwhile to push for ways to invest in the technological challenges of building a domestic energy platform that is sustainable and creates a whole new sector for employment.

The 112th Congress needs to ensure that the United States is on the path to 100 percent domestically produced clean energy. This will help eliminate the problems of resource scarcity and price volatility that are predicted for oil and coal in the coming years. We need to create jobs by employing the unemployed to help build a new national electrical grid that meters electricity more effectively, in addition to transferring substantial power over long distances. Furthermore, we need to build 21st century nuclear power that is safe, clean and can replace domestic coal entirely within a decade. Even if one disregards climate change, these are economic changes that will benefit the United States substantially in the coming years and help stimulate demand in our very underutilized labor market.

In California, one voter initiative was widely underreported. Proposition 23 aimed to suspend most of California’s existing greenhouse gas emissions regulations until the unemployment rate stayed under 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, which rarely happens in California. The two groups leading the charge for its success were the Texas-based oil companies Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, both of which hate the compliance fees for operating in California’s massive energy market.

After getting on the ballot and being rebranded as the ‘California Jobs Initiative’ to spruce up its image, Proposition 23 was soundly defeated. This is a good sign that even if the national discourse is still science vs. self-serving delusion, the public in certain states has come around the scientific consensus for common-sense environmental regulations. Hopefully this trend continues and spreads to the rest of the country.

On the whole, Tuesday’s midterm elections were bad for those who would prefer to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change rather than plug their ears with their fingers and yell childish vitriol about job-killing energy taxes. But there is some hope. In 2006, California instituted incredibly far-reaching proposals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and the public has continued to act favorably even with a high unemployment rate. Perhaps we have yet to see a national discussion that is generative and helpful toward mitigating future catastrophe, but it’s coming soon. At least I certainly hope so.

Luke Lanciano is a junior political science major. His column appears every Tuesday, and he can be reached at lllancia@syr.edu.

 

Published on November 8, 2010 at 12:00 pm