After Senate climate votes, Dems see rift in GOP
Senate Republicans fended off Democratsâ climate change campaign in the Senate last week, but their strategy exposed cracks in the majority party. Republicans managed to neutralize a Democratic amendment on climate change in favor of a watered-down statement that left deliberately vague how much human activity is to blame for global warming. Story Continued Below But the move proved almost too successful: Fifteen Republicans agreed with Democrats that humans played at least some role in the changing climate, enough to put the amendment within one vote of passage, to the dismay of the Senate majority. The nearly successful Republican language came as a surprise and was welcomed by liberal stalwart Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. âWhat a breath of fresh air. â¦ I urge an âayeâ vote,â she told the Senate ahead of the roll call. The amendment authored by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), one of dozens proposed to the bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, came up in a whirlwind session that saw both parties angling to outmaneuver the other in a messaging battle over the first bill to hit the floor in the new Republican-controlled Senate. In the end, only a modest measure stating that climate change is real and not a hoax passed the chamber, winning even the backing of Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the author of a book that denounces the idea that climate change is man-made. But the 15 Republicans â including seven from red states as well as one likely presidential contender, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky âwent further, agreeing climate change was affected by human activity. GOP energy lobbyist and consultant Mike McKenna cheered the demise of Hoevenâs climate amendment, which left Democrats only a muddled campaign-trail message to use against vulnerable Republicans. Still, he warned that the number of Republican senators backing Hoevenâs amendment set a âreally troublingâ precedent, especially since Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) missed the vote while recuperating from his accident. âIf Harry Reidâs well, that passes,â McKenna said in an interview. As for Democrats, he added: âNext time theyâre going to come back much smarter, much tougher. â¦ If weâre losing Republicans on votes like that, we need to construct better votes.â The GOPâs trick play on the climate amendment had the party first propose language that stayed on message, praising âabundant, affordable, clean, diverse and secureâ energy, its mantra that includes fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. But an edit emerged in the hours ahead of the vote that borrowed the Democratic language on human-caused climate change but omitted the word âsignificantâ to describe the impact. Hoeven later told reporters that the change to include the climate language was made âbecause our members felt they needed something they could vote for,â though he was ultimately forced to vote against it to prevent it from reaching the 60-vote threshold. Some greens hailed the division among the Republicans and their leadership. Environmental Defense Fund senior director Jeremy Symons, a former Boxer aide, wrote Friday that the Hoeven vote âexposes [a] GOP rift on climate.â But several GOP senators who backed the Hoeven amendment sought to play down the importance of the vote, including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who dismissed it as no âbig deal.â And he noted that President George W. Bushâs top environmental adviser had acknowledged global warming and was âtrying to push technologies to deal withâ its effects. For Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), voting in favor of the measure was easy. âThere always has been [climate change], there always will be,â he said, but the impact from humans is âup for debate.â âClimate change is real â humans probably have some part of it,â said another Republican who backed Hoevenâs language, Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona. âHow significant? I donât know.â Republicansâ omission of the word âsignificantly,â he added, âreflects, I guess, some modesty about how little or as much as we know.â Still, the Democratic minority watched with interest as Hoeven was forced to vote against his own amendment to prevent it from passing. âTheir confusion was evident from our perspective,â one Senate Democratic aide recalled. Another Senate Democratic aide described the near-passage of Hoevenâs language as âhopefully a sign of progress to come, but only time will tell.â But greens were split on why Paul, whoâs weighing a White House bid in 2016, would take a vote that fellow conservatives could use against him. âBeing a denier isnât politically viable anymore,â Democratic political consultant David DiMartino wrote via email, citing polls that show Iowa and New Hampshire voters aligning with climate science and Mitt Romneyâs recent turn back to public acknowledgement of global warming. âRand must be seeing the same numbers Mitt is seeing.â Paulâs spokesman, Brian Darling, declined to comment on the vote. As recently as last April, Paul downplayed the threat of climate change and humansâ contribution to it, and he slammed potential presidential foe Hillary Clinton in September for saying global warming is among âthe most consequentialâ dangers to America. But Republican strategist McKenna said Paul voted yes on last weekâs climate proposal âon purpose,â since agreeing that humans play some role âis a pretty cheap way to hedge your bet.â âIn a crowded field, everyone is trying to be the standout,â Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund chief Heather Taylor-Miesle wrote in an email. âPaulâs vote could represent that thinking, but I just like to believe that he is coming around on the science and reading the tea leaves on the politics.â Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce took a dimmer view of Paulâs vote for the GOP climate language, saying in an interview that it âopens a conversationâ for the future but doesnât mark the Kentuckian as a pro-environment maverick. âMaybe he put his toe in the water, but he didnât go swimming.â Scientists at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other government bodies have for years raised the alarm about rising sea levels and higher temperature. The changes will threaten coastal populations and food supplies, while weather disasters become ever more destructive â unless humans quickly act to stem the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The offices of several other Republican senators who agreed last week that humans are changing climate did not return requests for comment by press time, including Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Mike Rounds of South Dakota. And even if Paul or the Republicans take heat for last weekâs vote, the oil industry remains confident that economic growth and jobs will turn out more voters than threats to the planet. âEven with Tom Steyerâs epic defeat at the ballot box last fall, some Democrats are still holding on to the hope that climate change is their winning ticket,â one industry source wrote via email, addressing the GOPâs climate stance on condition of anonymity. âThe American people made it very clear where they stood in the last election. The Steyer wing of the party should be put on notice.â