Breakthrough: The Energy Debate and Global Warming Politics

According to new polling from Gallup, voters are now blaming Congress for high gas prices at a level equal with price gouging by oil companies and price gouging by oil producing countries. And in a reversal of recent trends, voters now blame Congress more than they blame the Bush Administration.

As Peter Teague and I wrote last year, when gas was significantly cheaper than it is today, climate policy is inextricably intertwined with voter attitudes on energy prices. The debate over gas prices in the Congress will likely have a lasting impact on the political appetite for action on climate in the 111th Congress.

While the survey doesn't answer this question directly, it seems like some of the attacks against the Democrats in Congress - particularly their opposition to outer continental shelf drilling - is having an effect with voters. The frame it sets up - that Democrats will put environmental concerns ahead of energy price concerns - could have a pretty substantive effect on the climate change debate, particularly if voters are still exercised about the cost of energy (which they likely will be for the foreseeable future).

In virtually every credible recent survey, energy prices (gas prices specifically) are the top concern of voters this election cycle. The Democratic strategy is to blame high prices on market speculators and to blame the Republicans for policies that favor oil companies while pointing out that Republicans have done nothing in the areas of efficiency and renewable energy. The Democrats are, of course, correct. But in terms of communicating with voters, explaining why the problem is occurring is quite different than taking action to address the problem.

The dirty little secret about gas price politics is that there is little that can be done in the short term to bring down the cost of gasoline. Democrats often actually say this. But the Republicans in Congress are working hard to claim that they're at least willing to take some action to solve the problem - namely, drilling on the OCS and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We know that drilling will do little to increase supply in the long term, and nothing to increase supply in the near term. But from a purely political perspective, the Republicans are offering to do something, and pushing the message that the Democrats aren't even willing to vote on their solution. This sets up the debate (in their words) as such: the GOP has a solution, and the Dems are blocking it because they care more about the environment and environmental interest groups than they do about the hardship the cost of energy is causing your family.

Given that subtext, it will be fascinating to see what the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate does with OCS. The GOP (or some of them), if you haven't heard, has cancelled their August recess, and are holding a series of odd "debates" in the House Chamber (which is empty and dark with the cameras and microphones shut off) saying that Congress shouldn't recess until the problem is dealt with. They're asking for a special session and an up-or-down vote on drilling. They know that if OCS comes to a vote, it would likely pass - there are too many Democrats in marginal districts that do not beleive they can vote against it. Even Senator Obama has softened his opposition to drilling as energy becomes the focus of the presidential race. But if leadership doesn't hold a vote on it, and the GOP continues its push, it will likely be the defining issue of the 2008 cycle. To be sure, Democrats are in a good place politically and I think Democrats will still pick up seats this cycle with or without an OCS vote. But energy is the only issue that has the potential to derail those plans. If leadership keeps seeing numbers like this, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of package that includes support for renewables, marginal market reforms and some drilling. We're not there yet, but if the GOP successfully pushes this throughout August, I wouldn't be surprised if Democratic leadership responds with some sort of compromise.

Across the country, groups like Freedom's Watch are pressuring Democrats from marginal districts to sign a discharge petition that would force a bill to provide drilling in both ANWR and the OCS to an up-or-down vote. If some of the these Democrats start to sign that petition (which is still more than 50 votes shy of the magic number 218), it could force Pelosi to craft some sort of compromise to provide cover for members from marginal districts.

Blaming the oil companies, the Bush Administration, speculators, and Republicans in Congress is a good strategy for a party in the minority. But finger pointing is not a strategy for the party in power, and the GOP has thrown down the gauntlet on energy prices. My fear is that the larger implication of this debate isn't about the 2008 election cycle, but that it reiterates the idea pushed by the GOP that Democrats care more about the environment in the future than they do about the financial hardships facing ordinary families today. This is precisely the frame the opponents of climate change legislation need in order to defeat efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and increase investment in new energy technologies. If they're successful in framing environmentalists and Democrats as putting the needs of the environment ahead of the needs of regular families, it will create a political environment that in which it is increasingly difficult for progressives to pass substantive climate change reforms.

And that's a much bigger concern than what happens during the final four or five weeks of the 110th Congress.

Post a comment