Jerrad Christian is a Democrat running in an Ohio district that is slowly shifting from rural red to suburban purple. The Republican incumbent, Troy Balderson, is a garden variety conservative who has— for whatever reason— bought into the MAGA wing of the party. But he still worries that all these new suburban voters in Delaware, Licking and Fairfield counties are going to realize he’s part of virtually every problem rather than the solution to any. So, like many conservatives who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Climate Crisis, he joined the Conservative Climate Caucus which simultaneously does nothing while making it appear that its member care, at least a little, about the most potentially devastating looming crisis hovering over mankind. Christian isn’t fooled. “My opponent,” he pointed out, “has pocketed around $100k from oil and gas companies this election cycle. He claims natural gas is green energy, which is like saying switching from chicken to beef makes you a vegan. His position, backed by gas company dollars, undermines the credibility of any group claiming to protect our future from climate disaster. With my background as a meteorologist and oceanographer in the US Navy, I understand climate science; and I wouldn’t trade our children’s safety for any amount of money. It is clear desperation driving them to want to seem in touch with reality this late in the game. Proponents of fracking and fossil fuels are missing the big picture and only reflect the proverb: ‘Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.’”
Yesterday, Timothy Cama, shined a light on the members of the Conservative Climate Caucus, noting that Republicans worried about being reelected have been flocking to join. “Some of the most at-risk House Republicans in this year’s elections,” he noted, “have joined the Conservative Climate Caucus, a group that acknowledges man-made climate change but also sees fossil fuels as a ‘major part’ of reducing emissions… As Republicans continue grappling with how to address climate change from a conservative perspective, many in the caucus acknowledge its political benefits but say their interest in climate is sincere.”
He points to Brandon Williams from western New York’s Syracuse-area swing district. Williams, a “trained nuclear engineer, said he’s pushing for nuclear energy as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while making energy more affordable and secure.” Last week, Harvey Wasserman put the lie to this absurd contention of Williams’. “When it comes to the myth of nuke power helping to fight global warming… there’s no there there. Atomic reactors cause climate chaos. Some 415 reactors directly heat our air and water in concert with mega-explosions like Chernobyl and Fukushima. All pour radioactive carbon 14 into a lethal brew of filth and wastes… The mega-grift for unproven new nukes cripples the vital transition to renewables, multiplying the planet-killing impacts of fossil fuels…and of decrepit old reactors whose average age is now over 40… Atomic power has become what Forbes Magazine called in 1985 ‘the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.’”
Typical of this caucus— which has absolutely nothing to do with solving any Climate problems— members toured Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, which recently completed building two new nuclear reactors, the nation’s first in decades, to highlight their support for nuclear.’ Wasserman wrote last year that Vogtle emits radioactive Carbon-14, releasing additional greenhouse gasses through the process of mining, milling and enriching uranium-based fuel, as well as attempting to store it once it’s become radioactive waste. The reactors burn at ~570 degrees Fahrenheit, warming the planet on their own… After fifteen years, Georgia’s Vogtle # 3 has finally gone critical. Unit # 4 may open next year. Projected in 2008 at $14 billion, the pair together may yet exceed $40 billion. They’ll certainly be the last big light water reactors built in the U.S.” Their cost-overruns helped bankrupt Westinghouse.
“[E]ver since it was founded in 2021 by Rep. John Curtis (R-UT), Democrats and green groups alike have accused the caucus of acting as political cover to convince skeptical swing voters, while barely straying from GOP orthodoxy on climate and energy. They point to the Republicans’ lifetime voting records on climate and especially to votes against bills green groups hold dear, like the Inflation Reduction Act. ‘It’s great for these members to say that they care about climate. But their records very clearly show that they’re not voting for the things that we know, that science tells us, would actually solve the climate crisis,’ said Craig Auster, vice president of political affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, which hasn’t endorsed a Republican in four years.”
There are few better examples than Arizona swing district reactionary David Schweikert, who is petrified because his district flipped for Biden last cycle. Schweikert is a member of the caucus. His progressive opponent, Conor O’Callaghan, noted today that “Schweikert is a climate denier who is more interested in backing Big Oil than protecting our families from the threats of global warming. When elected I will prioritize fighting the climate crisis and securing a sustainable future for my district. There is no planet B.” If you’d like to help O’Callaghan and Christian replace Schweikert and Balderson in Congress… please visit this Flip Congress ActBlue Page.
Cama wrote that some of the members admitted “electoral pluses” were at least part of why they had joined the caucus. “‘I do think it’s something that some of these individuals can utilize as a benefit to them in reelection,’ said caucus chair Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)… Auster, the LCV political affairs VP, said that on average, members of the Conservative Climate Caucus scored 5 percent on the 2023 edition of the National Voter Scorecard, the group’s yardstick for measuring lawmakers’ environmental voting records. That’s slightly above the House GOP’s overall average of 4 percent.” Last year, both Balderson’s and Schweikert’s scores were ZERO. Williams’<> was 8 and chairwoman Miller-Meeks’ was the same, just 8.
“[A] scan of the roster,” wrote Cama, “makes it clear why. There are dozens of enthusiastic fossil fuel supporters as members: Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Science, Space and Technology Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK). Another member, Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) has been pushing to repeal the methane fee contained in the IRA. On its website, the caucus vows to ‘fight against radical progressive climate proposals.’”
“It’s a way for these members to try to get cover for some really extreme votes for the oil and gas industry and not for the health and safety of their constituents,” Auster said, pointing to votes like the “Lower Energy Costs Act,” H.R. 1, which got support from all House Republicans, and the numerous House votes to roll back provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.
“I think voters are smart enough to look and see what people have actually done, and not just accept something like this,” said Auster.
Comments