What the Primary Elections Mean for the Environment

Tuesday’s primaries were not billed as major events for environmental policy, but they could still have severe consequences for new environmental legislation – particularly a much-needed climate bill. Even Sen. John Kerry's optimism, previously a renewable resource, has been consumed.

Despite a Democratic supermajority and a successful bill in the House of Representatives, this summer witnessed another climate failure in the Senate. Unfortunately, the situation is not improving. In our warming world, the term “glacial pace” is now a completely appropriate description for climate policy progress: Decades of frustratingly slow advance are now reversing into a rapid retreat.

Given conservative political momentum and a marked anti-incumbent sentiment, the composition of the Senate will undoubtedly be even less favorable for climate action following November’s upcoming midterm elections.

A recent Wonk Room study showed that nearly all of the dozens of GOP Senate candidates this year oppose climate action of any kind whatsoever. Most of them deny or doubt climate science altogether. Even the few who previously voted for or even sponsored climate legislation, such as Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), now oppose action and even vocally question the science they used to cite. Apparently flip-flopping is back in vogue. Only Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) understands and embraces the need for climate regulation.

Good thing we at least have Castle on our side. Oh wait, we don't. On Tuesday, Palin-endorsed Tea Party challenger Christine O’Donnell pulled a "stunning upset" and defeated him at the polls.

And Castle is not the first moderate conservative to fall to an extremist challenger sure to be a solid ‘no’ for environmental protection. Last month, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) lost her primary to another climate-denying Tea Partier, Joe Miller.  It is sadly telling that even lame duck Murkowski—who is already back in Washington trying to gut EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions—is being mourned in some pragmatic environmental circles. Her bid to block EPA essentially involves replacing uncontroversial climate science with partisan political science—and she lost her primary for being too moderate?

There is no reason why the Republican Party can't be a home to environment champions, but these days it is taking a hard dive to the right. What's truly scary is, if these new hardliners are elected, every aspect of the environment agenda will suffer, whether that's climate and renewable energy, oil spill prevention or consumer protection.

Republicans are ahead in the polls, but not because America is suddenly more conservative. The reason they are expected to win big this year is that only especially motivated citizens vote during midterms. If I have nothing else positive to say about Tea Partiers, I'll give them that they are certainly energized. They say Americans want conservative governance, but a recent study showed that even the GOP's policy proposals are not popular right now. Most voters are just angry at Washington, not hopped up on Tea.

The only good thing about Tea Party candidates' rise is that it gives casual liberals and independent voters more incentive to vote against certifiable extremists. However, unless these anti-environment hyperconservatives galvanize enough extra Democratic votes to counter the Tea Party fervor they inspire, we will see a whole new crop of climate-deniers leading our nation’s government – for at least a six-year term in the Senate.

We must not let that happen. If you care for the environment, vote. Talk to your friends. If you have time, volunteer with a campaign or help get out the vote. There is too much at stake to let apathy derail critical environmental protection in our country.

Photo credit: Christine O'Donnell for U.S. Senate

Follow Change.org's Environment page on Facebook and Twitter.