Climate’s on the ballot like never before

Each election is the most important ever for climate policy.  As greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere, climatic warming and ocean acidification intensify, and the time to act dwindles.  When George W. Bush and Al Gore squared off in 2000 (both promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions), carbon dioxide concentrations were at 370 parts per million and scientists were ringing alarm bells; they are now above 400 ppm (higher than they have been for millions of years).  Meanwhile, nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000; average temperatures in 2015 surpassed the prior record (set in 2014), by a lot, and 2016 will likely break that record going away. Observed impacts of carbon pollution – from coastal flooding to disappearing polar ice to dying coral reefs – are more pronounced than 16 (or even four) years ago. 

But the 2016 presidential election is especially momentous for reasons that go beyond the reality that “time’s a-wastin” if we want to preserve a climate congenial to human society, natural resources, and biodiversity.

{mosads}Unlike prior presidential elections, this one takes place with substantive greenhouse gas control policies in place at the international and national levels: The December 2015 Paris Agreement provides for long-term greenhouse gas reductions on a global scale linked to concrete climate milestones; enough large-emitting countries have already ratified it (including the United States, China, India, Brazil and the European Union) that it will enter into force on Nov. 4, 2016.  And President Obama’s EPA has adopted, under the Clean Air Act, a series of national rules providing for significant reductions in carbon emissions in the United States.

These accomplishments did not come easily.  The Paris Agreement emerged from years of difficult and often disappointing international negotiations as a striking breakthrough or even “miracle.” On the home front, the 2007 Supreme Court decision confirming that the Clean Air Act applies to control carbon pollution – itself the culmination of years of litigation – was followed by a decade of fighting about how to apply the Act to carbon pollution.  Despite political attacks, repeated efforts to repeal EPA’s statutory authority, and seven solid years of all-out litigation from opponents, this Administration managed to finalize regulations securing major reductions in emissions from the largest categories of sources – cars and trucks, fossil-fuel burning power plants, and oil and gas production facilities. It has also required that federal agencies factor into their decisions the cost to society of carbon pollution.

When measured against the scale of the problem, even these big steps are modest. But for this most technically and politically challenging of pollution problems, this is what progress looks like. Together with the historic breakthrough in Paris (and more recent agreements on aviation emissions and hydrofluorocarbons), the domestic legal developments give reason for optimism that has been hard to come by in this area. They provide greater certainty for industry and investors, disprove opponents “parade of horribles” objections, and lay the groundwork for future measures.

Most of the hard work still lies ahead. The next President will play a central role in deciding whether the Paris accord develops into a robust global mechanism to avert the worst impacts of climate change, or falls apart amidst national rivalries and short-term politics. Defending the existing Clean Air Act policies against ongoing legal challenges, and devising cost-effective, durable ways of securing deeper pollution reductions will take dogged commitment and real skill.

Which brings us to the second thing that makes the 2016 election singularly important for climate: Never has there been such a gulf between the major parties’ presidential nominees on climate change policy.

For the first time since climate change became a political issue in the 1990s, one of the major-party tickets outright denies its importance (and sometimes even its reality).  Both Donald Trump and Mike Pence have repeatedly called climate change a hoax and a non-problem.   Trump has vowed to “cancel” the United States’ participation in the Paris Agreement, and to rescind the Obama Administration’s central power plant rule, the Clean Power Plan, as well as other core Clean Air Act regulations.  His designated EPA transition chief is a climate skeptic and staunch opponent of greenhouse gas regulation.  Pence has insisted that the Earth’s atmosphere is cooling, had an exceptionally weak environmental record in Congress, and has supported legal efforts to invalidate federal carbon regulations.  Trump’s and Pence’s open and notorious opposition to climate action is unprecedented in candidates so close to power – and at odds with most voters in their own party.

Hillary Clinton, in contrast, recognizes climate change as an “urgent threat,” has a keen interest in climate policy, and has developed an ambitious climate program.  She strongly supports the Paris Agreement, and, as Secretary of State, helped to lay the groundwork for the negotiations that led to it.  She has pledged to defend federal climate regulations, and to pursue additional means to reduce carbon pollution and promote renewable energy.  Her campaign chair is a seasoned environmental policy expert and leading climate hawk.  Nothing will be easy, but all indications are that she would make climate a top priority and build upon what has been achieved over the last decade, nationally and internationally.

Whoever wins on Nov. 8, the economic forces, state policies, and citizen concerns driving rapid growth in clean energy will not vanish.  And there are legal constraints on a new Administration’s ability to undo regulations or defy statutory obligations.  But the inertial power of a Chief Executive who really does not want to act is immense.  Electing a President on a platform that dismisses climate change itself; promises to undo foundational policies that are already in place; and spurns an international consensus in favor of carbon control, would be a severe blow the entire climate change mitigation effort.  At best, it would sacrifice time that we don’t have.  

Sean H. Donahue has represented environmental and health organizations in litigation over greenhouse gas regulations, including litigation over the Clean Power Plan.  He previously taught law at Washington & Lee, Iowa and Georgetown; was an attorney in the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.