Environmentalists hope to use an ambitious bill from presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others to rally activists to a broad new cause: ending future fossil fuel production on federal land.
The effort faces long, if not impossible, odds, especially in the short and medium term. But grassroots leaders insist their push isn’t a quixotic one.
{mosads}The movement, they say, has flexed its muscles and tallied a share of victories recently, and if they can convince the next Democratic presidential nominee to join their side — and get enough supporters in Congress to push it through — they say they might have a chance of achieving this new goal.
Their efforts were buoyed on Friday when President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, reasoning, in part, that “we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.”
Greens’ new target, though, is bigger than one pipeline. The bill they’re backing, introduced Wednesday by Sens. Sanders, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and others, would block all future lease sales for coal, oil, natural gas and other energy development on federal land and decline the renewal of leases that aren’t producing today.
Energy groups scoffed at the effort this week, and with Republicans in control of Congress, the bill is going nowhere any time soon.
But its backers said this is just the first volley in what will be a long fight.
“If you’re holding your breath, or thinking of holding your breath, waiting for a committee chair to hold a hearing on such an important issue to America and the world, don’t,” Merkley told supporters this week.
“It’s not going to happen at this moment in this building. It’s going to depend on grassroots rallying across America. It’s the grassroots that are going to make a difference.”
Merkley and Sanders rallied with the Sierra Club, the climate change group 350.org and other environmental activists this week, each promising a heavy push for ending federal fossil fuel production and an effort to take the issue to the American electorate.
Sanders’ sponsorship of the bill means it could become a political issue in the Democratic presidential nomination contest.
Front-runner Hillary Clinton has moved to the left on climate issues, but, to activists’ disappointment, she has also said it’s too soon to rule out future public fossil fuel development.
Asked about the matter on Wednesday, Sanders said he “would hope” Clinton would get behind the plan.
“If we are serious about climate change, we can’t just talk the talk, we have got to walk the walk,” he told reporters.
“The point is, here on federal land, in my view, in Sen. Merkley’s view, we should not be, in the future, extracting our oil and coal and gas from that land at the same time as we’re trying to combat climate change — it just makes no sense at all.”
But even if Americans elect a president with a liberal energy policy, they’ll need Congress to come in and pass a bill banning future lease sales, something that will not happen under Republican control.
To that end, lawmakers and activists said they want to talk about federal energy production in down-ballot races as well.
“The grassroots are really going to have to rally to make this is an issue — an issue in community after community after community, an issue for every race for the House side, every race for the Senate side, and for this presidential race,” Merkley said.
Given the right conditions, observers say they might be able to craft a winning message.
Adam Rome, an environmental history professor at the University of Delaware, said that as climate change becomes a more mainstream concern in the United States — and if renewables can keep energy rates down — voters might get on board with the group’s plan.
He noted Obama announced the Keystone decision while gas prices are low and on the same day a positive jobs report came out, factors that allowed him to claim the high ground on the matter.
Environmental leaders, while recognizing the long odds today, say they’re optimistic about their long-term success because of a few major wins for the movement this year.
First was Shell’s decision to stop exploring for oil in the Arctic Ocean and Obama’s call to block immediate new lease sales there. Shell said its decision was financial, but greens note they had rallied against the drilling.
Second is Keystone. Obama rejected the project on Friday after a years-long push against the pipeline by environmental activists, and Rome said his framing of the decision is likely to be repeated by other leaders in the U.S. and around the world.
“I think once you state that some fossil fuels have to stay in the ground, then that opens up the debate: exactly which ones, and who will decide,” he said. “Some decisions will be made by the market, but obviously public lands is something that’s a governmental decision.”
That will be a heavy lift for many lawmakers. Energy interests noted this week that federal energy production was worth $127.4 billion in royalty payments between 2003 and 2013, and they said blocking new leases in the future could hurt the American energy supply, raise prices and prevent new jobs.
“The false choice is a political stunt by those who are spouting populist rhetoric for political points; they are not being honest with American voters,” American Petroleum Institute Vice President Louis Finkel said in a statement.
But greens think they have the momentum — and the sense of urgency — on their side.
“My guess is it’s going to happen because Mother Nature continues to make a persuasive case,” Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, said.
“The only interesting question at this point is whether it happens fast enough to make any difference or not.”