House Republicans to unveil conservative road map on climate, energy. (WaPo)

Morrison71

HR Legend
Nov 10, 2006
15,341
11,863
113
“House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy plans to call for boosting domestic fossil fuel production and streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) plans to unveil a strategy Thursday outlining how Republicans would address climate change, energy and environmental issues if their party gains control of the House in the midterm elections, according to three people familiar with the matter.


The strategy calls for streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects, increasing domestic fossil fuel production and boosting exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, which proponents say is cleaner than gas produced in other countries, according to the individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe details that are not yet public.

The individuals cautioned that the road map is far-reaching and includes a variety of environmental priorities with broad support across the Republican conference. The final details will be announced Thursday afternoon, although additional information will be shared in the coming weeks, according to one of the people.

The plan is expected to take a much more modest approach to slashing planet-warming emissions than proposals from President Biden and congressional Democrats, who have focused on accelerating the nation's transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Leading scientists have said the world must rapidly phase out fossil fuels to stave off the consequences of unchecked climate change.

Republicans have historically opposed measures to tackle climate change, and the de facto leader of the party, former president Donald Trump, has mocked the scientific consensus on global warming. It is unclear whether the GOP plans would, in fact, reduce carbon emissions, or if they instead largely amount to an attempt to deflect political blame over Republicans' long-standing opposition to addressing catastrophic global warming.
Click to shrink...

To meet the more ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris agreement, the world must eliminate coal use within 30 years, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Gas dependence should be reduced by 45 percent, while oil use must fall 60 percent by the middle of the century, the IPCC said in a recent report that concluded humanity is running out of time to meet global climate goals.

“I welcome the efforts of anyone, regardless of party, who is willing to seriously tackle climate change — but on its face this does not look like a serious proposal," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said Wednesday of the GOP plan.

"Most people understand that a serious climate solution requires a shift towards cleaner sources of energy, but the Republicans apparently want to take us in the opposite direction, with more dependence on dangerous, dirty energy sources," Beyer added. "I understand that my Republican colleagues love fossil fuel production, but it simply isn't genuine or helpful to call that a climate change strategy."
Click to shrink...

Biden's climate and social spending plan, formerly known as the Build Back Better Act, has stalled in the Senate for months amid opposition from Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). If Democrats lose full control of government in the midterms, the president's climate agenda would face even greater legislative roadblocks, threatening his goal of cutting U.S. emissions in half this decade.

McCarthy, who would probably become speaker if the GOP picks up enough seats in the midterms, last year tasked Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) with chairing a task force on climate, energy and conservation. The strategy is the result of months of internal deliberations within that task force, which includes 17 GOP members.

Spokespeople for McCarthy and Graves declined to comment on the record ahead of the official rollout on Thursday.

McCarthy has said that House Republicans plan to release a broad policy agenda ahead of November's elections to give voters an idea of how the party would govern if it takes control of the House. That stands in contrast to the approach being taken by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said Senate Republicans do not plan to release any policy proposals and will instead campaign on their criticisms of congressional Democrats and the Biden administration.
Click to shrink...

The House GOP plan comes as Republicans seek to make gains with well-educated suburban voters in November. Some of these voters may want to see Republicans take a more proactive stance on climate change and energy policy, rather than letting Democrats dominate the debate, said George David Banks, a Republican climate policy expert who served as a White House climate adviser under Trump.

It's the competitive seats that make a difference," he said. "And most of those run through the suburbs. So there's certainly a recognition that you've got to win a critical mass of those to control the House."

Philip Rossetti, a senior fellow on energy at the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank, agreed.

"Republicans are poised to take the House, but keeping it is going to require showing moderate voters that they can govern," Rossetti said. "Building a climate platform that Americans can support helps them show that they're about more than just opposing Democrats."
Click to shrink...
 

Morrison71

HR Legend
Nov 10, 2006
15,341
11,863
113
68.gif
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,649
114,496
113
Every ~8# gallon of gas you burn creates 20# of CO2 waste.

And "sequestering" something that is a larger mass than what you started with is already an economically challenging venture. Thus, claims that the natural gas is "clean" are dubious w/o a thorough analysis and plan as to how you're going to do that.
 
Mar 11, 2020
19,618
16,982
113
We are going to be burning fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, you guys are bitching that we want them to be something we source ourselves. You guys just want to bitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,604
10,000
113
Let me get this straight now, the GOP is proposing a plan to combat a problem that they have denied even existed for the last 30 years?

I mean...isn't that a good thing though?

This is a positive step, long overdue. Both for the environment and politically. There is a LOT of room for the Republicans to go more mainstream on climate and still differentiate themselves for the "We have 14 minutes to eliminate the combustion engine before all life on earth bursts in to blames" crowd.

They have some really easy pickings on this part:

The strategy calls for streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects

Even climate change activists are complaining that Biden-era regulations around equity set-asides and environmental permitting make large scale clean energy projects necessary to combat global warming almost impossible to get off the ground.

Almost nobody in the public is actually against more renewable energy projects like wind and solar, and Republicans can and should stand up and promise xx number of clean energy projects in the next five years or whatever, which Biden absolutely can't do without betraying his special interests. They should absolutely beat this drum in concert with increasing domestic energy production. Let the democrats stand up and declare that "Yes, climate change is absolutely a ticking time bomb which will be the death of us all within a decade...but no, we can't built any more wind farms without 20% of the contract going to LBGTQ Native American firms, or disturbing a natural moth grass prairie."

Republicans and others (including myself) talk about how the Democratic messaging has merged far left of the mainstream in recent years. If that is true, its political malpractice not to occupy more of the center, and this is how to do it. Reacting to the far left shift by responding with a rightward response is idiotic.

Now let's do immigration.
 

Joes Place

HR King
Aug 28, 2003
121,649
114,496
113
Republicans and others (including myself) talk about how the Democratic messaging has merged far left of the mainstream in recent years.

This is not remotely the case.
And if you compare US politics with European, the current Democrats align much more closely with moderate Conservatives overseas.

The GOP has moved dramatically to the right over the past decades. Reagan and GHW Bush would look like Dems today, not remotely like today's conservatives.
 

mustang_hawk

HR All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2001
2,905
2,242
113
I mean...isn't that a good thing though?

This is a positive step, long overdue. Both for the environment and politically. There is a LOT of room for the Republicans to go more mainstream on climate and still differentiate themselves for the "We have 14 minutes to eliminate the combustion engine before all life on earth bursts in to blames" crowd.

They have some really easy pickings on this part:

The strategy calls for streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects

Even climate change activists are complaining that Biden-era regulations around equity set-asides and environmental permitting make large scale clean energy projects necessary to combat global warming almost impossible to get off the ground.

Almost nobody in the public is actually against more renewable energy projects like wind and solar, and Republicans can and should stand up and promise xx number of clean energy projects in the next five years or whatever, which Biden absolutely can't do without betraying his special interests. They should absolutely beat this drum in concert with increasing domestic energy production. Let the democrats stand up and declare that "Yes, climate change is absolutely a ticking time bomb which will be the death of us all within a decade...but no, we can't built any more wind farms without 20% of the contract going to LBGTQ Native American firms, or disturbing a natural moth grass prairie."

Republicans and others (including myself) talk about how the Democratic messaging has merged far left of the mainstream in recent years. If that is true, its political malpractice not to occupy more of the center, and this is how to do it. Reacting to the far left shift by responding with a rightward response is idiotic.

Now let's do immigration.
This would be a good thing if it actually led to some positive results. It would need to have a dozen or so GOP senators to have any chance of passing. I doubt that happens, Too much $ being spread around by special interest groups.
 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,604
10,000
113
Nuclear or people are just grandstanding.

Yep, this is my litmus test for whether any climate change alarmists are actually serious people.

If you don't have nuclear as part of your plan, I will dismiss you out of hand.

If you are talking nuclear, and if you have a plan for how to turn the screws on China and India, I'm definitely listening.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,910
15,824
113
I mean...isn't that a good thing though?

This is a positive step, long overdue. Both for the environment and politically. There is a LOT of room for the Republicans to go more mainstream on climate and still differentiate themselves for the "We have 14 minutes to eliminate the combustion engine before all life on earth bursts in to blames" crowd.

They have some really easy pickings on this part:

The strategy calls for streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects

Even climate change activists are complaining that Biden-era regulations around equity set-asides and environmental permitting make large scale clean energy projects necessary to combat global warming almost impossible to get off the ground.

Almost nobody in the public is actually against more renewable energy projects like wind and solar, and Republicans can and should stand up and promise xx number of clean energy projects in the next five years or whatever, which Biden absolutely can't do without betraying his special interests. They should absolutely beat this drum in concert with increasing domestic energy production. Let the democrats stand up and declare that "Yes, climate change is absolutely a ticking time bomb which will be the death of us all within a decade...but no, we can't built any more wind farms without 20% of the contract going to LBGTQ Native American firms, or disturbing a natural moth grass prairie."

Republicans and others (including myself) talk about how the Democratic messaging has merged far left of the mainstream in recent years. If that is true, its political malpractice not to occupy more of the center, and this is how to do it. Reacting to the far left shift by responding with a rightward response is idiotic.

Now let's do immigration.

I’m pessimistic they even put this out for formal consideration.
 

Nole Lou

HR All-American
Apr 5, 2002
4,604
10,000
113
I’m pessimistic they even put this out for formal consideration.

Even setting aside what's right right, it's politically stupid not to. Which means you are probably 100% correct.

Man, I remember when we used to complain about parties doing things for naked political reasons instead of "convictions" or whatever. We conservatives used to love to bash Bill Clinton for that in particular.

Well those were the damn good old days, the parties today can't even be bothered to do the correct political thing the vast majority of the time, its just a series of mounting self-owns on both sides. And it's far, far worse than it was when politicians were merely acting in naked political self-interest. At least naked political self-interest required some satisfaction of significant swaths of actual voters.

Now, every time a party abandons a totally reasonable, vastly popular position (say, that there's such a thing as biological gender, or that not everybody should be easily able to obtain weapons of war), the reaction should be the other party saying "OMG let's take over this gigantic, amazingly popular, common sense middle ground and ensure electoral dominance!"

No, instead the other party says "YES! Now we can get even MORE extreme, and still claim to be two millimeters less out of touch than they are!"

So you have these wonderful reactions from each party (and yes, I know I'm using the least charitable and most extreme version of both party's rhetoric, but that's what our political discourse is now so it's not unuseful to my point):

Police violence against African Americans...
D: Defund and/or abolish policing!
R: Ban discussions of slavery in schools!

Gender issues:
D: Men can have babies!
R: Acknowledge homosexuality in school and be fired!

And so on and so on. It's pathetic. We can't even get basic political self interest out of our politicians any more.