Republicans Win Control Of US Senate
For Tom Steyer and other environmentalists, $85 million wasn’t enough to help Democrats keep the Senate blue or win more than a single governor’s mansion in Tuesday’s toughest races. The billionaire’s super PAC and other green groups saw the vast majority of their favored candidates in the battleground states go down to defeat, despite spending an unprecedented amount of money to help climate-friendly Democrats in the midterm elections. The outcome brought gloating from Republicans and fossil-fuel supporters even before the results rolled in — and raised questions about whether greens can fulfill their pledge to make climate change a decisive campaign issue in 2016. –Andrew Restuccia, Politico, 5 November 2015
Climate Change: This was one of the dogs that didn’t bark in the 2014 election, even after liberal billionaire Tom Steyer spent an estimated $70 million to promote the issue and a new U.N. report Sunday warned of “severe, pervasive, and irreversible” global warming that will worsen without environmental policy changes. Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, said a GOP-led Congress is more likely to try to stop Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency from imposing new regulations on power plants than endorsing any additional steps to reduce U.S. carbon pollution. Said Brulle: “I am not an optimist about us doing anything – I think it looks bad for political action on climate change in any way.” –Will Bunsch, Philadelphia Daily News, 5 November 2014
The $12 million that the United States Senate has allocated to UN climate agencies is expected to be among the first casualties [after] Republican take control of the chamber following Tuesday’s midterm elections. The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, states that “none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” –Denis Fitzgerald, UN Tribune, 4 November 2014
The Keystone XL pipeline won big Tuesday night. Following an election night that saw anti-Keystone Democrats replaced by pro-Keystone Republicans, the oil-sands pipeline project now appears to have at least 60 supporting votes. That means legislation forcing approval of the long-delayed project may be headed to President Obama. Before the election, at least 57 senators could be counted on to support pro-Keystone legislation, but that was never enough to beat a filibuster from the project’s opponents. Tuesday night’s results appear to change that. –Clare Foran, National Journal, 5 November 2014
The expected Republican majority in the U.S. Senate after Tuesday’s mid-term elections is likely to seek to roll back federal regulations on power-plant emissions, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, expand oil and gas development on federal lands and work toward ending the 40-year ban on U.S. crude oil exports, energy experts said. “The Republicans will go to Obama and say, look, ‘We’ve got to get this done; your own government is saying this is fine. The election is over so you don’t have to worry,'” Lynch said. –Jon Hurdle, The Street, 4 November 2014
President Obama will continue to take action on policies to fight climate change whether or not Republicans take control of the Senate, the White House said. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Obama plans to keep using his executive powers to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. “The president will use his executive action to take some additional steps.” –Timothy Cama, The Hill, 4 November 2014
Thanks to Dr. Benny Peiser and The GWPF for this summary
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If there was an Obama era then it’s effectively over now.
John
Oregon? Eeeek!
I keep rooting for Art Robinson, did he get any support from national Republican funding? I’ve liked him since I saw him interviewed by Rachel Maddow before his last try. He handled her they way she should be handled.
Well I’m just a watcher from the side lines. But the national euphoria, needs to be tempered with a view of the California self immolation. It would appear that most of some 140 self imposed tax increases now beset Californians; well those who actually work for a living.
And moonbeam Brown just got himself a multi-billion dollar slush fund, that will not provide one drop more rain water, but will certainly feed his habits.
I believe that Californians use close to 100% of the total precipitation water, the State collects, with various recycling and multi-use programs (not bad).
So don’t expect to see any more water in the near future from this boondoggle tax Californians just heaped on themselves. Paying down the State’s huge debts, would have been a better idea.
Like Obama, Brown pays no heed to the California Constitution, and its two term limit on governors. But attorney General Camela Harris is not going to notice such things; after all she sees herself as next ion line.
But we shall see if the GOP can actually do anything, or whether they just worship a different set of false idols.
But congratulations to those of you who actually voted.
5 Nov: WaPo: Sen. Inhofe, denier of human role in climate change, likely to lead environment committee
By Tom Hamburger
If approved, Inhofe would replace Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), an avowed environmentalist, producing one of the most stark post-election changes in the Capitol…
In his 2012 book, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” Inhofe describes himself as a lonely crusader against an environmental-liberal conspiracy. “First I stood alone in saying that anthropogenic [manmade] catastrophic global warming is a hoax,” he wrote…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inhofe-an-epa-foe-likely-to-lead-senate-environment-committee/2014/11/05/d0b4221e-64f4-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html
I sure hope that Inhofe replaces Barbara Boxer on the environment committee. This would be a great step forward.
he he, CHANGE!…. not so much.
Personally I HOPE the Democrats push Climate Change in 2016! That would be another nail in their coffin, as rational people everywhere are either well aware that it is ridiculous, or at a minimum, it is the last thing on their list of concerns. Even the low information voters are far more interested in bread and butter issues than Climate Change. If the Climate continues to cool for a few more years, everyone will begin to realize that curbs on fossil fuels only hurt the most underprivileged members or society. Any measures that make energy more expensive are anti-job, anti-growth, and are the MOST regressive tax of all.
As we’ve comment before when these minor victories occur:
Here in Canada we moved away from a leftist government, and the Conservatives have managed to reduce the noise clamoring for “climate action”. But it will never go away. The left has completely overwhelmed the media and education system, which means two entire generations are true believers. You can’t deprogram this without significant social change, and the left are masters of organizing and financing social change. Which is an irony, since they claim it’s the right that are awash in money.
Anyway, good for the voters, I’m glad to see this message sent to the big zero.
Somehow if things get as cold over the next couple of decades as some are postulating, those brainwashed will be the disillusioned counter zealots. If the northern provinces wind up having to evacuate due to glacial activity, that could change some minds.
“none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” Now the Alarmists really have a reason to say, “it’s worse than we thought”.
Finally!
“Change I can believe in!”
And hope, too!
I’ve heard some commentators asking something along the lines of, “Will the new Congress be able to compromise with Obama to stop the gridlock in Washington?”
I say, Hell NO!
What he’s trying to do and his enablers lost big. Make him back down. Block him at every turn.
(Unless he wants to resign.8-)
Republicans need to re-direct federal spending away from meaningless CO2 research and toward realistic new energy sources such as “new” nuclear.
Indeed, they need to break the spending up into a thousand different bills and send them to the President one at a time starting with the bare essentials of government and stopping at his first veto. Whatever isn’t funded at that point isn’t needed!
First order of legislation:
All Executive Orders must be approved by the appropriate sub-comittees in the House and Senate.
It was a very good day for the USA.
Take time to celebrate the results that come from hard work and ‘savor the flavor’!
I raise my glass to all who voted and especially to all who actively worked to get this ‘wave’ of new conservatives elected! Cheers to all!
Whistle wetted ‘n foam moustache wiped?? Good! Now (right now!) call up your ‘sitting’ legislators and tell them exactly what priorities you want them to focus on going forward…… Don’t give them time to ‘regain their equilibrium’! We’ve got them on the run. Drive them to focus on the priorities (fiscal discipline, limited government, lower taxes, less regulation, free markets, etc) that stimulate the private economy, provide real jobs with real paychecks, low cost energy, and in the process rekindles the self respect of all citizens, here in The Land of the Free… and The Home of the Brave.
Go Get ‘Em!
Mac
Thanks, Dr. Peiser. You have contributed greatly to keep up good, uncorrupted, science. We shall see what happens, hoping for cheaper, abundant, energy.
as some have commented already, the EU still has a lot riding on CAGW, even tho their ***actions expose their hypocrisy & own self-interest:
3 Nov: Telegram, Canada: French president calls on Canada to work for climate change agreement
Behind a firm show of solidarity with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the French president — in some
carefully chosen language — made clear he doesn’t want to see Canada deferring active participation on the environment until after the next federal election, set for October 2015.
During Monday’s state visit to Ottawa, Hollande outlined several upcoming international events on the road to Paris, indicating he wants to see Harper walking with him every step of the way.
They include this month’s G20 summit in Australia and next month’s international climate change meeting in Lima, Peru…
“I would like to host a number of events all along 2015, so that we reach this conference in December with a comprehensive and differentiated agreement which would be ready, specific, set and within a particular framework,” Hollande told a joint news conference with Harper on Parliament Hill…
Hollande said he wanted to avoid a similar fate as the 2009 Copenhagen summit, in which world leaders — despite an 11th-hour effort — failed to reach a substantive deal.
“We have to find an agreement in the coming months,” he said.
Harper didn’t shy away from the challenge, touting Canada’s sector-by-sector approach and success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the Alberta oilsands and banning coal-fired electricity generation.
***He also noted that the European Commission had backed off its plan of ranking Alberta oilsands crude in a category that would have branded it as dirty oil…
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Canada—World/2014-11-03/article-3927462/French-president-calls-on-Canada-to-work-for-climate-change-agreement/1
drivel from Time:
5 Nov: Time: 4 Ways the New Top Environment Senator Disagrees With Science
by Haley Sweetland Edwards
Meet Jim Inhofe
Inhofe: The Senator says hundreds of scientists dispute the idea that global warming is the result of human activity.
Science: 97% of international scientists working in fields related to the environmental sciences agree that current global warming trends are the result of human activity. No U.S. or international scientific institutions of any caliber dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change…
http://time.com/3558611/jim-inhofe-global-warming-climate-change-2014/
5 Nov: National Geographic: Mark Silva: Election Results Make U.S. Congress Action on Climate Change Even Less Likely
Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell, who will lead the Senate, emphasizes coal-mining jobs over warnings from scientists.
He successfully campaigned for reelection there with warnings about a “war on coal” he accuses Democratic President Barack Obama of waging. This helps explain what the United States won’t be doing about global warming in the near future…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141105-united-states-congress-election-climate/
The fake polar bear said, “We want you to tackle climate change.”
Well, U.S. voters finally did tackle climate change. They tackled it on fourth down, on the 1-yard line. Now we have the ball, and climate-change advocates have to stop us and get the ball back before they can have any hope of regaining their momentum.
For a long time now, global warming skeptics have had little chance of getting government grants to fund research. If that were reversed, making it very difficult for global warming alarmists to get grants, I have a feeling the so-called 97% consensus would dwindle to 3% in record time.
“They made it through the dodgy voting machines, but we’ve still got the executive orders.”
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/gop-name-missing-voting-machines-malfunction/
$11,000,000 to fund the IPCC? Just how much of a “commitment” is that to stopping global warming? It’s called being damned by faint praise. Let’s see:
$11,000,000 would fund part of one bombing run in Syria
$11,000,000 is less than the amont a Silicon Valley company can raise to develop an app for taking better selfies
[insert your example here]
The Obama admin talks big about CAGW, but doesn’t back it up with real money. “Solving” the problem would require all the resources of the US and every other government in the world. The total committment of the US, (what is it, $2 billion or so) is so little as to be insulting – if they really thought CAGW was as important as say, bombing Arabs. Based on money spent, they obviously don’t. Case closed.
In reality, no national government or group of them can successfully convert the world off of fossil fuels. It will take new technology developed by transnational corporations and will deploy it in spite of governemnts who will then be arguing to protecty their legacy fossil fuel producers.
PS: $0 for the IPPC.
drink liberal tears
laugh out loud at stupid fears
don’t let down your guard
I disagree, they have state mandates to cut co2. Windmills are going up left and right, solar farms, epa, they are here to stay,sadly imo election was about irs,bengazi, fast and furious, isis………imo
One important fact we need to keep in mind is that the MSM will do every thing in it’s power to trash the Republicans and restore the “credibility” of the progressive agenda. They effectively restored Clinton after his lies about sex in the oval office. The MSM in the long haul have control over the information that is feed to a majority of the public and they strongly influence public opinion. Many of us frequently make the mistake of believing that facts really matter. The only reason this election bucked the message of the MSM is that the Administration was so incompetent and has gone so far overboard on so many issues that the MSM could no longer effectively cover it up. Also a poor economic recovery is difficult to cover up.
For example, the reason so many still believe in global warming and climate change is because they have been effectively miss-informed by the MSM.
I expect the media will be able to swing the pendulum given enough time.
The MSM loses credibility every day, they even lost the especially thick millenials now. There is no obvious way for them to gain it back. Instead they’re dying (layoffs at CNN, NYT etc).
Worse, they just decided to censor all news about Ebola suspects.
So, do not say that facts don’t matter. Facts are cryptonite to the media.
little gratitude from the CAGW choir:
6 Nov: LA Times: Evan Halper/Mark Z. Barabak: Tom Steyer sees little payoff for millions spent on green issues
Environmentalists had something in their arsenal for Tuesday’s election they never did before: a billionaire benefactor…
The Republicans who won control are already making plans to roll back President Obama’s signature emission reduction efforts, green-light the controversial Keystone XL pipeline … and cancel subsidies for renewable energy.
Steyer says he has no regrets…
“I feel great,” he said by phone from his organization’s San Francisco office. “We set out to put climate on the ballot in a bunch of states, to build an organization and to build a relationship with a bunch of voters.”…
He chalked up Tuesday’s results to “that part of the world we don’t control.” …
G. Terry Madonna, Franklin & Marshall College Poll in Lancaster: “Steyer’s impact was “Zero. None. Zero,” he said. Climate change “was not an issue at all. It has literally no salience with voters. It didn’t ever come up.”…
Even Steyer’s strategists acknowledge that climate change is not a top-tier issue now. The question is whether it ever will be…
“This is a multi-cycle effort,” said Chris Lehane, Steyer’s lead political strategist. “If it was easy, it already would have been done…. Social change like this is not like switching on a light bulb.”…
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune acknowledged there was a “copious amount of bad news” in Tuesday’s election. But he says there was “significant good news” as well.
“Candidates who formerly denied climate science are now saying they are not scientists and instead talk about clean energy and associate themselves with it,” he said.
“The money from Tom Steyer made a difference in elevating climate science and pushing all these lawmakers to move off a denial platform,” Brune said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-steyer-environment-20141106-story.html#page=1