Something pretty remarkable has happened in the last month, and I don’t think many people have noticed. After several years in which climate policy was sidelined from beltway political discussion, after a presidential campaign in which the issue was almost entirely ignored, it’s clawing its way back into the conversation. You can feel the terrain shifting beneath our feet subtly but unmistakably.
First there was Sandy, a devastating, 100-year storm that hit the nation’s media capital, highlighted just how much damage higher sea levels can do, and caused an estimated $50 billion in damages. The elephant in the room–the fact that storm intensity will likely grow in the future, and combine with higher sea levels to do even more damage–did not go unnoticed by politicians.
Then came news that 2012 was the warmest year in the United States ever recorded, and not by a little bit. By a full degree Fahrenheit. And then, suddenly, after saying hardly a word about the climate for much of the last year, the president himself, to his great credit, has pushed it back onto the agenda. In his inaugural address he surprised observers by saying this early in the speech, as the first domestic policy issue he mentioned after dealing with the economy:
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
During Tuesday night’s State of the Union speech, the president once again foregrounded climate, putting it as the first domestic policy issue after the economy and was even more emphatic in his promises to act, saying, “I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”
Then on Thursday, the independent congressional watchdog the Government Accountability Office came out with a new report identifying risks to the government and at the top of the list was the the fiscal exposure the federal government faces due to Climate Change. Remarkably, Darrell Issa, the Republican Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee–he of the Fast and Furious scandalmongering, bete noir of liberals–had this to say about the GAO report:
“I don’t want to walk away from anything in this report…when you look climate change and Hurricane Sandy, and others, it points out that we have under-prepared through FEMA, and through our emergency funds including flood control for a generation.”
Finally this week, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer introduced a new, ambitious climate bill that, in the admittedly unlikely event it is passed, would represent a major victory for climate activists with its $20 tax on each ton of carbon pollution as well as its enabling the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fracking.
After several years of painful, bewildering, infuriating exile, climate policy is back on the agenda. Thank god.
Now, I don’t want to minimize just how far things still have to go and how many challenges there are to overcome to make the kinds of changes required to reduce the risk of total disaster. We were reminded once again this week of the lengths the wealthiest industry in the country, the fossil fuel companies who have trillions of dollars on the line, will go to preserve their right to dump their pollution cost free.
This week the Guardian newspaper reported the conservative dark money group Donors Trust funneled almost $120 million between 2002 to 2010 to groups denying the science on climate change. And that’s on top of the sizable funding from Koch Industries, Exxon and others towards denialist groups. That funding and the pro-pollution lobbying infrastructure aren’t going anywhere.








