Democrat Jay Inslee, a gubernatorial candidate in Washington State, is considered a "Climate Hero."

Once upon a time, both Republicans and Democrats saw climate change as a problem. For a fleeting moment last election cycle, candidates across the board talked about the problem and supported implementing policies to do something about it.

But that (often tenuous) bipartisanship has completely reversed. As GOP lawmakers tiptoed away from their earlier support for climate action in recent years — with many eventually moving toward outright rejection of the science — the issue has become almost entirely partisan. Some former Republican lawmakers are trying to bring their party back around, but there are very few signs that climate will become less politicized after the election.

So in today’s election, a “win” in the eyes of climate advocates largely means a “win” for Democrats. As a result, environmental groups have targeted key races that will put Democratic environmental champions in office and limit the influence of Republicans with poor climate records.

Below are some political outcomes environmental groups have been pushing for that might favor climate action in the coming years.

1. Passing the Proposal 3 ballot initiative in Michigan.

This is one of the toughest fights for clean energy advocates this election. Proposal 3 is a ballot initiative in Michigan that would amend the state’s constitution and increase renewable electricity targets to 25 percent by 2025. The proposal initially had majority support from voters and a high profile endorsement from Bill Clinton. But after the state’s two largest utilities and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity raised more than $25 million to defeat the measure, sentiment has shifted in the other direction.

In a year when clean energy has become a major political attack point, Michigan’s ballot initiative was billed as a Big Deal for establishing positive momentum. But proponents were outspent 2-1 by coal-heavy utilities, significantly weakening their campaign. If the current polls are any indication, this will be a loss tonight.

2. Defeating members of the “Flat Earth Five.”

In July, the League of Conservation Voters rolled out a $1.5 million campaign to defeat members of Congress who deny that climate change exists. Dubbed the “Flat Earth Five,” the list of Republicans includes Anne Marie Buerlke (NY), Dan Benishek (MI), Dan Lungren (CA), Francisco Canseco (TX), and Joe Walsh (IL). These five candidates represent only a small number of climate deniers in the House of Representatives. But they are more vulnerable than others, and LCV specifically targeted them for their climate views in order to influence tighter races.

In a Politico op-ed today, LCV’s President, Gene Karpinski, outlined the organization’s strategy for targeted ads and mailers: “Coming into this daunting election cycle, LCV understood that we could never match our deep-pocketed opposition dollar for dollar. But we knew from extensive polling that voters are with us on the issues; they strongly support clean energy and want leaders who will confront the challenge of global warming.”

The outcome of these House races will be an indicator of how well this strategy worked.

3. Electing “Climate Heroes” to office.

Read more

by Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman

Lingering high oil and gasoline prices contributed to another quarter of huge profits for the big five oil companies: BP plc, Chevron Corp, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corp, and the Royal Dutch Shell Group. They earned a combined $28 billion in the third quarter of 2012, reaping more than $90 billion in profits through the first three quarters of the year. (see Table 1) As they did last year, the “big five” are on track to easily exceed $100 billion in profits this year.

What makes this figure all the more staggering is that these companies actually produced less oil in 2012 compared to 2011. The big five oil companies’ total oil production in the third quarter was 5 percent—or 400,000 barrels per day—lower than in the third quarter of 2011.

And despite such impressive profits, U.S. taxpayers are still subsidizing these companies. In 2012 the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that these big five oil companies would receive $2.4 billion in special tax breaks. The three U.S. oil companies among this cohort—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil—also pay a relatively low effective federal tax rate. Reuters reports that in 2011 these three companies paid 19 percent, 18 percent, and 13 percent effective federal tax rate, respectively. These oil companies’ tax rates, Reuters concluded, are “a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate.”

So what benefits do these profits produce? Do they create new jobs, as those advocating for the tax breaks and lower corporate tax rates would lead us to believe? Not exactly. Between 2005 and 2010—the last year for which data is available—the “big five” reduced their workforce by 11,200 employees, according to a report by the Democratic staff of the House Natural Resources Committee. And the profits certainly haven’t been used as a buffer to lower gas prices, which are still hovering around $3.50, according to the American Automobile Association. Instead, the companies used these enormous profits on some other activities.

Read more

by Anne Polansky

Several days before Sandy made landfall, my home-insurer sent me a love note: “Hurricane Sandy is on her way,” said the email, “and you may be impacted.” But not to worry: “We’ve got you covered.” Whew!

Who are the less fortunate, I wondered, that are not getting such reassuring messages, and are not adequately covered for damage associated with extreme weather? More broadly, what is the increasingly risk-exposed insurance industry doing to prepare and plan for increasingly intense extreme weather fueled by climate change?

The answer is, not surprisingly, much, much too little.

Most homeowners’ policies now specifically exclude coverage for floods (including mine in a low-lying DC suburb). Property owners in flood-prone areas, officially designated by the federal government, now must purchase flood insurance through FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program. Others outside these zones can buy from NFIP as well. But controversy and some shady local politics have created bizarre situations where small, low-lying wealthier neighborhoods near bodies of water lie mysteriously just outside the boundary of the nearby designated flood areas — after all, being prone to floods is bad for real estate values. And, illogical beyond comprehension, the oldest most vulnerable properties that flood over and over and over again, year after year, have historically been charged lower NFIP premiums than homes in less-risky areas.

General poor planning and anticipation has created a dire situation in which the NFIP is itself under water, according to a Nov. 2 Washington Post editorial: “At the moment, the NFIP has access to about $4 billion, plus a $20.8 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury — of which it has already borrowed $18 billion.”

In other words, sunk. Gotta make that call to Mom & Dad Uncle Sam again. How did this happen?

Read more