What role will climate change play in the 2022 elections? And what can we expect from the newly elected Congress?
In the upcoming US mid-term elections, climate change, which also increasingly affects Americans personally and already causes massive loss and damage in the country, is an important, if not election-deciding, issue. It is not yet clear how much an expected Republican vote gain in the House of Representatives could jeopardize the Biden administration's climate policy agenda. It is clear, however, that such an outcome would severely curtail America's financial contribution to international climate protection efforts.
Climate change only seventh in voter priorities
According to a survey conducted at the beginning of October, around half of registered voters surveyed rated the issue of climate change as 'very important' or 'one of the most important issues' for their election decision on November 8th. Potential voters among marginalized and low-income populations, predominantly People of Color (POC), who are disproportionately affected by climate and environmental impacts, rated the importance of climate change significantly higher. Nevertheless, this places climate change only seventh in the thematic rankings after the economy (top of the list at 85 percent), abortion, crime and immigration, education and schooling, and inflation. As might be expected, these priorities differ markedly according to party affiliation: for 79 percent of Democrats but only 27 percent of Republicans, climate change is an important factor in their vote; independent voters are in the political middle at 46 percent.
Thus, the issue is unlikely to be electorally decisive in the midterm election, but it is likely to be an important motivating factor for several Democratic subgroups whose votes helped President Biden win the election two years ago: left-wing progressives, POC, and young voters. The lack of support from these groups could weigh particularly heavily in a traditionally lower turnout midterm congressional election. Not surprisingly, it is young and progressive Democrats who are frustrated with the pace of Biden’s climate agenda: while about 60 percent of Democrats would like to see more climate action by the government, especially at the federal level, the figure is about three-quarters among Democratic voters between the ages of 18 and 29. And 26 percent of young Democrats actually think the White House's climate policies are taking the country in the wrong direction (compared to just 9percent of Democrats over 65). Whether their dissatisfaction leads to midterm election lethargy, or whether they overcome their disappointment - also spurred on by other key Democratic issues such as LGBTQIA+ and abortion rights or gun control, which would be increasingly curtailed in a Republican takeover of Congress - will also determine if the president’s climate agenda can be implemented in the second half of his term.
Heading into the election, according to other polls, only about half of all Generation Z voters are 'absolutely sure' that they will vote, compared to a whopping 84 percent of those of retirement age. This is one of the reasons why the White House has recently been experimenting with targeted outreach efforts via social media influencers, for example to inform doubting young voters about the recent successful adoption of a comprehensive climate protection package via TikTok instead of a press release or election spot.
Voter support for Biden's climate agenda
A Pew Research Center poll from July, conducted before the Inflation Reduction Act became law in August with around US$369 billion in planed climate protection measures, shows the extreme polarization of voters with regard to the implementation of the US president's climate agenda. While around 80percent of Democrats see the government’s' efforts as a step in the right direction, around 80percent of Republicans believe Biden's climate policy is damaging the country. Unfortunately, since Biden took office, Republican support for renewable energy has dwindled, meaning the topic has become more politicized. And two-thirds of those polled still see a future for fossil fuels in the American energy mix (with 77 percent of moderate Republicans and 93 percent of conservative Republicans, and still a third of progressive Democrats).
Still, there is a hint of bipartisanship on some climate change measures. For example, Democrats and Republicans have similar approval ratings for large-scale tree planting as a natural emission control measure (supported by 91 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans) or for tax breaks for companies that invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies (88 percent approval among Democrats, still 70 percent among Republicans). CCS technologies receive massive tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act. Other climate measures, such as taxing carbon emissions, incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, and a requirement that energy companies increase their share of renewable energy predictably show divided opinion along partisan lines.
Persuasive factor: US climate disasters
Despite all partisan differences on the question of how, numerous surveys in recent months show that a large majority of Americans no longer question the need for climate protection at home and as a contribution to international efforts. However, even proponents regularly underestimate how widespread this support for national climate ambitions has become. American behavioral scientists call this a ‘shared delusion’ or ‘false social reality’ and blame it for the long delay in passing an ambitious climate package at the federal level. The numerous climate and weather disasters the United States has faced in recent years, such as runaway wildfires, heat waves, and increasingly devastating hurricanes and tornadoes have been convincing beyond partisan ideologies. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded 20 climate and weather disasters last year alone, the fourth warmest on record and with the warmest December on record, which together caused US$145 billion in damage and claimed 688 lives. Over the last three years (2019-2021), there have been 56 disaster events each causing more than US$1 billion in damages. By comparison, in the 1980s, adjusted for inflation, only 31 weather and climate disasters causing that much damage were recorded over the entire decade. Climate change is undeniably increasing the frequency and severity of these disasters, not only globally, but also in the United States. More and more Americans are directly affected by these disasters. Studies and polls clearly show that those US citizens, in increasing numbers, who have experienced extreme climate and weather events firsthand, are changing their personal attitudes about climate change - though not necessarily directly their voting behavior - and are calling for more climate action. According to a Harvard University survey, 77 percent of those who have been affected by climate and weather disasters over the past five years rate climate change as a crisis or major problem in the United States (among those not directly affected, the figure was only 46percent).
Hurricane Ian
The survey was conducted in June, prior to Hurricane Ian's devastation of Florida, which will go down in Florida history as the deadliest and costliest storm, with more than 100 victims and estimated damages of up to US$67 billion. Climate and weather observers see Hurricane Ian as a poster child for the looming dangers of climate change to US coastal regions from extreme weather. The hurricane has been shown to devastate entire areas influenced by climate change with stronger winds, heavier rain, and slower movement than a “normal” hurricane. In addition, areas not directly hit by the hurricane also experienced massive flooding. According to estimates, up to 13 million US citizens could be forcibly relocated from America’s coasts as climate refugees in just a few decades due to climate change and rising sea levels.
Hurricane Ian hit Florida, a state with a long Republican tradition of climate change denial despite the vulnerability of its residents. Here, decades of misguided land-use planning and unchecked coastal development, encouraged by government-subsidized flood insurance, have exacerbated the region's vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. To be sure, Florida's Republican governor, Ron De Santis, who is also being touted as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2024, established a roughly US$1 billion resilience program in May 2021 - primarily funded through federal appropriations - to protect Florida's residents and infrastructure against future climate extremes. However, his policy prescriptions completely ignore reducing emissions. On the contrary, as governor, De Santis signed a law just last year that effectively undermines the ability of Florida municipalities to make the transition to clean and renewable energy, tying Florida's citizens to fossil fuels for the long term.
Republican climate rollback?
De Santis, as a possible Republican opponent to President Biden in 2024, routinely demonizes the power of the federal government to intervene in state affairs, including on issues related to climate change. It is not without a certain irony that he is now relying on disaster relief via federal programs and federal largesse due to a climate catastrophe of extreme proportions. Unfortunately, a change of attitude on toward US climate policy on his part or that of other Republican ideological leaders is not to be expected.
So what are the implications for the Biden administration's climate agenda if, as widely expected, Republicans win a majority in the House of Representatives, and in the extreme case, in both chambers of Congress?
The short answer: that depends on the Republicans' eventual majority. Will it be razor-thin? Or can they win a two-thirds majority in both chambers as a result of an unlikely landslide victory? The latter would allow them to override a presidential veto on bills. After all, it is undisputed that if the Republicans win the midterm elections, they will want to roll back several of the Biden administration's major climate initiatives. However, observers estimate that there is little danger that legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act with its climate provisions or the infrastructure bill passed in 2021 could be revised - given the political situation, a necessary two-thirds majority for the Republicans is not very realistic. In contrast, if Republicans win, they are likely to filibuster and block planned climate-related legislation, regulations and initiatives over the next two years. That could hit efforts by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, which proposed a rule this March requiring publicly traded US companies to disclose their climate risks as well as their greenhouse gas emissions, a push Republicans are also fighting at the state level. In 2023, the five-year reauthorization of the US farm bill, which climate activists and the Biden administration want to see include more emission reduction measures to sustainably reduce US agriculture's current 11percent contribution to US greenhouse gas emissions, is also likely to face fierce Republican opposition in Congress.
International climate finance likely to be cut
The most realistic and serious climate policy implications of a possible Republican takeover of the House of Representatives after the midterm elections are to be expected for the Biden administration's international climate policy - and here especially for America's contribution to international climate finance. After the Trump years, in which American support for climate action in developing countries had fallen to just US$669 million, President Biden stepped up with a promise to increase American payments for international climate action. Last September, he promised to quadruple pledges under President Obama to about US$11 billion by 2024, but failed in his first budget attempt to get about US$2.7 billion approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress, which ultimately provided only about US$1 billion. For fiscal year 2023, President Biden has now requested US$11 billion, including US$5.3 billion in direct support for climate funds. This includes the Green Climate Fund, to which the US still owes US $2 billion in Obama-era commitments and which is seeking its second replenishment in 2023. However, an appropriation of this request, already very difficult under a Democratic-controlled Congress, is certain to fail if Democrats do not retain control of Congress.
Unfortunately, loud protests from the US population are not to be expected in this case. According to opinion polls, around three quarters of American citizens surveyed support their country's participation in international efforts to curb climate change, but only a minority of around 40 percent see an obligation to support developing countries financially in their climate protection efforts. The fact that a growing number of Americans are affected by serious climate impacts, and thus support climate measures in their own country, has not yet resulted in solidarity with those affected by similar climate and weather catastrophes in developing countries.
The US midterm elections will be held in parallel with COP27 in Egypt. At the international climate summit, the issue of increasing climate finance from developed countries will be high on the agenda and will determine the success or failure of negotiations. The most important demand of the developing countries: the agreement of the industrialized countries to establish a financing facility that addresses the losses and damages caused by devastating climate impacts against which countries and communities of the Global South can no longer protect themselves with adaptation measures. Such a move failed at last year's summit in Glasgow due to opposition from the United States, which does not want to be held financially liable for climate damage in developing countries as the historically largest polluter of harmful emissions, even if it cannot escape moral responsibility. Just a few days ago, well over 100 American environmental groups sent an open letter to the top US climate diplomat, John Kerry, demanding that the Biden administration finally accept this responsibility at COP27.
The overwhelming flood disaster resulting from extreme monsoon rains in Pakistan, which left millions homeless and cost more than 1,000 lives and an estimated US$40 billion in damages, is a telling example. Under the polluter-pays principle the United States and other industrialized countries have a moral obligation to provide comprehensive assistance to affected people in developing countries to deal with climate damage. Pakistan, which has historically accounted for only 0.4 percent of the emissions responsible for climate change, needs the financial support of the United States and European Union countries (responsible, respectively, for 21.5 percent and 15 percent of global historical emissions). And while the United States is providing tens of billions of dollars for loss and damage following climate disasters at home - cue Hurricane Ian - international support to address Pakistan's climate-related loss and damage following this summer's flood of the century has been more than sluggish. As of mid-October, just US$50 million of the roughly US$800 million that the United Nations called for as emergency aid had been delivered. The contribution of the USA so far: US$26 million of the US$52 million pledged.