Democrats’ And GOP Energy Policies Clash At Midterms

President Joe Biden’s recent statements denouncing coal drew fire from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and several western Democrats, upsetting the calculus for many elections out west. In midterms, Biden may have forgotten, all voters have a say, not just the activist base. To make things worse, Biden also “promised” to stop all oil drilling in a Q&A with a voter, which did not get enough media attention despite an available video.

In Nevada, the issue of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site gained traction with both Senate candidates tripping over themselves to condemn it more than their rival. House and local races in Maryland have seen debates concerning climate legislation come to the forefront.

Pennsylvania saw both U.S. Senate candidates change their views on energy and fracking in an attempt to chase public opinion. Both candidates initially adopted skeptical or neutral attitudes about fracking, but the support of fracking was the only point of mutual agreement during their recent debate.

The guerrilla campaign starting with Biden stickers on gas pumps reflected a national Zeitgeist that has transferred into electoral politics. “Prices at the pump” is a favorite line by pundits as shorthand for economic performance and consumer confidence. For both Republicans and Democrats energy is in the Top 5 electoral priorities — an important topic. In the latest Pew poll, it is the fifth, after the economy, democracy, health care, and education. Voters are concerned about the future and availability of abundant and clean energy supply.

Rising energy prices have coupled with inflation as top-tier issues among voters, approaching or outstripping third-rail issues like abortion among most voters. Voters are directly engaged with energy policy in a way not seen in decades, and these midterms are set to both change and be changed by energy policy.

Several energy “October surprises” have already helped swing key races.

Amid such a polarized political atmosphere, one might expect that intractable disagreement on energy policy. Instead, concerning energy policy, evidence suggests public opinion is converging across party lines. On average, 77% of Americans support increased funding for renewable energy, and 60% of Americans believe the next Congress and the president should do more to address the issue of climate change, with up to 65% of Americans reporting they are worried about climate change.

Plans suggested by Republicans to meet the CO2 targets set by the Biden administration and other pro-green ideas entering the GOP’s mainstream, with specialized polling on fracking help showcase this evolution. While the partisan distribution of these opinions is still uneven, the direction of change is obvious. Both parties are going green.

Among the Republicans, a majority supports the development of alternative energy over fossil fuels, with the majority of the moderates and social liberals, and millennials, believing the federal government is not doing enough to address climate change.

The greening of both parties is uneven and a result of fundamentally different processes. Both agree on the benefits of North American energy independence as a self-evident good and as a means of disentangling the USA from controversial foreign commitments. Russia’s attempt to blackmail Europe with its energy leverage has awoken bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill for boosting the Ukraine war effort and reinforcing America’s energy security, although the Wall Street Journal is reporting Republicans’ growing opposition to assistance for Ukraine.

Bipartisan skepticism of China generates deep concern over control of rare earth elements, as allowing China to dictate the terms of the world’s decarbonization may be ruinous to Western interests. Sino-Russian dominance of emerging nuclear power technologies help provide more energy policy unity. Shared problems with NIMBYism have also driven both parties closer together.

Despite these similarities, there are key differences that will become obvious after the elections when Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard Glick’s term will expire. Should the Republicans gain leverage in Congress, the Biden administration’s moratorium on new drilling may end even if it recently gained the Fifth Circuit Court judicial support. Democrats have not yet resolved tensions between energy security and independence on one hand, and the unwillingness to actually increase domestic production. The GOP’s prima facia acceptance of market mechanisms and domestic energy production will continue, with feasibility determined by the election results. Midterm results will also reveal whether Biden’s policy of “no more drilling” (another surprise two days before the midterms) is the last gasp of a doomed policy.

For their part, moderate Democrats realized that convincing more people to accept green solutions required an embrace of market forces and a different toolbox of rhetorical tools. A huge part of Biden’s Build Back Better Initiative energy resilience and the required infrastructural spending also aligns neatly with the Democrat’s priorities and propensity for stimulus spending and infrastructural investment, except for leftist policies in California, where energy is mismanaged for years.

Both parties going green and increasingly agreeing on environmental issues in the partisan equation would ultimately be good news. We are not there yet.

It may be unsatisfying to some that the other may be doing the “right thing for the wrong reason,” but it’s a compromise well worth making in the name of both national security and environmentalism.

The current international environment makes this easier to do, with hostile foreign actors providing both the impetus and political cover to act decisively. Hopefully, regardless of whether you live in a red state or a blue state, you end up living in a green state