Push for aggressive action on climate change divides some in environmental community
Progressives shouted approval when President Joe Biden called out the “existential threat” posed by climate change during his State of the Union address Feb. 7. But 10 seconds later, he heard boos from Democrats mixed with cheers from Republicans when he said, “We're still going to need oil and gas for a while.”
That whiplash offers a window into the current political moment involving the politics of climate change.
It's a moment that's also playing out in Sacramento, where a push to ban all oil drilling in California, and to take other increasingly aggressive steps to combat global warming, is driving a wedge between some people who usually agree on the climate debate.
Take state Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, and Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris,
D-Laguna Beach. Both lawmakers championed environmental protection bills in 2022, and both have been endorsed by a slew of climate advocacy groups.
But both also recently found themselves in the crosshairs of the influential advocacy group California Environmental Voters, which relegated Newman and Petrie-Norris to its socalled “polluter caucus” after they chose not to vote on several key bills. Their nonvotes came during a year that featured big legislative steps aimed at improving the climate and clear signs that climate problems are getting worse.
“There are some really critical bills here that there is just no excuse to not support,” said Melissa Romero, senior legislative manager with California Environmental Voters, better known as EnviroVoters.
But, echoing Biden’s basic point, Newman and Petrie-Norris separately said that while they enthusiastically support a fast transition away from fossil fuels, the devil is in the details. If we pass laws that drive all polluting industries out of California before we’ve dramatically reduced demand for those products — something both lawmakers fear some bills would do — they believe the environment will be harmed as those businesses simply set up shop in states with fewer environmental protections.
“My concern is always, frankly, about unintended consequences,” Newman said. “Irrespective of the admirable goals of this legislation, it might have adverse effects in ways that weren’t necessarily considered.”
Petrie-Norris said being labeled a “polluter” because she didn’t support particular bills pushed by one environment group feels like “bullying.”
“Being subjected to this kind of name calling, I think, really illustrates everything that’s wrong with politics and everything that’s broken with policy today.”
The division on the left comes as state lawmakers on the right opposed every bill EnviroVoters tracked in 2022. In addition to their criticism of Petrie-Norris and Newman, California Environmental Voters listed every GOP elected official in Sacramento in its “polluter caucus” camp.
Overall, Democrats received an average score of 78% in the 50th anniversary edition of the California Environmental Voters Scorecard, while no Republican lawmaker scored above 0%. EnviroVoters says every GOP legislator opposed or skipped votes on key bills the organization tracked in 2022 while also taking contributions from oil companies. (Actually, that was true of many Democrats as well, with some 65% of all state lawmakers accepting oil money in the last cycle.)
The group hasn’t always viewed the GOP this way. In 2018, for example, former state Sen. Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, who termed out last session, earned a score of 44% from EnviroVoters.
Some Republicans contend that Democrats have become too extreme on climate issues, proposing legislation that they argue would be too costly or invasive to implement.
“The fundamental for conservatives is a limited role for government in our society,” said Jon Fleischman, a GOP strategist from Newport Beach. “It seems like almost all of the ‘solutions’ on this issue involve bigger government and more regulation.”
Some Democrats point out that the climate is getting worse, and because of that they believe the crisis requires more aggressive legislation. They add that Republicans are simply digging in their heels because environmental protection increasingly is viewed as a “liberal” cause.
“They’re both right,” said Dan Schnur, who teaches politics at USC. “Both parties have become more ideologically extreme.”
Either way, the politics of environment and climate change are increasingly complex.
In recent years, many surveys have found widespread, bipartisan support for specific policies related to environment and climate change, such as the need to develop more wind power. Still, as a broad issue, “environment” itself is divisive.
A recent survey from Pew Research Group found 20% of Republican voters said environmental issues should be a “top priority,” versus 67% of Democrats who felt that way. That was the biggest partisan split among 21 issues listed by Pew, more than twice as big, for example, as the divide over the importance of stabilizing Medicare.
Assemblywoman Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel, who represents a district that includes parts of south Orange County and north San Diego County, took to Twitter to express disappointment over the partisan divide on the environment: “Environmental conservation was a main priority for many GOP presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt.”
Davies said protecting California’s ecotourism industry, by combating sea level rise and mitigating beach erosion, “is an issue I know has bipartisan support.”
Still, with Democratic voters more inclined than Republican voters to back legislators based on their environmental track record, criticism from a group such as EnviroVoters is likely to hurt Democrats, not Republicans, in future elections, though Schnur noted climate tends to be a deciding issue only when voters aren’t weighing “other pressing issues.”
Newman said the “easier impulse” for Democrat lawmakers is to approve all climate bills, with so much momentum in that direction. But he said he’d like to think that the average voter, no matter which side of the aisle they’re on, wants their representative to be thoughtful about each piece of legislation that comes before them.
“Clearly, we have to do some things that aren’t always easy,” Newman said, noting state-mandated goals to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades. But, he added, “it’s always the question of how? I’d like to think voters would give credit to a guy like me, who worries about the how.”
Newman and Petrie-Norris, neither of whom accepts backing from the oil industry, noted they didn’t vote against the bills highlighted by EnviroVoters.
But EnviroVoters’ Romero said the organization applies the same penalty whether a lawmaker opposed a bill or abstained.
“It’s a very cheap way to try to say, ‘Oh, I’m not opposed to this,’ ” Romero said. “But you are because you’re not actually helping this policy pass.”
Abstentions are more common among legislators who represent swing districts, Schnur noted, because lawmakers aren’t eager to alienate voters on either side of the aisle.
But Newman said a ‘no’ vote is “very aggressive.” He said he agreed with the idea behind many of these bills, and he still hopes to work with the organizations and legislators backing them.
In all, Newman abstained from votes on eight out of 14 key bills tracked by EnviroVoters. He also was among seven Democrats who joined GOP senators in voting against Assembly Bill 2201, which would have prohibited local governments from approving permits for larger wells unless they went through a review to ensure that groundwater supplies wouldn’t be harmed. Sitting out on those votes earned Newman a careerlow score of 46% on the EnviroVoters scorecard.
“It’s certainly not ideal to me to be on the wrong side of people whose work I admire, like EnviroVoters,” Newman said.
But he said he’s comfortable with his record and plans to continue considering the big picture of how such bills will affect all factions of California and the environment beyond state borders.
“The ultimate assessment is actually in 2024, when people decide whether or not to rehire me or not,” he said.
Petrie-Norris abstained from 10 out of 18 key bills EnviroVoters tracked in the Assembly last year. That gave her the largest yearover-year drop in score, falling from a 98% in 2021 and to 51% for 2022.
“This one scorecard is not an accurate reflection of the work that I have done to combat climate change and ensure clean air and water for all Californians,” Petrie-Norris said. “I’m going to continue to do that work and to fight for real climate action.”
EnviroVoters’ scorecard wasn’t bad for all Southern California lawmakers or for the state overall.
California overall jumped from a recent D grade to an A- for 2022, with EnviroVoters praising the state’s historic spending on climate action and the slew of environmental protection laws and regulations implemented last year.
Nearly 30 lawmakers, including a dozen from LosAngeles and SanBernardino counties, also received perfect scores for supporting key climate bills, introducing their own related legislation, and refusing to take donations from oil companies. That included Sen. Lena Gonzalez, D-Long Beach, who authored the oil drilling buffer zone bill, and Assembly Majority Leader Eloise Gómez Reyes of Colton.
Reyes said she believes her score reflects her “record
of listening to the community and understanding the urgent need to address issues such as climate change, air pollution and access to green space in my district.” She said those issues disproportionately affect vulnerable communities.
Soon, such debates won’t just be an exercise for politicians.
One of the key bills tracked by EnviroVoters in 2022 was Senate Bill 1137, which creates a buffer zone for oil drilling, banning new or altered wells within 3,200 feet of homes, schools and other sensitive sites. That bill was signed into law last year, though Newman, Petrie-Norris and a dozen other Democrats abstained from voting on it.
But oil industry backers last week managed to get the drilling buffer zone question qualified for the 2024 ballot. That suspends the rule, for now, and leaves the future of the law in voters’ hands.
That measure is expected to be one of the most expensive and contentious issues in California next year.