Democrats differences on climate policy erupt amid opposition to fracking, plastics
WASHINGTON — Last month, Mike Doyle stepped out of a meeting on climate change legislation to face a group of union steelworkers on a lobbying storm on Capitol Hill.
It was a brief, friendly meeting in a marble hall. Mr. Doyle, D-Forest Hills, talked about his commitment to the environment without passing policies that could imperil steel and manufacturing jobs in the Pittsburgh region. He brought up his concerns about the Green New Deal, a sweeping plan calling for an end to fossil fuels, hatched by liberal Democrats from New York and Massachusetts.
“We share the same goals: We want to get to net-zero carbon,” he told them. “I think there are a lot smarter ways to do it.”
These subtle but long-standing climate policy differences within the Democratic Party recently erupted after Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto announced his unequivocal opposition to new petrochemical plants in the region.
Mr. Peduto, who cited his concern that more carbon and methane would degrade Pittsburgh’s troubled air quality, drew fire from labor unions and some moderate Democrats who see such staunch opposition to more plastics plants — and the natural gas drilling that enables them — as jeopardizing the region’s economy.
Since arrival to Congress in 1995, Mr. Doyle has been on the front lines of confronting climate change as a 19-year member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It’s a powerful panel, now controlled by Democrats, with the unenviable task of how to limit atmospheric gases released by a range of sources — and how to find Congressional consensus on solutions.
In July, the committee launched a series of hearings and meetings to get input on climate change legislation. The committee’s goal is to reach net-zero carbon emissions and a 100% clean economy by 2050.
Mr. Doyle’s broad view, shared by unions and Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Mt. Lebanon, is that investment in technology can allow industries, even those dependent on extracting fossil fuels, to operate cleanly.
Those measures are more realistic, Mr. Doyle said in an interview, and can garner enough bipartisan votes to move forward on meaningful proposals.
Mr. Doyle touted his recent proposal to provide a 30% production tax credit for large-scale batteries that store energy for solar and wind farms when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
He wants to encourage energy efficiency in the building sector and scale up electric vehicles, he said, because the building and transportation sectors are together responsible for more emissions than the power and steel sectors.
Doyle’s drumbeat
Mr. Doyle has beat this drum in a similar situation in 2009 — during the last session of Congress the Democrats controlled the House.
Two liberal Democrats from the coasts — Rep. Henry Waxman, DCalif., and Rep. Ed Markey, DMass. — were pushing forward on a carbon cap-and-trade program. (Mr. Markey, alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., introduced the Green New Deal in February.)
Cap and trade sets a limit on carbon emissions and requires facilities to buy pollution credits for excess emissions, credits that facilities can then trade. Mr. Doyle felt it amounted to major penalties for the steel and manufacturing sectors, which were already battered by foreign competitors that did not have such regulations. He was concerned some U.S. companies may leave the country, destroying American jobs while still emitting carbon.
Mr. Doyle and Jay Inslee, then a representative from Washington State, drafted an amendment to provide rebates, for up to 15 years, to energy-intensive industries and those manufacturers vulnerable to overseas competition.
“It makes sense we attack the low-hanging fruit,” he added. “What do we agree on?”
Mr. Lamb, a first-term congressman who represents the northwestern Pittsburgh suburbs, including the Shell cracker plant, has favored increased federal funding for energy research as a way to fight climate change.
As chair of the Energy subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology — he wants to boost the budget for ARPA-e, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
Established in 2009, the Energy Department research agency was modeled on DARPA, a Defense Department program well known for investing in Carnegie Mellon University robotics ventures for military purposes.
In September, Mr. Lamb’s subcommittee moved forward legislation that more than triples ARPA-e’s budget to $1 billion by 2024 and directs more funding toward lowering emissions in manufacturing.
Reached for comment last week, Mr. Lamb reiterated that natural gas, as a whole, has been beneficial to his district.
“Everybody talks about Pittsburgh reinventing itself and being successful in the 21st century — well, outside the city limits, it means energy jobs and manufacturing,” Mr. Lamb said.
“I don’t think it’s really accurate to suggest that there’s a trade off there between jobs and the environment.”
Asked if he would sponsor a carbon tax, Mr. Lamb said he wasn’t ready to support it.
“It’s still early days for a proposal like that,” he said. “It’s a little hard to forecast what that would mean for jobs in this region.”
Mr. Lamb won two elections in 2018 with the overwhelming support of labor unions. And last month, Allegheny County Labor Council disagreed “wholeheartedly” with Mr. Peduto’s comments — in a statement distributed for the council by Mr. Lamb’s brother and campaign spokesman, Coleman Lamb.
“It’s hard to believe that the mayor of Pittsburgh would actually tell companies not to create thousands of good middle-class jobs in our region,” the labor council’s president, Darrin Kelly, stated. “It just isn’t
“It just isn’t true that we have to choose between good jobs and clean air and water.” Conor Lamb
true that we have to choose between good jobs and clean air and water.”
The GOP chimes in
Some Republicans, sensing a moment to beat back more progressive proposals like the Green New Deal and a nationwide ban on fracking, have chimed in.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., said petrochemicals had brought “tremendous benefits” to Western Pennsylvania without harming the environment.
Mr. Toomey, in an interview, said he was “really shocked” when he heard Mr. Peduto’s comments. “I like the mayor, I think he’s a good man, but he couldn’t be more mistaken,” he said.
Asked why a U.S. senator would comment on a mayor’s views, Mr. Toomey said the debate is bigger than Pittsburgh.
This is “a very far left wing of the Democratic Party that is frankly become hostile to economic growth and prosperity, and they’re advocating terrible policies,” Mr. Toomey said. Mr. Peduto’s position “is an example.”
Mr. Doyle, a self-styled broker of climate compromise, believes he can pull together all sides on his committee to get something done.
“There’s no magic wand to it,” Mr. Doyle told the steelworkers last month, before ducking back to the hearing. But “we have to make sure we’re not taking out whole industries to do this, and we can do this in a way that doesn’t do that.”