Romney vs. Obama on the Environment

by
Judith Layzer,Massachusetts Institute of Technology
October 4, 2012

election-2012As part of our Election 2012 series, political scientist Judith Layzer of MIT analyzes the environmental policy proposals of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. A contributor to the RSF book, Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious Governance, Economic Meltdown, and Polarized Politics in Obama's First Two Years, Layzer is Associate Professor of Environmental Policy at MIT.

Although the environment has not been a prominent issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, there is a stark difference between President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney on the subject of energy—and by implication climate change. For decades, the Democratic-Republican divide on the environment has been growing, and nowhere is the chasm deeper than on the issue of climate change. The divergence in the two sides’ positions is largely driven by a shift within the Republican Party, which increasingly has embraced the conservative view that climate change is a problem invented by extremist environmentalists seeking to impose government control on all aspects of the economy, and that regulations on greenhouse gas emissions are the products of power-hungry bureaucrats run amok.

obama agendaThe rhetorical divide between Republicans and Democrats on energy and climate change is striking. The Democratic Party platform warns that global climate change is "one of the biggest threats of this generation—an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making." President Obama has repeatedly argued that climate change is a serious problem and urged Americans to pursue a "clean-energy economy." By contrast, the Republican platform opposes “any and all cap and trade legislation,” while vowing to end “the EPA’s war on coal” and instead encourage rapid development of the nation’s coal resources. The platform also calls on Congress to “prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations that will harm the nation’s economy and threaten millions of jobs.” The word “environment” does not appear as a category on Romney’s website, but he, too, decries regulation as a “hidden tax on Americans,” claiming that, as a result of minimal oversight from the White House, the economy is “subject to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats pursuing their own agendas.” Although Romney is unusual among Republicans in acknowledging that humans contribute to climate change, he insists “there remains a lack of scientific consensus” and has ridiculed Obama for trying to prevent sea-level rise and heal the planet. Despite his record of support for energy efficiency and renewables as governor of Massachusetts, Romney has lambasted Obama for imagining that “government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”

Romney’s primary goal, he says, is to “guarantee America the most affordable and reliable [energy] supply in the world.” To realize that vision, Romney promises “dramatic regulatory reform” that will enable accelerated oil and gas exploration and development. For example, he supports allowing or increasing oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, the Outer Continental Shelf, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He also vows to permit states to regulate the extraction of oil, gas, and coal leasing on federal land within their borders. And he pledges to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to refineries in Illinois and the Gulf Coast of Texas. At the same time, Romney says he would let wind-energy tax credits expire and would eliminate loan guarantees for alternative-energy technologies.

President Obama's Environmental Record

Notwithstanding his ardent rhetoric on climate change, Obama has disappointed environmentalists with his “all of the above” approach to energy policy. On his watch, domestic oil production has reached an eight-year high, while oil imports are down from 13.5 million barrels per day in 2005 to 9.8 million barrels per day in 2011. Although he refused to permit the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama has expressed support for building a section of the pipeline across Texas. And, to environmentalists’ dismay, Obama’s Interior Department has granted leases to explore for oil in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea. Obama has also been less aggressive in promoting a carbon price than environmentalists hoped. In 2010 he stood by as the Senate failed to take up a companion to the House-passed cap-and-trade legislation. He made it clear after that defeat that he would not pursue a comprehensive effort to address energy and climate change; rather, he conceded, incremental legislation was the best we should hope for.

That said, under Obama, the federal government has taken full advantage of its executive authority to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2009, after completing an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, the EPA issued fuel-efficiency regulations that constitute the first-ever limits on greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. In March 2012 the agency released new rules for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In addition, the administration has vigorously promoted energy efficiency and renewables. The 2009 stimulus package crafted by the White House contained more than $70 billion to support energy-efficiency measures, the development and diffusion of alternative fuels, and “smart grid” investments. It also included a three-year extension of the production tax credit for both wind and solar energy. Moreover, since 2009 the Interior Department has approved sixteen solar, five wind, and eight geothermal projects on federal land, while the Department of Energy has enacted strict new efficiency standards for light bulbs and appliances. To demonstrate leadership on its own turf, the White House has set ambitious reduction targets for emissions of greenhouse gases by the federal government.

Prospects for the Environmental Agenda

In short, just as the George W. Bush administration used executive authority to advance its antiregulatory priorities, the Obama administration has found ways to circumvent a gridlocked Congress and push the nation toward a clean-energy future—albeit one more distant than environmentalists would like. Obama’s hesitancy on the legislative front reflects not just legislative polarization, but also the political risks associated with pressing for an economic/energy transformation in the midst of a prolonged recession. Even if Obama wins a second term, as currently appears likely, he is unlikely to promote a carbon price in the absence of a unified and vocal coalition demanding such a transformation—and purveying a compelling story about how such a transformation would strengthen and stabilize the U.S. economy. If they are going to see the light on climate change, he (and leaders in Congress) must feel the heat from voters, just as they do from the Tea Party on the deficit.

RSF

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of original empirical research articles by both established and emerging scholars.

Grants

The Russell Sage Foundation offers grants and positions in our Visiting Scholars program for research.

Newsletter

Join our mailing list for email updates.