The Climate in Emergency

A weekly blog on science, news, and ideas related to climate change


Leave a comment

Going to Carolina in My Mind

Yesterday my area had lovely spring weather, including temps of nearly 80 degrees–not really normal for this time of year, the old normal, that is. My husband commented that we’re becoming the Carolinas, which in terms of climate is more or less true, from what we’ve read.

So, what are we doing about it?

I attended a political meeting over the weekend. The meeting was largely introductory–the group is still quite new, and while there is a lot of great energy, it hasn’t really had a chance to do anything yet. We can optimistically assume this will change, and that we are part of a groundswell of progressive activism that will sweep the current mess away and replace it with something better. A small minority of the group is committed to climate sanity, and we could really do something.

And yet I’ve seen groups with similar promise in the past fizzle. I’ve seen proud declarations come to nothing, climate deniers winning time and again, at the ballot box and elsewhere, despite whatever optimistic chants at rallies.

Do not get me wrong, I don’t mean to discourage anybody. That little group has as good a chance as any to make a difference, and I intend to help it along, if I can. There is no reason to get discouraged. It’s just that I’m discouraged anyway right now.

In fact, sitting in that meeting, my discouraged awareness so got the best of me that I quietly had an anxiety attack. I have not had the energy to do much with this blog this week–I normally post on Tuesday and just couldn’t. If you’ll excuse the personal admission, I’m just feeling so overwhelmed.

That’s just me. I’ll feel better eventually, and even if I don’t, I’ll keep going. Because whether a fight is winnable isn’t an important question. The important question is whether a fight is worth fighting (and whether your current tactic gives you the best available chance) and this one is worth it.

So, as James Taylor sings (in a very different context), “you must forgive me if I’m up and gone to Carolina in my mind.” If I’m distracted, in other words. I guess I’m gone to Carolina right now.

Next week, I’ll go to DC, and then to DC again.

We’re talking about the March for Science, on the 22nd, and the newest People’s Climate Change March, on the 29th. There are satellite marches for each in many areas, so if you can’t get to DC you should still be able to attend somewhere–but if you can get to DC, do so. The more people march together in one place, the bigger the event each will be and the louder and clearer a message we will send. We need to make the evening news, and then some. We need to show that we must be taken seriously.

Bring friends. Bring neighbors. Spread the word. The bigger the march, the louder the voice. Make it your personal responsibility to make sure everyone you know knows about these events and has the means to participate.

Give me a reason to hope.


2 Comments

The Anxious, Jealous Guardians of Our Democracy

Some weeks ago, I explained the process by which an incoming president’s political appointees are vetted and confirmed by the Senate. Given my deep concern over President-Elect Trump’s nomination for head of the EPA (I had thought he might choose Myron Ebell, but he actually chose a different climate-denier, Scott Pruitt), I advised readers to first contact the members of the committee that would vet the nominee, and then to contact their senators.

I expected that the nomination process for the Trump administration would not begin until after the inauguration because that process is begun by the president. Since Donald Trump is not president yet, I had thought he would have to wait.

I was surprised.

(I do not mean to suggest any anomaly on his part. I may well have misunderstood.)

Full Senate confirmation hearings appear to have begun, meaning that the committee process has already been completed for some of the nominees. Unfortunately, I have not been able to track that one down, yet—I don’t know which committees have finished their work and I don’t know how to find out.

Clearly, the thing to do is to hurry up and call as many people as possible. If you don’t know whether a Senate committee has met yet, call them anyway. Senate staffers are nice people, and they do not make fun of constituents who call up sounding disorganized. Unfortunately, I’m kind of afraid of telephones. Honestly, calling people makes me anxious. I call my mother and, if I’m traveling, my husband, and that’s about it. For the sake of my country and my planet I will rise above my fear and make the calls, but it takes a lot more time and emotional energy than it should.

Seriously, don’t be like me. Make the calls. These people aren’t scary. I called Senator Cardin’s office today. I tried to call his Salisbury office, which is closest to my house (and therefore more likely to be responsive to me), but kept getting sent to voicemail, so I called the DC office and got through. I stumbled through my words a bit, apologized, then said:

“I want to ask the Senator to please do whatever he can to block the more extreme of Trump’s appointments, especially Scott Pruitt. There is no way a climate denier should be EPA head.”

The staffer said she would add that to the tally and make sure to tell Senator Cardin. I thanked her and we wished each other good day. That was it.

If you don’t know how to contact your senators, just look it up online. It’s easy. Phone calls are more important than emails or petitions (do that, too, though), because even though all contacts from constituents are tallied, if you speak to a staffer yourself, he or she is more likely to make sure the Senator hears of your call. All senators have DC phone numbers. Many also have other offices and those numbers should be listed on the individual senator’s website, if he or she has one. Go to.

I’ve been seeing lots of exhortations to call in about other nominees as well, though I’m not going to talk about that in this blog. I did find a schedule of the confirmation hearings, here.

I am pleased to see these signs of political involvement. I am not pleased that virtually none of these exhortations are aimed at protecting the environment—and the environment, remember, is about public health, social justice, economic vibrancy, and national security. All that depends on Planet Earth, and all that is being ignored, by and large, by the nation’s nascent political resistance.

Which is especially problematic, given that a strong argument can be made that preventing climate action is exactly why Donald Trump ran and exactly what he intends to focus on while in office.

Virtually everyone he is surrounding himself with has ties to the fossil fuels industry. He has the support of the Heartland Institute, an anti-climate group which is largely funded by the Koch Brothers. He has the support of the Russian government, which is entirely dependent on fossil fuels for its wealth and power.

The social issues—women’s rights, LGBT rights, racial justice, immigrant and refugee rights—may have been the flashpoints of the campaign, but they are clearly peripheral to Mr. Trump and his advisers. He makes a lot of noise that way and pisses people off very effectively, but he has made no progress whatever towards any policy proposals that would actually help any of the groups supposedly aggrieved by women, gay people, trans* people, black and brown people, or newcomers of any stripe. It’s not like an impossibly expensive wall is actually going to have anything to do with protecting jobs or lowering the crime rate, even if it is ever built. In other words, while Donald Trump can certainly hurt the less-than-fully-enfranchised, and probably will, no one is going to directly benefit from his doing so–and if nobody (no supporters, no donors, no political allies) benefit, then what is the political point? Why bother?

But Mr. Trump has made a very specific, and very doable promise to undo President Obama’s climate policies, something that will have direct and immediate benefit to the fossil fuel industry and everybody who is significantly invested in it.

Remember that Donald Trump was a leader of the Birther Movement, a major plank in the Tea Party, which was in turn largely bankrolled by the Koch Brothers—who are deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry and have a history of supporting climate doubt.

Why would a movement organized around cultural and economic complaints be bankrolled by oil barons?

Could it be that dog-whistling up the racist animosity of the nation was an effective means of mobilizing an electorate capable of getting a climate-denier into office? Is it entirely coincidental that when a black man becomes the first US President to really take climate change seriously, oil barons begin immediately funding and organizing racists who espouse a deep distrust of the Federal government? A black man attacks climate change and attempts to hand the baton to a woman (who does have an excellent record with the League of Conservation Voters, remember) and the actual next president is a misogynist, racist climate denier–does this sound like a coincidence, or is it somebody’s idea of a plan?

Racism and its associated deplorabilities was the bait offered for one aim and one aim alone: to stack the White House, Congress, and eventually the Supreme Court with corporate-friendly climate deniers.

For any of you who dislike Donald Trump for reasons other than his climate hostility, climate hostility is now precisely the reason for all your other worries. That is why they won.

And it worked. We lost this round because too many people took their eye off the ball. We minimized and marginalized the importance of climate change, something the people who seek to prevent climate action have never done. They took the issue seriously and presented a consistent, organized, and strategically intelligent front. That’s how they won.

We can win in turn by being equally serious and savvy, by not taking our eyes off the ball, either. By making those phone calls, by attending those protests, by running for office ourselves.

I’m watching President Obama’s farewell address right now. The title of this post is a phrase from his speech. You may like him or dislike him, that’s not my concern, but our chance right now lies in taking on the challenge he has issued—to believe that yes, we can change the world.

The world is changing regardless. It’s up to us now to shape those changes.


Leave a comment

Retrospective

Hello. Sorry this post is a few days late.

I set out to write a retrospective of the year, as I have for at least some of the other years of this blog. But I noticed something funny, when I looked over my writings of 2016. In brief, there wasn’t a whole lot to retrospect.

Most of my posts this past year were opinion pieces, science explainers, or climate fiction–or politics. There was a lot of politics. I covered very few actual events.

Of course, there was weather. Remember that hurricane in January? The cyclone that literally blew around in the Pacific (as in its track made a circle)? The terrible flooding in Britain and then the rest of Europe? The fires? No, I did actually write about fire last year, but I remember the fires in the Smokies, anyway. Yes, fire counts as weather in the same way that flooding does, for one is a symptom of too much rain and the other a symptom of too little. But increasingly, I’m getting reluctant to write about weather here, because it’s always the same story. Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather, here is extreme weather happening, please stop causing climate change. Over and over again. And again.

There was the California methane leak, which I wrote about in January. It was finally sealed towards the end of February, a little earlier than some experts had feared. Two months later, some area residents still had not returned, worrying about lingering contamination. Some still had health problems, probably caused by poisoning from some combination of mercaptan, heavy metals, and benzene, all of which were present in the gas plume from the leak (methane itself is not toxic, but it is a dangerously powerful greenhouse gas). I don’t know what has happened since, how the lawsuits have turned out or if there have been any policy changes involving methane storage, because the newsmedia seem to have totally lost interest.

There was the oil and gas exploration policy process, which we more or less won. Not only was the Atlantic excluded from oil and gas exploration, so was the Arctic. How long any of that will last in the new political climate seems unclear, though.

There was the Dakota Access Pipe Line, which I’ve mostly avoided writing about because it’s not my story to tell, but it is an important and ongoing issue.

And there was the disaster that is Donald Trump and the new Republican Congress.

Look, people, we’re going the wrong way. We need a climate-sane government and we don’t have one yet. We don’t even have much of a popular movement in that direction. The pushback against Mr. Trump seems largely organized around women’s rights, LGBT rights, the civil rights of racial and cultural minorities, especially immigrants…but what no one is saying that if Mr. Trump disassembles President Obama’s climate legacy, members of all those groups will be directly and terribly affected. Climate change is a women’s rights issue. It’s a civil rights issue. It is an economic issue. There is no way to win on any of those other fronts if we lose on climate change.

And yet 2015 gave us a series of climate marches last year to which virtually nobody showed up. Not surprisingly, 2016 gave us an election cycle in which the issue was hardly  raised. We now have a Congress who has no particular reason to believe there is any political will to support climate action.

I am more than ready for 2017 to pleasantly surprise me.


Leave a comment

On Losing My Wallet

Ok, spoiler alert; I found my wallet after all. It was in the back yard, under some leaves, having fallen out of my pocket. But it had been missing for almost 24 hours, and as I’d last seen it while out doing errands, I was more or less panicking over the thought that it could have been stolen.

Yes, this does have to do with climate change.

See, there is something that feels so unfair about losing a wallet (which I seem to do about once per decade)–a momentary oversight, and suddenly I’m looking at weeks of difficulty and expense. I mean, yes, I know, it’s my fault, it’s my mistake that causes the problem, but the consequences seem so disproportionate.  And since there are so many times I almost lose my wallet, and then it unexpectedly turns up, that when I really, truly, do lose it, the loss is hard to believe.

I keep looking in places I already looked, hoping that it will turn up, that I will somehow be rescued from the situation.

These two elements, the sense of injustice and the semi-rational denial, should be familiar to a lot of people. There is a sense that the presidency of an odious and ridiculous climate denier just should not be allowed. There is a sense that we’ve worked so hard, we deserve to have some success–not to have to double down and work harder.

I don’t mean to imply the the presidential election turned out the way it did because of a simple moment of thoughtlessness. I don’t mean to imply that there are no relevant questions of blame, credit, or justice. The metaphor could be carried too far.

The important thing I want to emphasize is that the universe is not fair–nor is it unfair. A moment’s inattention or the turn of political will, these things have whatever consequences they have. And then we deal with them, for better or worse.

We have no time to denial. We have no time for insisting we don’t deserve this. We have no time for assuming that somebody will get us out of this fix. It’s time to get busy.

As I did when I called the bank and cancelled my debit cards. About twenty minutes later, I found my wallet. Sometimes the disaster doesn’t happen. Sometimes the miracle plays out. But those happy endings aren’t earned any more than the unhappy endings are. It’s just what happens. And we have to respond to what happens–with the limited information we have at the time–and keep working until the job is done.


2 Comments

Whose Back Yard Should Get a Pipeline?

Weeks ago, I set out to write about the conflict at Standing Rock. I failed, more or less, and wrote something of a stub article. I promised myself I’d cover the topic at more depth, and I have fallen short again. That I’m posting this article a day late is partial indication of that. The fact of the matter is that I usually approach writing this blog as a teacher–albeit one who is often learning the material just now myself–or as a storyteller, and it is not my place to teach this topic. Standing Rock is not my story to tell.
I am not not Native* and five or six hours of research on the Internet is not going to equip me to write as if I were.

I can tell you why I keep wanting to–what’s happening at Standing Rock looks to me like another movement of one of our country’s great fault lines. Yes, the story is about environmental justice, but it is a mistake to see this only as a story about a group of people in need of clean water. Yes, this is a story about race, but the history involved, the mechanisms of oppression, the nature of the injury, are distinct. This is one of the stories that liberal white kids are raised to believe lie safely in the past, but it does not. What is happening at Standing Rock, and why, constitute a giant arrow pointing towards something the rest of us have been trained not to even see. I want to use the resources I have to make that arrow bigger, more insistent.

But Standing Rock is not, strictly speaking, about climate change.
I read an article a while back asking non-Native allies to please keep their focus on the issues of sovereignty and water rights, instead of co-opting the pipeline fight for an anti-fossil fuel agenda. I see a distinction between co-opting and finding common cause, but surely it’s  distinction that can easily be lost and that should not be lost. Yes, I continue to cover pipelines here because oil and gas transportation is part of the climate change picture, but pipeline fights are usually centered around land and water rights, not around climate per se. To ignore the immediacy and centrality of those other causes is to co-opt, to use, other people. To find common cause, one must start by asking “how can I help you?”
A friend of mine recently asserted, on Facebook, that anyone celebrating the most recent anti-pipeline victory is a hypocrite, on the grounds that if the pipeline does not go here it will go somewhere else. NIMBYism, in other words. He is missing the importance of that fault line, the relevance of the ongoing history of American conquest, but otherwise he has a fair point–moving a pipeline and its associated leaks from here to there is not really an improvement unless it triggers a certain very important question.

Should a pipeline really go in anybody’s backyard? How can we construct a society that doesn’t involve picking somebody to throw under the bus of Progress?

I wrote about NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) some time ago, in another context, and concluded that NIMBY is indeed bad when protesters want a problem moved to somebody else’s yard (such as people who prefer a coal plant they can’t see to a wind turbine they can see). But in and of itself, protecting one’s own interests is not wrong.

I tend to think that if anybody really put the matter frankly, this entire fossil fuel project would look like a really bad deal. Hey, let’s destroy whole mountains, pollute rivers, blow up small towns when oil trains explode, gum up birds and fish and poison coastlines when offshore well heads break or oil barges wreck, and warp the atmosphere so that sea level rises and a lot of people have their homes flattened by hurricanes, all so that a small minority of people can get rich and the rest of us can pretend we have a couple of spare planets available.

Sure.

We, in fact, make this deal by how we spend our money and how we vote and we do it because the chance of any of those awful consequences happening to us are very small. Most of the people who benefit from fossil fuels don’t experience injury from them directly. The costs are borne by a small number of people somewhere else. When those people object, they are called nimbys, basically for not being team players. The logic, it seems, is that what benefits a large number of people is worth the loss of life and livelihood of a few, especially if it’s not clear who those few are going to be–we don’t know where or when the next oil spill will happen, only that it will happen somewhere, sometime. Fossil fuel is like a reverse lottery, where everybody buys a ticket and whoever holds the winning number has their property stolen and distributed to everyone else. It looks quite fair from a certain perspective.

What I did not write about then is the fact that the lottery isn’t random and not all tickets win. Being poor, being Native, being a person of color, even being female, make a person more likely to be poisoned by a pipeline leak, killed by a heat wave, impoverished by drought, drowned by extreme weather, or left to pick up the pieces after a disaster. Conversely, the richer and otherwise more privileged you are, the more of the benefits of fossil fuel use you are likely to personally reap. Fossil fuel use has benefits and it has costs, but he people who pay the costs are seldom the people who see much of the benefits and they are seldom the people drafting energy policy for the nation.

We need to talk about whose back yards get trashed for whose benefit and who gets a voice in making these decisions. We need to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change persists because fossil fuel still looks like a good deal to a lot of people–and that perception depends on a tacit agreement that the lives of everyone else don’t really matter very much.

 

 

*I understand that not everyone who might be called “Native American” actually likes the term. Generally, of course, it is better to be specific, and to say “Lakota” or “Miq Maq,” or whichever Nation one is actually talking about, but when one actually means all people whose ancestors have been on this continent for more than about 700 years…I know people who insist “we are Indians!” I know people who say “we are Indigenous!” And I know there are a lot of people I haven’t spoken to. But it sounds to me as though this is something people disagree on. I chose to write “Native American” because its literal accuracy appeals to me and because I understand it to be generally considered acceptable. If someone wants to correct me on this, please do.


2 Comments

What to Do Next

As readers know, Donald Trump is an outspoken climate denier. He’s also going to be the Next President of the United States, which is a very serious problem because President Obama’s climate legacy is almost entirely the result of executive action, and what one President can do with a pen and a telephone, another can undo the same way.

Or, almost.

Legally, the US can’t pull out of Paris for four years (and I really hope we’ll have a different President by then!), but Mr. Trump can simply decline to act on the terms of the agreement.

But we can hope that if enough pressure is brought to bear, Mr. Trump will realize that not honoring the agreement is stupid. In bringing that pressure, we may have help from abroad. Already, leaders attending climate talks this week are working to strengthen the world climate response, to hopefully compensate for the possibility that the US might pull out.

International readers! If you’re a citizen of somewhere other than the USA, please ask your leaders to pledge to hold the US accountable on climate! We need you!

From within the US, there also things we can do. Here is a list of concrete actions to take, about Paris and about other issues. Please note that where I say to contact your elected officials, that means to call, instead of or in addition to emailing. Emailing is super-easy and they know it. Here is an article on how to get the most impact for talking to your Congresspeople. You can look up your Members’ names and the correct phone numbers online easily, if you don’t happen to know them.

  1. Ask world leaders to keep the pressure on the US about climate–here is a petition.
  2. Contact your Congresspeople and tell them you support continued climate action (do this AFTER the new Congress is seated, too).
  3. Call your Senators (and other people’s Senators) and ask them to block Trump’s pick for EPA head, the climate-denier, Myron Ebell. Block any and all climate deniers he might try to put in that position.
  4. Donate money to major environmental groups: the Environmental Defense Fund is currently matching donations two-to-one AND is focusing particularly on protecting President Obama’s climate legacy against Mr. Trump.  Other highly relevant organizations include the Sierra Club Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Note that some of the above are also involved in the various anti-pipeline fights, which not only are environmental issues but also are human rights struggles through the potential impacts of those projects on various Native American nations.
  5. Donate money to the ACLU–Ok, this is not directly about climate change, it’s just plain important. These are the people who can fight many of the abuses that Mr. Trump has more or less promised.
  6. Support local, state, and non-profit environmental programs and campaigns. I hope to be able to provide specific recommendations here, but remember that some states and even regions have their own anti-climate change policies that need support–especially if the Federal government turns hostile, and it seems determined to do.

When you donate, consider donating as a group–get people from your workplace, your community group, or anything else you belong to, to all donate to the same place together. This not only encourages other group members to donate, but also lets the recipient know that your group exists and that your agenda is important (if you’re a big enough group). Your group does not need its own bank account for this to work–just ask each member to donate in the name of your group.

A variation on this idea is to donate in the name of a public figure, so that he or she receives a thank-you notice from the group. This way, not only do you raise money for a good cause, you also demonstrate your support of the cause to the public person. This is not necessarily a friendly thing to do. It’s closely related to the idea of donating to the League of Conservation Voters in the name of your climate-denier relative. It’s a bit of a screw-you. Only you can decide if this is really a good idea.

 


Leave a comment

The Climate of Congress

Some weeks ago, I wrote about the necessity of a nation-wide push to put climate-sane people in Congress and in state and local government, not just the White House (though the White House is critical, too). At the time, I did not know whether such a push was in progress. I simply hadn’t looked into it, yet. Now, I’m happy to report that the League of Conservation Voters has things well in hand. They could use donations, though. For more information, read their Plan of Action, here.

I also said I’d write a series about which races are actually important for climate. I’ll start with the Senate.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) lists several states where they are targeting Senate races. They also, helpfully, provide environmental voting scorecards on all legislators, meaning that if someone has served in the Senate or House already, we don’t need to rely on his or her campaign promises, we can just look at a score derived from the actual voting record.

As I’ve explained before, this blog is neutral on all issues besides climate. I understand you might have additional concerns, and so do I, but we’re ignoring those for the purpose of this discussion.

US Senate

34 Senate seats are up for election this year, ten of which are currently held by Democrats. The Democrats need to hold all ten and gain five more, in order to take control of the Senate (if Clinton wins the Presidency, the Democrats can win the Senate with only four additional seats, as Vice President Tim Kaine will have the tie-breaking vote).

Fortunately, that’s doable. Only two of the ten contested Democrat seats are considered vulnerable, according to the Cook Report, and one of those races is currently considered “likely” to go Democrat. Meanwhile, eight of the Republican seats up for election are considered “toss-ups,” and two others only “lean” Republican. Three more are considered “likely” to go Republican, but are still competitive.

There are some complications. For example, Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, is one of only four Republicans who voted last year to affirm that yes, humans are causing climate change (the others are Susan Collins, of Maine, Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, and Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, none of whom are up for re-election). Her lifetime score is 35%, which is pretty dreadful, but it’s better than many of her fellow Republicans’, and her score for last year alone was much higher–56%. So she’s getting better. Party membership alone does not guarantee a person’s stance on climate, and we do need to foster a genuine Conservative environmentalism, as I have argued before. So, we can’t just say Republicans, bad, Democrats, good. We have to look at candidates individually.

LCV’s list of target states is Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. First two are the two Democrat seats that are competitive. The other six are currently Republican.

So, who are these people? What is happening in these races?

Colorado

Democratic incumbent, Michael Bennet, faces Republican Tea Party favorite, Darryl Glenn, who is currently the El Paso County Commissioner. Since Colorado in general leans slightly to the left, current thinking is that Mr. Glenn is too far to the right for the state and cannot unseat Mr. Bennet.

Mr. Bennet’s lifetime score with the League of Conservation Voters is 87%. His record is marred by several anti-environment votes (as opposed to skipped votes), including consistent support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, but many of his environmental votes are in the areas of climate change and clean energy. While he has been roundly criticized by environmentalists for supporting the pipeline, he has been endorsed by both the LCV Action Fund and the NRDC Action Fund. He seems an imperfect but able ally.

Florida

Florida’s Democratic primary isn’t until next week (August 30th), and the fight between the front-runners has been negative and nasty. The incumbent Republican is Marco Rubio, His lifetime scorecard with LCV is precisely 6%. He is well-known as a climate denier. Whoever runs against him had better win.

Illinois

Republican incumbent, Mark Kirk, is facing Democrat Tammy Duckworth. The Cook Report considers the race a “toss-up,” but Illinois leans Democrat, and some thinkers estimate the chance of an upset as very good.

Fortunately for us, Ms. Duckworth is currently a House Rep. so both candidates have LCV score cards. Ms. Duckworth’s lifetime score is 85%, while her score last year is an even better 89%. A note on her scorecard indicates that she missed votes in 2015 while she was on maternity leave but read a statement into the record saying that she would have voted pro-environment had she been there. It is unclear to me what that means about her actual voting history–would her score be even higher had she not been absent? Does her score reflect votes she didn’t actually make? In any case, she’s a climate hawk with good name recognition and a fair shot at winning.

Mr. Kirk has a lifetime score of 57% and a score last year of just 40%. In other words, despite not believing that humans cause climate change, he could be worse. Ms. Duckworth will be better.

Nevada

This is Senator Harry Reid’s seat, but the Senate Minority Leader is retiring, so the race is open. It’s also the one currently Democratic seat currently considered a toss-up by Cook.

Republican Joe Heck is now a member of the House of Representatives. He is also a member of LCV’s current Dirty Dozen, a list of the 12 elected officials the organization really, really wants to defeat–and thinks it can. LCV doesn’t list people it thinks are hopeless. Not surprisingly, his lifetime score is 6%. Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is currently Nevada’s Attorney General and therefore doesn’t have a voting record LCV can score, but she does have their endorsement.

North Carolina

Republican incumbent, Richard Burr faces two challengers, Democrat Deborah Ross, and Libertarian Sean Haugh. The race is considered a toss-up by the Cook Report. Mr. Burr’s LCV score is a ridiculous 4%–one wonders if perhaps his few pro-environment votes were accidental–so while I haven’t found any figures for Mr. Haugh, he would probably be at least marginally better from our perspective.

Ms. Ross would definitely be better–she won LCV’s endorsement even before winning her state’s primary, and as a member of her state’s legislature, she earned an amazing 95% pro-environment score.

Ohio

Republican Rob Portman is running for re-election against Democratic challenger, Ted Strickland. This is one of the races the Cook Report considers a toss-up, and while the LCV seems to be getting involved, so have the Koch brothers, through a group called Americans for Prosperity Ohio.

Mr. Portman has a record with the League of Conservation Voters going back to 1993. That means there are Ohioans in their 40’s who have never voted without him being on the ballot. And in all that time he’s racked up a lifetime score of just 20%. His score last year was only 8%, which could mean he’s actively getting worse. But Mr. Strickland also has an LCV score, for while he isn’t in office currently, he has been in the past–he earned 77%. So, while isn’t the world’s fiercest climate hawk, he’s certainly got Mr. Portman beat.

Let’s see if he can win on Election Day, too.

Pennsylvania

Republican incumbent, Pat Toomey also faces two challengers, Democrat Katie McGinty and Independent, Everett Stern. The race is another toss-up, according to Cook.

Mr. Toomey has a lifetime LCV score of just 7% and his score for 2015 is actually 0%. Not surprisingly, he is another member of the Dirty Dozen–which means LCV considers him beatable.Mr. Stern has no LCV score, not having held previous elected office (his background is in business and advocacy), but he is running on a platform that includes expanded fossil fuel exploitation in Pennsylvania and he is against President Obama’s “constraint” of the industry.

Ms. McGinty doesn’t have an LCV score, either (this apparently would be her first elected office, although she has held appointed positions at both the state and national level for decades), but she did earn its endorsement even before winning her primary.

Winsconsin

Republican incumbent, Ron Johnson faces Democratic challenger, Russ Feingold. If that sounds familiar, it’s because the race is a re-match. Mr. Johnson defeated Senator Feingold in 2010. Mr. Johnson is not exactly a climate hawk–his lifetime LCV score is 4%, and his score in 2015 is 0%. He’s another of the Dirty Dozen. Mr. Feingold, meanwhile, earned an incredible 95% back when he was in office. Hopefully, he can get back there, soon.

Bottom Line?

The bottom line is that if all eight of the above-mentioned pro-climate candidates win, the Senate will once again be Democrat-controlled and will have exchanged six climate deniers for six climate hawks. If not all of them win?

The most vulnerable seat is Harry Reid’s since there is no incumbent running. If Joe Heck wins that one and the Democrats win all the others, the Democratic majority holds. If Michael Bennet in Colorado loses as well, Democrats will only retain control of the Senate if their party also wins the White House (which they must, but that’s another issue). There are a few other Republicans who could lose and give the Democrats a larger margin of victory, but it’s unlikely, and anyway I don’t yet know how strong those Democrats are on climate. So, these eight races are the important ones, the ones that need national support in order to get climate-sane people into office.

The winner of the Florida primary, plus Michael Bennet, of Colorado, Tammy Duckworth, of Illinois, Catherine Cortez Masto, of Nevada,  Deborah Ross, of North Carolina, Ted Strickland, of Ohio, Katie McGinty, of Pennsylvania, and Russ Feingold, of Wisconsin–these are the people to watch and support.