World’s First Carbon Import Tax Approved by EU Lawmakers

Vote caps nearly two years of negotiations on first-of-a-kind legislation

By Matthew Dalton and Amrith Ramkumar, The Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2023

The European Union’s parliament approved legislation to tax imports based on the greenhouse gases emitted to make them, clearing the final hurdle before the plan becomes law and enshrines climate regulation in the rules of global trade for the first time.

Tuesday’s vote caps nearly two years of negotiations on the import tax, which aims to push economies around the world to put a price on carbon-dioxide emissions while shielding the EU’s manufacturers from countries that aren’t regulating emissions as strictly, or at all. The tax gives credit to countries that put a price on carbon, allowing importers of goods from those countries to deduct payments made for overseas emissions from the amount owed at the EU’s borders.

The tax has raised concerns in the U.S., where companies worry the plan would erect a web of red tape for companies seeking to export to Europe. It has also drawn criticism from China and parts of the developing world, where manufacturers tend to emit more carbon dioxide than their competitors in Europe and rely more on coal-fired electricity. 

Governments and lawmakers in other countries are already under pressure to follow suit. The U.K. is debating whether to introduce a carbon border tax, while Democrats in Congress proposed legislation to create one. Bipartisan support for the idea is growing in the U.S., said Kevin Dempsey, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents companies such as Nucor Corp. and ArcelorMittal SA.

“The U.S. and the EU have a lot in common,” said Mr. Dempsey. “The threat that we both face is steel coming from other parts of the world, China and Asia, that have much higher carbon intensity.”

Tuesday’s news prompted fresh calls in the U.S. for a similar tax. Producers of many different commodities argue it is difficult to compete with cheap, imported products that carry higher environmental footprints. Mike Ireland, president and CEO of the Portland Cement Association, said the U.S. having a similar levy would protect domestic producers.

The White House has urged the EU to give U.S. exporters credit for U.S. climate-change regulations, which don’t set a price on carbon but instead provide incentives for clean energy. But EU officials rebuffed those arguments, saying only exporters in countries that put an explicit price on carbon dioxide can enjoy a deduction from the border tax.

The EU’s legislation will at first cover imports of iron, steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizer, electricity and hydrogen. Companies will have to begin reporting the emissions of their imported goods starting in October, including the indirect emissions released by the electricity generation that powers overseas factories.

Importers will have to begin paying the tax in 2026. That date coincides with the phasing out of free allowances given to Europe’s manufacturers under the bloc’s emissions trading system. Legislation also approved Tuesday sets a schedule for completely phasing out free allowances between 2026 and 2034. 

During that period, importers will only pay for the share of emissions that European manufacturers aren’t getting free. That measure is intended to treat domestic and overseas manufacturers equally, key for Europe’s arguments that its border tax doesn’t violate World Trade Organization rules that limit discrimination against foreign firms.

The price per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions for imports will be the same as the price for the EU’s emissions trading system, which covers power plants and manufacturers in most sectors. The price for an EU carbon allowance is around 90 euros a metric ton, equivalent to $98.37, and has risen significantly since the EU proposed to tighten its climate regulations in 2021.

The legislation requires importers to be authorized by European governments and included in a centralized EU registry. Companies face the complex task of determining the greenhouse gases that have been emitted to make the goods they import.

Christopher Glen, director of advocacy and public relations at the Fertilizer Institute, said the new tax could affect regional pricing and availability of notoriously volatile commodities. “This is something that seems to move us in the wrong direction,” he said.

Sara Nordin, a partner at law firm White & Case LLP focused on international trade and EU trade compliance, said businesses are starting to ask how they might be affected. Exporters in the U.S. and elsewhere will likely have to provide emissions and other data so their customers can pay the tax. 

“I don’t think you can escape the impact this is going to have,” she said. “You’ll have to spend some money and effort to figure out what you have to do as a company.”

The legislation empowers the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, to accredit companies to verify the emissions of overseas manufacturers. EU officials have said they want to foster an industry of consultants with the expertise to conduct these reviews for the continent’s importers. Among other tasks, the consultants will be hired to audit the emissions from individual factories in Europe’s trading partners around the world.

Before the war in Ukraine, Russia was the European trading partner that was expected to be hardest hit by the border tax. It exported large quantities of steel, fertilizer and aluminum to the bloc. But EU sanctions imposed because of Russia’s invasion have slashed Europe’s imports of these goods from Russia.

China is now likely to be most affected by the border tax. As of 2019, it exported around €6.5 billion goods covered by the border tax to the EU, or less than 2% of total exports to the EU.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/worlds-first-carbon-tax-approved-by-eu-lawmakers-752ed823

Fast EV Chargers to Nearly Double on U.S. Highways Under Expansion Plan

Italy’s Enel expects to add at least two million chargers, including home systems, in North America by the end of the decade

By Jennifer Hiller, The Wall Street Journal, April 13, 2023

Italian energy giant Enel SpA said it would nearly double the amount of electric-vehicle fast chargers in the U.S. by 2030, potentially giving a critical boost to Biden administration efforts to switch more drivers to greener cars.

If Enel follows through on the plan, which it announced on Thursday, it would add 10,000 public fast chargers, considered one of the key pieces necessary for wider adoption of electric vehicles. Enel said it expects to apply for U.S. government subsidies that have been offered to companies willing to build the necessary infrastructure.

The Biden administration this week proposed new, tougher tailpipe emissions restrictions intended to accelerate the switch to EVs and reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels that generate greenhouse gases. New standards for light-duty vehicles would apply to the 2027 to 2032 model years.

Mr. Biden’s EV ambitions will hinge in large part on the availability of public places to plug in and repower cars reliably, a network that largely doesn’t exist. Building it won’t be easy.

While the government is pouring billions of dollars into developing a national highway charging network, many companies aren’t sure how they will make money off the nascent business. Fast charging requires expensive utility infrastructure and projects often encounter supply chain hang ups and long wait times to connect to the grid.

Because of that, fast charging providers must try to time a Goldilocks build-out, not so early that equipment goes unused, or too late to frustrate or dissuade drivers in search of a charge.

“The goal is to build a network that meets the demands and expectations of the public, that when they pull up to a charger it will work as intended,” said Albert Gore, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, a trade group that supports EV adoption.

Enel said Thursday it expects to add at least two million chargers overall this decade in North America. Most of that new gear would come from selling at-home chargers that repower an EV battery over several hours, the most common way to charge, though its plans for building public fast chargers would make it one of the largest operators in that market.

Chris Baker, head of charging subsidiary Enel X Way North America, said that government incentives and an uptick in EV adoption further convinced the company that it was time to enter the public charging market.

“We can come in and make a big commitment and take a long-term view on it,” Mr. Baker said. “It’s an infrastructure play.” He didn’t disclose the size of the investment.

At-home charging is the cheapest way to fuel but it takes time, while fast chargers can repower a car battery in about 30 minutes. Prices vary depending on EV efficiency and the electricity market, but a fast charge can cost around $13 for a midsize car to travel 100 miles.

The U.S. has around 11,500 fast-charging ports now that are open to any kind of vehicle, while EV market leader Tesla Inc. has a network for its own drivers with about 18,700, according to government data.

The business model for fast charging has been troubled because there aren’t enough EVs in most places yet for charging to turn a profit. Yet EV advocates say many drivers will only be comfortable purchasing vehicles if rapid charging is widely available.

Utility companies and gas stations have been arguing across several states about who will own and operate EV chargers. The expensive utility bills that can result from delivering quick jolts of power have been a particular point of contention. Meanwhile, the young companies that provide charging gear and services have struggled with equipment on the fritz, vandalism and driver payment systems, a frequent source of failure.

Government funding is intended to ease the growing pains and jump-start the nascent industry.

Enel’s fast-charging build-out would focus on the U.S., where the government has put billions on the table to try to create a national highway network of the equipment to ease “range anxiety,” the stress that drivers have about running out of juice on longer road trips.

The Biden administration has started giving states $7.5 billion over several years to fund charging build-outs, money included in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill passed by Congress in 2021. State transportation departments will be among the key gatekeepers of the federal infrastructure dollars. Recent technical guidelines outline made-in-America provisions for the equipment. Tax credits for installing EV chargers also were approved as part of last year’s Inflation Reduction Act.

Enel would be in line to qualify for government funding along with charging providers such as Electrify America LLC, EVgo Inc., ChargePoint Holdings Inc., Blink Charging Co. and Canada’s FLO network. Companies planning fast-charging networks range from car-rental company Hertz Global Holdings Inc., partnering with BP PLC, to roadside truck stops TravelCenters of America Inc. and Pilot Co., to Walmart, which said this month that it plans to build its own EV fast-charging network at Walmart and Sam’s Club locations.

Until now, Enel’s charging business has been focused on selling at-home and private commercial equipment in North America, though it has a large public charging network in Europe. Much of its work in Mexico is focused on fleet charging. Enel North America, another subsidiary, is also a large developer of renewable energy and battery projects in the U.S. and is making a massive push into solar-panel manufacturing.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/italian-company-plans-10-000-fast-chargers-across-u-s-to-meet-ev-demand-959fd135?mod=hp_lista_pos2

At a climate conference for conservatives, urgency for action meets caution on messaging

“At the time, it was both safe and popular for Republicans to deny climate change,” one speaker said of previous generations of politicians. “But times are changing.”

By Nidhi Sharma, NBC News, March 30, 2023

WASHINGTON — The first slide in Luke Bolar’s presentation at the third annual Conservative Climate Leadership Conference immediately elicited some laughter from the crowd.

On screen was an infamous photo from 2015 — former Oklahoma senator and staunch climate denier Jim Inhofe holding a snowball on the Senate floor to prove global warming was a hoax. 

“At the time, it was both safe and popular for Republicans to deny climate change,” said Bolar, the chief external affairs officer at ClearPath, an environmental advocacy group dedicated to growing conservative clean energy. “But times are changing.”

Bolar, a former aide to several Republicans on Capitol Hill, was one of about 100 people who gathered at the Holiday Inn in downtown Washington on Tuesday for one of the largest yearly meetings of conservatives concerned about climate change.

Each attendee had passed a screening about their political opinions on social and economic issues to prove their right-leaning status and gain entry to the event, which boasted the tagline: “Yes, there’s a place for conservative climate action. And this is it.” 

The agenda promised discussions for conservatives looking to tackle climate change using strategies centered on limited government interference and a more inclusive, market-based approach to fossil fuels. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan environmental advocacy group, hosted the conference, before sending attendees to Capitol Hill to lobby Republican members of Congress to support climate action. 

The day started at 10 a.m. Over paper cups of coffee and pale yellow banquet tables, blazer-clad attendees chatted about the cherry blossoms blooming nearby and the upcoming lobby day.

The attendees came from around the country. Phil Engen, a software development manager from Iowa, explained the strategy for getting fellow conservatives to talk about climate.

“You have to be very careful with your wording,” Engen said. “It’s best to find an issue that you both agree on, and approach climate change through that lens.”

Sessions covered issues like the impact of climate change on hunting and fishing, growing the nuclear energy industry and working with the media as climate-driven conservatives.

Two major talking points at the conference focused on permitting reform and carbon pricing in the form of carbon dividends, in which companies pay a fee for every metric ton of carbon they emit and the funds collected are paid out to Americans as monthly dividends. 

In the U.S., the permitting process for new energy projects such as transmission lines to transport renewable energy can be extremely long. Energy experts say many of the goals of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden signed last year, cannot be met without overhauling the permitting process.

In the last decade, Democrats have incorporated climate change into their political platform far more than Republicans have. But more recently, Republicans, particularly young ones, are increasingly speaking up about climate. In 2022, a Pew Research Center poll found that 47% of Republicans aged 18-29 believe the federal government is doing too little to address climate change. 

At the state level, some Republican-led states are leading the clean energy transition. In 2022, Texas and Iowa produced more wind power than the rest of the U.S., and Florida and North Carolina produced the most solar power.

The climate deniers, Bolar reassured the audience, are a small but loud percentage of conservatives. “It’s time to talk about solutions,” he said.

It’s essential to inform GOP politicians that talking about climate will score points with both swing voters and their Republican constituents, many of whom have established that they care about climate change, Bolar told attendees. 

Still, the party has many vocal climate change skeptics, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who once said that global warming is good for the planet, along with former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly called climate change a hoax.

The topic is still difficult to broach in many conservative circles, several attendees at this week’s conference said.

For Elizabeth Fenner, a librarian living in Wichita, Kansas, talking to her Catholic community about climate change can be downright impossible. Still, Fenner argues that taking climate action is a religious duty. “I believe we are commanded by God to protect the Earth,” she said.

Dalton Jackson, a 20-year-old conservative student from Indiana who grew up on a farm, said it’s not uncommon for people in rural Indiana to deny climate change.

Jackson said that many farmers rely on diesel-powered tractors and trucks to make a living — and the concept of electrification for farming equipment brings up concerns about price, and even loss of identity.

“Climate change should be a bipartisan issue,” Jackson said. “It affects all of us. All we can do is hope that Republicans around the nation will hear us out. It’s easy to shame them, but it’s not productive. Rural people are not our enemies. We’re all Americans at the end of the day.”

Conservative climate advocates believe bipartisan action is essential to address climate change in America. Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, has openly spoken about climate change and encouraged other Republicans to do the same. Curtis, who was a featured speaker at the conference, founded the Conservative Climate Caucus in 2021, and has been lauded for his efforts to bring climate change to the Republican platform.

“Republicans care deeply about leaving the Earth even better than we found it,” Curtis said in an interview. “And in the past, we haven’t always done a good job of articulating that. I think that’s been a mistake, and I want to change that.”

Still, Curtis voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, which included billions of dollars for clean energy production, energy efficiency and forest protection. He said that he felt that Republicans were not consulted on the bill. 

Curtis said that climate change needs to be addressed in a more practical, conservative manner. Many Republicans also feel that fossil fuels are an important part of the energy transition — that you can’t get to 100% clean energy without the help of fossil fuels, for a limited time, he said. 

Most importantly, it is essential to talk about climate change outside of political terms, Curtis said. “I try to appeal to their innate desire to pass on an earth for our posterity that’s better than what we found. I believe that that’s implanted in the hearts of all of us.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-conference-conservatives-rcna77158

Time Is Running Out to Curb Climate Change, IPCC Report Says

U.N. panel of scientists say limiting global warming requires a massive and rapid shift in the world’s energy supply

By Eric Niiler, The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2023

A United Nations panel of scientists said there is a “feasible, but narrow pathway” to avoid the worst effects of climate change, however to do so, the world’s nations must together cut greenhouse-gas emissions 60% by 2035 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels.

That level of cuts would require a massive and rapid shift in the world’s energy supply that is under way in some countries, but has been stifled by the war in Ukraine, the global energy crisis and thirst for economic growth in countries like China and India. Global greenhouse-gas emissions reached record levels in 2022 and are projected to continue their upward trajectory, according to scientists. 

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday released a synthesis of the Sixth Assessment Report, which combines three working-group studies on climate science, adaptation and mitigation, as well as special reports on the oceans, land and reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius, the number that nations agreed to limit warming at the 2015 Paris climate summit to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The synthesis was released at an IPCC meeting in Interlaken, Switzerland, and will be the panel’s last report until 2027.

The authors state that the climate-related effects are worse than had been projected in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment released in 2014, and that future effects will include more heat waves, periods of drought, extreme rainfall, sea level rise and flooding across the globe. These effects are the result of more than a century of burning of fossil fuels, which has led global temperatures to rise 1.1 degrees Celsius since 1900, the panel said.   

“The report shows that climate impacts are undermining our livelihoods, they are damaging the global economy and the impacts threaten our life support system, that of nature itself,” said Dr. Hoesung Lee, chairman of the IPCC, at a news conference Monday announcing the synthesis report.

The report does have some good news. If nations are able to balance emissions and removals of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to achieve a “net-zero” state sometime around the middle of the century, the Earth’s temperature could begin stabilizing a decade or so later, according to projections released today in the IPCC synthesis report. That’s a more positive outcome than in previous studies, , according to Dr. Benjamin Poulter, an earth scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., who is an author on Monday’s IPCC report and the previous one.

“The quicker we act, the quicker we can stop the climate impacts that are happening,” Dr. Poulter said.

Other IPCC authors note that climate solutions—from switching to electric vehicles to changing farming practices—are becoming cheaper and more available to the industrialized world and developing nations. Climate solutions also may have side benefits, according to Francis X. Johnson, a senior research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute and an IPCC report author.

“Changes in society have benefits for the climate, but they have other benefits as well,” Dr. Johnson said. “Focusing on those benefits could be a more promising strategy since most people have a hard time getting their head around it. This is a big issue.”

Cutting industrial carbon emissions can also reduce unhealthful air pollution, while adding green space to cities can improve residents’ quality of life while absorbing rainfall and cooling the air at the same time, Dr. Johnson said.

The IPCC report states that greenhouse gases are difficult to cut from some industrial processes, agriculture, aviation and shipping. As a result, those emissions will have to be counterbalanced by carbon dioxide removal methods, such as capturing carbon emissions from factories and storing them safely underground, using filters to scrub carbon dioxide directly from the air, or persuading farmers to capture more carbon in their fields.

In addition to providing information about the current status of greenhouse gas levels, global temperatures and future projections, the IPCC report also describes the effects of climate change on societies that will suffer more than wealthier nations.

In 2022, heat waves racked Europe, China and the western U.S., while Pakistan was devastated by widespread flooding that affected more than 33 million people and resulted in $30 billion in damage, according to the World Bank. 

“Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected,” Aditi Mukherji, one of the 93 authors of the report and climate director of climate adaptation for the International Water Management Institute in New Delhi, said in a statement.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/time-is-running-out-to-curb-global-warming-u-n-panel-report-says-83205040?mod=hp_lead_pos10

Push partisan politics to the side to create bipartisan solutions to climate change

Op-Ed by Makenzie Binford & Christopher Bove, Indianapolis Star, March 4, 2023

We are young leaders representing opposing political parties. In the recent midterm elections, we were fighting in opposite trenches to turn out the vote for our respective candidates. However, now that the political dust has settled and divided government has begun, we know our parties must come together and put our country’s interests first.

As we see it, this must include climate change. Climate instability is worsening, and Americans are facing escalating costs from extreme storms and other climate damages. Our generation — which turned out in force in the recent election — will face the brunt of the impacts, which is why young voters consistently rank climate as a top voting issue.

Delivering results on climate change should be a priority for this Congress, and, even in the context of divided government, there is reason for hope. The legislative track record underscores that most legislative successes are, in fact, bipartisan. Since 1985, the majority party has passed high-priority legislation without support from the opposing party a meager 4% of the time. In this sense, bipartisanship isn’t the exception in Congress. It’s the norm.

Climate politics remains politicized, so how can we achieve bipartisanship on this issue?

First, both parties need to embrace compromise. On the liberal side of the aisle, progressive activists must be willing to decouple climate policy from other progressive policy goals and also be open to market-based solutions, as long as they help to reduce emissions. That is the way to bring both parties together around bipartisan and durable solutions.

Conservatives, meanwhile, need to lead with greater ambition on the issue, leave climate denialism behind and put forth concrete and effective solutions. As more leaders in the GOP lean-in on climate, Republicans can’t just say they’re for clean energy innovation without supporting the incentives to induce it. The reality is that society won’t adopt cleaner alternatives at scale because it feels good. The private sector needs clear market signals.

Second, success should be measured by actual emissions reductions. While recent Congressional proposals like the Trillion Trees Act and Civilian Climate Corps Act might spring from noble intentions, they would do little on their own to improve the raw math of emissions. Emphasizing actual reductions — including in key sectors like energy, transportation and industry — will bring into focus what matters most.

To this end, a market-based tool like carbon pricing is vital. This approach would charge fossil fuel companies a fee for their emissions and create a market incentive for businesses to adopt cleaner energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear. In addition, if the revenue from this carbon fee were returned to citizens as direct checks, this would sidestep debates about the size of government and put money back in the pockets of US workers and families.

This approach has earned the backing of thought leaders across the political spectrum, as well as business leaders and environmental experts. It would harness the marketplace to accelerate the transition to clean energy and help deliver a 50% emissions cut by 2030.

Finally, we must spur progress overseas. While it’s true the U.S. has higher emissions per capita, it’s also true that an overwhelming 87% of carbon emissions come from beyond our shores, meaning domestic action can only go so far. A tool known as a pollution import fee — which would charge foreign polluters for their emissions — could bring both parties together and send a clear market signal to lower international emissions.
Republican
and Democrat lawmakers alike are gravitating toward this approach, including as a means to hold high-emitting countries like China accountable and bring jobs and manufacturing back to the United States. In this new Congress, this type of solution should be at the top of the agenda. As overall emissions continue to rise and climate impacts intensify, we should double down on finding pathways to climate leadership. In the 118th Congress, we can supercharge recent climate investments, expand energy production in the United States, and lower global emissions, too. 

Especially as our generation continues to vote and prioritize climate action, the mandate to lead on this issue will only strengthen. We can, and must, put aside our differences and ensure a timely response to one of the great challenges of our time. 

Makenzie Binford is the chairwoman of the Indiana Federation of College Republicans. She is a student at Indiana University. 

Christopher Bove is the chairman of the College Democrats of Rhode Island. He is a student at the University of Rhode Island.

https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2023/03/04/bipartisan-cooperation-needed-to-resolve-climate-change-in-u-s/69968497007/

Republican Leaders Want to Reinvent the Party’s Climate Image. The Far Right Won’t Let Them

How the GOP approaches climate policy matters, polls show. But a small group of radical conservatives are preventing the party from finding common ground.

By Kristoffer Tigue, Inside Climate News, Feb. 21, 2023

The Republican party has an image issue when it comes to climate change.

For decades, the GOP has consistently pushed back against warnings from the science community that human-caused global warming poses an existential threat to the planet. And while that largely remains the same today—after all, no Republicans voted for President Joe Biden’s flagship climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act—some conservative lawmakers have at least started to recognize global warming as a political threat.

Recent polls have consistently shown that Americans generally view climate change as a serious issue and support policies that address it.

About 70 percent of Americans now believe global warming is occurring, with almost as many saying they’re worried to some degree about the threats it poses to them, according to a December poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. A second George Mason University poll that month found that nearly 80 percent of U.S. registered voters support developing renewable energy, such as solar and wind, on public land. That total includes more than half of the survey respondents who identified as conservative Republicans, as opposed to moderate.

Republican leaders have responded to that political landscape in recent years by taking a more measured approach to climate issues. Ahead of the midterm elections, for example, House Republicans unveiled their own climate plan—albeit one that received harsh criticism from environmentalists for its heavy reliance on oil and gas production. And as the GOP ramped up its campaign last year against the Biden

administration’s proposal to require public companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related risks to federal regulators, with some calling it “woke capitalism,” some of the party’s top-ranking members tried to temper that fight by conveying a softer tone.

“I have long recognized the threat climate change poses to communities across America, and thoughtful climate policy—focused on the health and welfare of America’s working class—is long overdue,” wrote North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry, the incoming Republican leader of the House Financial Services Committee, in a March press release that criticized the proposed climate disclosure rule.

But as Republican leaders attempt to revamp the party’s climate image, they’re running headlong into resistance from a small but vocal group of far-right lawmakers who are touting extreme views of global warming and making it far more difficult for the GOP to establish a unified platform.

In fact, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert will help to kick off the Heartland Institute’s 15th annual climate change conference this week, where the event’s prevailing message is that “there is no climate crisis.” Boebert, a GOP firebrand who has made a name for herself by leaning into America’s culture war, was one of 20 far-right lawmakers who initially blocked California Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s election as House Speaker last month in what was arguably the most public display yet of the growing rift within the Republican party.

“Republican members of Congress who attempt to lean in and address climate change in a responsible manner will find a warm embrace by their Democratic colleagues on the Hill, but will also get a cold shoulder or worse from many of their Republican colleagues,” Edward Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, told me in an email interview. 

“They need to look beyond the hostile members of their own caucus and look to their voters,” added Maibach, who oversees the climate-related polling conducted by George Mason University and Yale. “Our polls show that Republicans who are willing to stand tall for climate action will have a better chance of winning in their general election because large majorities of voters favor climate action.”

Boebert’s participation in Heartland’s summit this week, however, could make it harder for more centrist Republicans like McHenry to pursue that course of action. The free-market think tank’s close ties to former President Donald Trump only highlights the ongoing infighting over who will represent the Republican party in the 2024 presidential election. The Heartland Institute also has a long history of spreading misleading and false claims about global warming and is widely viewed by climate advocates as a disinformation machine.

The group was responsible for launching then-German teenager Naomi Seibt into the international spotlight in 2020. Seibt, who was 19 years old at the time, billed herself as a grassroots “climate skeptic,” prompting some to dub her the “anti-Greta”—a counterweight to the rising popularity of Swedish youth climate activist Greta Thunberg. Considering Seibt was found to be on the Heartland Institute’s payroll, however, many in the climate movement quickly dismissed her claims of coming from humble grassroots beginnings.

Earlier this month, the organization sent copies of its book, “Climate at a Glance,” to 8,000 middle and high school teachers across the country, saying it was providing the schools with “the data to show the Earth is not experiencing a climate crisis.”

The book was the second attempt by the group to influence public school science education since at least 2017 and contained highly misleading statements such as “sea levels have been rising at a fairly steady pace since at least the mid-1800s.” A closer look at the data shows that the rate of sea-level rise has more than doubled in the 2000s when compared to most of the 20th century.

“It’s a misleading interpretation of scientific facts and questionable inferences drawn from cherry picked data from unreliable sources,” Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of sociology at Brown University who has researched the public relations strategies of the fossil fuel industry, told Grist. “It almost seems quaint that they’re still running with this. It’s like ‘The 1990s called. They want their scientific misinformation back.’”

https://insideclimatenews.org/todaysclimate/republicans-far-right-climate-change/?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=8079751928-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_02_25_05_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-8079751928-329499109