Democratic hopes for maintaining control over the U.S. Senate are looking increasingly slim as most forecasters are projecting a two-seat majority for the Republicans come November 4. While this hold on the Senate is likely to be brief – 24 of the 34 incumbents up for re-election in 2016 are Republicans – it promises to be an eventful two years of pre-2016 election posturing. Beyond the spectre of continued skirmishes over Obamacare and yet another vote to increase the debt ceiling (steel yourself for June/July 2015) lies the Republican environmental agenda.
Bloomberg BNA tries to unpack what is likely in store for President Obama:
A Republican-led Senate would energize House Republicans, who have few victories to show for their nearly four-year battle to roll back environmental regulations they see as overly burdensome to the coal industry and detrimental to economic growth.
The Environmental Protection Agency's power plant rule—which would for the first time set limits on greenhouse gases emitted from electricity production—is by far the biggest target for Republican leaders, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has relentlessly attacked the administration's proposed carbon limits as Senate minority leader. McConnell is likely to become the majority leader if Republicans win the Senate—and if he holds onto his own Senate seat.
Beyond the power plant regulations, Republicans are aiming to target the stream buffer rule, upcoming ozone protection efforts and other regulations by attempting to ban EPA enforcement authority over these areas. Yet, such brazen efforts are likely to attract the President’s veto pen, even if pigeonholed into unrelated must-pass spending bills. Similar efforts to defund enforcement budgets for individual regulations are unlikely to go anywhere for the same reason.
The most successful path for Republicans could be to gut the EPA’s overall budget, which has already contracted 24 per cent since Republicans took control of the House in 2010. President Obama has repeatedly compromised on Republican budgetary requests that disproportionately target the EPA. The president’s proposed budget for 2015 allocates $7.89 billion for the EPA, compared to $10.3 billion in 2010. Even this shrunken figure is being derided by Republicans as too generous.
Coral Davenport places the cuts in context:
Cutting the agency’s budget doesn’t take away its obligation to enforce environmental laws and implement new regulations, but it has dramatically weakened and slowed the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mandate. And the cuts have come just as President Obama is preparing to ramp up efforts to tackle climate change. That will be a huge struggle—the EPA’s budget cuts have already sapped the agency of money for the staff, training, travel, and technology needed to enforce existing environmental-protection rules.
William J. Antholis at The Brookings Institute is worried about the impact this might have at the Climate Change Conference in Paris next year:
If, however, Congressional Republicans succeed in undermining the President’s EPA authority, [American] negotiating strength would be reduced. The President could be faced with an unfunded or poorly funded EPA, not to mention large congressional delegations of Republicans on the sidelines in Paris. This would undermine the faith of other climate diplomats that the U.S. will live up to its greenhouse gas reduction pledges and other commitments in the negotiations.
