Could Chris Christie Bring the GOP Around on Climate?

The governor of New Jersey “talks a good game” on global warming, but so far he hasn’t followed through.

Clem Murray/Philadelphia Inquirer/ZUMAPress

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Chris Christie, the combative Republican governor of New Jersey, thinks that climate change is a problem and humans are causing it. “Climate change is real…[and] impacting our state,” he said in August 2011. “Human activity plays a role in these changes.” Christie hasn’t shown much willingness to act on the issue: In the same speech, he announced he was pulling New Jersey out of a Northeastern regional plan to cut carbon emissions. But in simply acknowledging that climate change is not some liberal conspiracy, Christie is standing out from the GOP pack. He’s a popular Republican with national ambitions who seems to recognize the threat. That’s raised a question among some hopeful activists: Can Chris Christie shift the politics of climate change?

If Christie decided to lead on climate, he wouldn’t be the first New Jersey Republican to do so. Tom Kean Sr., the Republican governor of New Jersey from 1982 to 1990, was one of the first politicians to pay attention to climate change as a threat. In 1989, Kean issued an executive order noting the scientific consensus on that greenhouse gas emissions were warming the planet, and directing state agencies to start figuring out how to deal with that. Although Kean is a Christie fan, he’s also criticized him not doing more on climate. “We’ve got some climate change policies in the state,” Kean says. “He’s accepted those. I can’t say he’s been leader on them. He hasn’t been.” But that could change, Kean adds.

“The thing people love about this guy is he says what’s on his mind. He’s said a lot of things that aren’t politic…I think if he believes in something he’s going to talk about it,” Kean says. “He could be a real leader on this if he wants to be. I hope he is.”

Nationally, Republicans who care about climate change are looking for a leader. “With a majority of Americans already expressing concern about climate change and most others trying to make sense of destructive and unprecedented weather, voters of all political stripes will be looking for leaders willing to tackle the problem and offer real solutions,” says Rob Sisson, president of ConservAmerica, a right-leaning environmental group. “There is no political future in the climate denial game, and I hope my fellow Republicans can now see the political pitfalls of being bullied by the most radical and irresponsible voices in our party.”

Environmentalists in New Jersey aren’t sure what Christie really thinks about the issue. In the 2009 election, the New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF) surprised many in the state by endorsing Christie over incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine—the group’s first endorsement of a Republican for statewide office in almost three decades. The group knocked Corzine’s failure to live up to environmental promises, and cited Christie’s “impressive green agenda.”

But Christie’s promises faded soon after taking office—and climate hawks have been disappointed that he didn’t talk more about the link between climate change and more powerful storms such as Hurricane Sandy, which pummeled New Jersey. Asked about climate change’s role in the storm earlier this month, Christie dismissed it. “It’s not a main concern for me,” he said. “Now maybe, in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder the esoteric question of the cause of this storm.” New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has spoken of the need to rebuild smarter—and not in all the same places. But Christie has put his emphasis on restoring the shore that once was.

“It was our hope that he would change the dialogue,” says Amy Goldsmith, director of NJEF. “But clearly his post-Sandy remarks don’t show that desire. In fact he’s pooh-poohing it as if it’s an academic, wacko thing to talk about.” In its last report card on legislators, NJEF gave Christie an F.

It’s not just a rhetorical slight; as governor, Christie has gutted many programs that aimed to address climate change. He got rid of the Office of Climate Change and Energy within the Department of Environmental Protection shortly after taking office, withdrew the state from the Northeast’s cap and trade plan known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), weakened the state’s renewable energy standard, and took $210 million from the state’s clean energy fund to balance the budget.

Jeff Tittel, the head of the New Jersey chapter of Sierra Club, says that Christie has tried to have it both ways by talking a good game on climate but enacting policies that actually make the problem worse. “People in New Jersey believe in climate change, so he’s parsed his words very, very carefully,” Tittel says. “He can give impression in New Jersey that he cares about the issue, but on national stage he pulls out of RGGI. It’s an interesting tightrope walk.”

As Tittel notes, the New Jersey GOP is generally moderate on climate change. When Congress voted on a cap and trade bill in 2009, three of the eight Republicans voting in favor were from the Garden State. But getting elected in New Jersey is different than surviving a Republican presidential primary, and it’s long been clear that Christie has national ambitions. And although the Republican Party has deemed climate a non-issue, voters care about it nationally. Polling ahead of last fall’s election showed that the vast majority of voters wanted a “green” candidate who would take action on climate change, and Americans did, indeed, pick the presidential candidate who acknowledged the problem. Christie’s popularity affords him more leeway to experiment than many other Republican politicians.

“If Gov. Christie can find ways to come up with his own approach to dealing with these things and reach across the aisle, cooperate with Democrats, I think that can be an example going forward,” says Ben Spinelli, the Republican former mayor of Chester, New Jersey, and the former head of the state’s Office of Smart Growth under Corzine.

“He’s in a fairly strong political position, so he can take risks that someone else might not be willing or able to take,” Spinelli says. “The question is, will he be willing to do it? I don’t know.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate