The GOP Convention Is Way Too Hot for Republicans Who Want to Solve Climate Change

There are a few Republicans who want to act on global warming, but most of them won’t be in Cleveland this week.

Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John McCain (Ariz.), and Lindsey Graham (S.C.)Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/AP


This story was originally published by Grist and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Most congressional Republicans with even a hint of moderation on climate change are distancing themselves from Donald Trump and won’t be present for his nomination in Cleveland this week.

Four of the five Republican senators with a record of supporting climate action are skipping this year’s Republican National Convention, which begins on Monday. They are Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John McCain of Arizona.

Kirk and Ayotte are two of only three Republican senators who voted to uphold the Clean Power Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants. They are also both in tough reelection races in moderate states this year. Graham and McCain have previously accepted climate science and supported cap-and-trade legislation, but they have turned away from climate action since President Obama took office.

The one outlier is Susan Collins of Maine: She has the strongest pro-environment record among Senate Republicans, and was the third GOP vote in support of the Clean Power Plan—and she is planning to attend the convention.

Four of the five Republican senators with a record of supporting climate action are skipping this year’s Republican National Convention.

But Collins isn’t endorsing her party’s nominee. In June, she said, “I would like to be able to endorse Donald Trump, but he really has to change the approach that he has taken.” Kirk isn’t backing Trump either. He retracted his prior endorsement after Trump accused Judge Gonzalo Curiel of bias because of Curiel’s Mexican ancestry. Ayotte has endorsed Trump, but it appears to be hurting her back home.

House Republicans who accept climate science are anti-Trump too. Most of the 13 Republican cosponsors of a 2015 House resolution recognizing the existence of climate change and calling for climate action are not attending either.

Three of the four from New York state—Elise Stefanik, Richard Hanna, and Chris Gibson—are not going. Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania is skipping the convention and resigned his status as a delegate weeks ago. Fellow Pennsylvanian Patrick Meehan won’t be there either. All three of the Floridians who signed onto the resolution—Carlos Curbelo, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and David Jolly—won’t be in Cleveland. Curbelo and Ros-Lehtinen have said they won’t vote for Trump, while Jolly says he isn’t sure. Bob Dold of Illinois isn’t going to the convention nor is he backing Trump.* Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey will be at home—but he stayed away in 2008 or 2012 too, so maybe he just likes going to the beach more than going to conventions.

Some statewide elected officials are also wary of Trump. Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, who signed a bill this spring setting a goal of a 40 percent greenhouse gas emissions cut by 2030, is not endorsing Trump or going to Cleveland.
 

Trump and his running mate Mike Pence are climate science deniers—both have called climate change a “myth”—and opponents of environmental protection. Trump says he would repeal the Clean Power Plan and eliminate the EPA entirely.

No politicians are avoiding the convention specifically because of the climate issue, but there is a clear correlation between climate moderation and opposition to Trump or reluctance to be associated with his coronation. The few Republicans who back climate action are on the more moderate side of the party’s domestic policy spectrum, and they worry about being identified with Trump’s bigotry or crude, resentment-fueled politics, particularly if they represent moderate states or districts.

Trump is bad for the GOP brand, just as is the party’s tendency toward climate science denial. Both come across as ignorant and backward to educated voters, minorities, and young people.

* Correction: This article originally stated that Rep. Bob Dold of Illinois is “likely going” to the Republican National Convention. He is not attending. 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

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