by Larry Shapiro
Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) decision
to withdraw from discussions with his Senate colleagues regarding climate
legislation has been greeted by some well-meaning environmentalists as a reason
to bash President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
for their alleged lack of commitment to climate legislation. I think this is a mistake. Instead, the environmental community should examine
its own limitations in trying to make sense out of this situation.
Graham blasted what he described as “a
decision by the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leadership to move
immigration instead of energy.” Instead of reflexively agreeing with Graham
and thereby placing themselves at odds with supporters of immigration reform,
environmentalists should reflect upon the reasons why immigration reform is at
this moment a far more politically compelling issue than climate for Senate
Democrats to tackle.
There is actually a social movement associated with immigration
issues. Perhaps even two movements—one on each side. I don’t think
those of us focused on climate issues have anything similar that we can point
to.
Four years ago, when there was a huge wave of pro-immigration
rallies, I was in Columbia,
S.C. There was a rally of
at least 5,000 people, overwhelmingly Mexicans and Central Americans, outside
the state capitol. As a New Yorker who grew up believing that New York is the center
of the immigrant universe, I was quite impressed by two things. First,
there are lots of immigrants everywhere now. Second, people who have a
lot to lose by demonstrating in public were willing to do so in one of the most
conservative states in the Union.
Immigration reform divides Republicans and helps Democrats energize
their political base. Big businesses that depend on cheap immigrant
labor have a very different orientation from that of the Lou
Dobbs crowd. So Republican efforts
to pander to the anti-immigrant portion of their party come with significant
risks.
Not so for the Democrats, especially in the Senate. There are likely to be competitive Senate
races in any number of states this November in which Latinos form substantial
portions of the electorate. Nevada is one of those
states, and even a politician who is often as principled as Reid is driven in
large part by self-preservation.
But it’s not just Nevada. Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, and Illinois
all have large Latino populations and races that may be close. The immigration issue will energize a portion
of the Democratic base in each of those states.
Is there a single state with a contested race in which the Senate
Democrats will truly be helped by a climate bill? I can’t think of one.
So the Obama/Reid political calculation that immigration should go
before climate makes sense for them. The vast majority of politicians—and I have no reason to think Obama and Reid are exceptions to this rule—operate in the world of practical politics. By developing a vibrant movement that is backed up by electoral power,
immigration-reform supporters have given leading Democrats a reason to believe
that action on immigration reform will be politically helpful to them. We haven’t done the same on climate.
Environmentalists who complain about this misunderstand the nature
of politics. Moreover, they are morally
wrong.
All four of my grandparents were immigrants. I would like to make sure that people looking
for a better life in the 21st century have the same opportunity to flee poverty
and oppression that my grandparents had.
I hope my environmental colleagues feel the same way.
So complaining would be futile.
We would be asking practical politicians such as Obama and Reid to place
a higher priority on a policy that may be politically dangerous for them than on
one that aids their political prospects. There may be many reasons why
doing something worthwhile on climate is a political problem for many politicians,
but one reason is the fact that we have not developed a true movement that
could support them if they go down that road.
Finally, with no movement capable of forcing a
robust response to the climate crisis, the only way Sens. Graham, John Kerry
(D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could have gotten the Senate to pass a
bill would have been to appease the special interests at the root of the
problem. All indications were that the
proposed bill would have propped up the coal and power industries with billions
of dollars while forcing low and middle-income Americans to pay higher energy
costs. The bill also would have stripped
EPA and state governments of much their legal authority to implement innovative
climate solutions. In short, I’m not
sure we’re missing much.
If we really believe that addressing climate change requires a
massive social change, it is naive to believe that we can make that change in
the absence of a massive social movement.
The beginnings of that movement are visible. We see it in the tremendously successful
efforts to stop development of coal plants and in the enthusiasm for green jobs
in many communities throughout the country.
But this movement has not yet been built.
Those of us working to address climate change can learn some
important lessons from supporters of immigration reform. We should take this opportunity to learn
those lessons, rather than merely express our frustration.
Related Links:
‘Green tea party’ closes out U.S. Earth Day celebrations
Obama climate agenda in turmoil after Republican pulls out of compromise
Graham says he’s going to bail on the climate bill