Did the Climate Scam Gain or Lose in the Mid-terms?

The most significant results of the Mid-term elections on the climate issue were at the state level, not the national level. And these changes were not very significant. The trends are similar to what has been happening since the 2016 election. Changes at the national level have been mainly based on the power of the Trump Administration to propose changes to existing regulations and the potential power of Trump to veto any proposed legislative changes. The proposed reconstitution of the House Climate Committee may allow some added Congressional oversight but the Committee is unlikely to produce much change over the next two years. There are reports that the various House committees with present or possible jurisdiction over climate are already fighting over this minor piece of of Congressional turf.

The situation at the state level is also unlikely to be changed much. The climate alarmists have put most of their efforts at this level, believing that they can exercise more influence at that level even though the overall effect on carbon dioxide emissions will be minor at most. This primarily involves the so-called “blue states” which think they can carry out much of the Obama EPA’s climate regulation agenda at the state level. In a number of cases the approach is similar to what the Obama Administration used, namely, to push regulatory implementation of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without consultation with the legislatures. I assume this will continue in blue states. One of the major changes as a result of the mid-terms is that there are more “blue states,” and thus more possible efforts to implement the scam. All but one of the state climate ballot initiatives lost, including an important proposal in Washington State to implement a carbon tax, so there will be little change there either.

The Most Important Area of Climate Conflict

The more influential area of conflict in the next two years is likely to be in the Federal courts, which are largely independent of the mid-term results. As long as the Trump EPA continues to avoid trying to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding (EF), much of the conflict may be focused on the interaction between the unchanged EF and the Administration’s attempts to soften the climate regulations. How this conflict ends up may depend on the precedents set at the higher levels of the Judicial Branch. It is these interactions which may provide the major action over the next two years rather than any changes due to the switch in the control of the House of Representatives. There will be continuing conflicts within the Trump Administration as to whether to bite the bullet on the EF, and between the EF and any Trump EPA effort to loosen climate regulations. This has also not been influenced much by the mid-term results. The continuing appointments of conservative jurists is not influenced by the Republican loss of the House of Representatives since only the Senate approves judicial appointments.

So the mid-terms are unlikely to produce much change climate-wise. The really important conflicts in the Federal courts concerning the Obama climate regulations appear likely to be the most important conflicts, but have largely not been impacted by the mid-terms.

So more of the same.