Even the most optimistic of Democrats struggle to believe they’ll hang on to a majority in the House. There seems to be no way back to the filibuster proof majority required in the Senate. However, fear not those who believe all hope for action on environmental issues dies with those majorities. There may be a case to be made that Republican majorities may lead to more rather than less environmental and consumer safety legislation being agreed at a federal level.
Currently sat in Congress are bills on TSCA reform and cosmetics, not to mention the elephant in the room that remains energy and climate. Stymied by the toxic partisan atmosphere in Washington these bills seemed to be going nowhere fast with Democratic majorities. Would a Republican one as of next week improve their chances?
As last night’s Daily Show with President Obama once again highlighted there is a widely espoused view (at least on one side of the aisle) that special interests, i.e. business, have been blocking many of the things Democrats wanted to do. No doubt including the legislation mentioned above. And it’s true that industry people I have spoken to in recent days suggest that some of the bills currently in Congress are indiscriminate in their approach, disproportionate in their effect and will die a quick death in a Republican controlled legislature.
However, the interesting idea I’ve come across is that Republican majorities will not mean the end of efforts at a federal level to deal with these subjects, rather it will increase the chance that legislative activity will succeed. It seems the risk of inaction at federal level may be too great for business. What a Republican led Congress may mean is advocacy efforts from green groups moving to the state level or towards federal regulators (the latter already has happened to some extent both on climate and chemicals).
Now business may be many things but it aint stupid. Would you rather deal with firefighting in fifty different states, with the possible outcome of fifty different sets of rules for your industry and products, or have just one? Especially if the fifty are hard to control, whereas the one you have a sympathetic bunch in Congress who could be persuaded to back a bill you can live with. Do you also want to sit tight for two years at a federal level, while in that time the tide may turn, returning the initiative to folks who’s ideas you can’t live with? Business at the end of the day wants certainty and a level playing field.
As such, the next two years may be a good opportunity for work to get done on some of these topics. Many would agree that an energy bill is needed, TSCA reform necessary, but until now no consensus could occur due to the nature of the politics. With this in mind, the question is whether green groups can hold their noses and compromise with a Republican led Congress and whether Republicans selected and elected by people that want to see an end to big (i.e. federal) government will take a political gamble of supporting it. In any case, my bet is that business will be advocating that they do so.
James
