2016 election implications for EVs, alternative energy and CO2/climate change mitigation, etc

It occurred to me that Donald Trump may actually turn out to be the best thing that could have ever happened for environmental policy in the US. Having a large number of conservatives turned off and staying home will result in down-ballot losses in the house and senate that shifts the majorities. With the left controlling all three branches there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of aggressive legislation on EV subsidies, carbon tax, higher gas taxes, CAFE, mass transit, more renewable energy subsidies, tighter restrictions on pipelines, offshore drilling, you name it.

There are certainly members of the GOP congressional delegations who are worried about the possibility of losing their majorities if their voters stay home, but I think it's a bit early to be breaking out the 100% recycled post-consumer waste confetti just yet. Even if the Dems do take control of both the executive and legislative branches, the different factions that make up their coalition will immediately start arguing among themselves. As Will Rogers put it a long time ago, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

I'll be shocked at this point if it isn't a landslide for HRC. Even if the GOP holds the house, she'll be able to veto anything that softens existing regulations. You also have to assume that SC spot can't stay vacant forever. The next few years should be very favorable for environmental policy, assuming she makes it any sort of priority.

LTLFTcomposite said:

I'll be shocked at this point if it isn't a landslide for HRC. Even if the GOP holds the house, she'll be able to veto anything that softens existing regulations. You also have to assume that SC spot can't stay vacant forever. The next few years should be very favorable for environmental policy, assuming she makes it any sort of priority.

Click to expand...

I don't see a landslide in the popular vote, as she remains the second-most unpopular candidate of the modern era; the electoral college may or may not be a different story. I think many people don't realize just how good environmental issues have had it under Obama, albeit quietly. In HRC's case, I suspect she'd devote just as much attention to it as the green lobby insists on, and no more. I don't think it's a major interest for her, and any big new proposals will remain grid-locked, just as they have for the past 4 years.

Does raise an interesting question, even with all three branches under Democratic party control, just how much does HRC really care about environmental issues. She's been on both sides of the keystone XL pipeline issue. With the power of the incumbency behind her she could be more concerned with not rocking the boat than some sort of climate salvation legacy. The Sanders coalition isn't convinced.
That said, you'd expect an accommodating administration for legislation introduced from congress. Who would be the key players there?

LTLFTcomposite said:

Does raise an interesting question, even with all three branches under Democratic party control, just how much does HRC really care about environmental issues. She's been on both sides of the keystone XL pipeline issue. With the power of the incumbency behind her she could be more concerned with not rocking the boat than some sort of climate salvation legacy. The Sanders coalition isn't convinced.
That said, you'd expect an accommodating administration for legislation introduced from congress. Who would be the key players there?

Click to expand...

As the odds of them having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate even if they do take control are astronomical, it's kind of moot. I expect more "Forward into the Past" gridlock.