As we pointed out in the last week of May, the GOP is ramping up its election-season push to pretend it cares about climate change so that suburban women will vote for its candidates. BloombergGov fell for it, though it did report the true aim is to flip seats to elect more Republicans to Congress and thereby prevent real climate action, while Politico Pro/E&E credulously suggested an intentionally impossible policy proposal of a carbon tariff without a domestic carbon tax represents progress for the GOP.
And now we know why, as both stories were the build-up to the GOP's release of a supposedly "new" energy policy platform that addresses centrist voters' climate concerns without actually addressing the fossil fuel emissions that are causing climate change (and funding the GOP).
The key question that reporters should be asking Republicans claiming a new climate conversion is: Will this plan enable the U.S. to meet its commitments to the Paris Agreement and help put the world on a path to limit warming to 1.5°C? But, that's a really serious question, with a simple "no" answer, and we know political reporters need some sugar to help the medicine go down, so here's another: How is this a break from Trump's MAGA agenda, in terms of actual policy changes?
Clearly the messaging of climate change is real but not that bad so we should burn more fossil fuels is slightly different from Trump's approach of climate change is a hoax so we should burn more fossil fuels, but the policy platform has remained exactly the same.
And they're not even shy about it! Back in 2020, you may recall us pointing out, Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves reassured conservatives in his party that what they're "asking members to do is to double down… so it's not like we've gone out there to the Freedom Caucus to say 'We are asking you to take a hard left turn.'"
Perhaps someone, like Josh Seigel who got that quote from Graves for the Washington Examiner back in 2020 and just wrote basically the same story Politico in 2022 (with some skepticism this time, at least), should ask Graves if this new change is a doubling-down on the MAGA agenda.
The answer is obvious, but it highlights the bind Republicans are in. If they say they've changed, to appeal to moderate voters who considered MAGA too extreme, then they risk losing the support of the MAGA, racist, misogynist, climate deniers that compose the GOP base.
If they admit it's just a doubling-down, like Graves did to members, then those moderate voters might recognize that different messaging but the same policies does not, in fact, represent a change.
That's not all, though! Because at the same time Republicans are trying to look reasonable, according to the Daily Signal, they are also promising to lead more Benghazi-esque witch hunts if/when they seize control of the House in the midterms.
After claiming they're going to moderate their climate messaging to appeal to centrist voters, once they have power they're going to use it to attack green groups for allegedly being Russia-funded (based on disinfo originated by a guy who fought mothers against drunk driving on behalf of alcohol companies and now pushed by Chris Horner, a lawyer for big tobacco before switching to suing climate scientists and others for checks from coal companies); a matter cleared up by the Panama Paper leaks.
You know, perfectly normal, moderate, centrist stuff appealing to those women voters they'll need to win over in the suburbs, perhaps after the right wing SCOTUS justices overturn Roe v. Wade, basic gun control measures, and the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a climate pollutant.
