Portman climate change vote hinges on one word
WASHINGTON – Is climate change real and caused by human activity?
Only in Washington does the answer to that question depend on the inclusion or omission of one word: significantly. And only in Washington is the question aimed not at tackling the problem but at gaining political advantage ahead of an election.
What's so significant about significantly?
The omission of that 13-letter adjective was enough for Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, to vote "yes" this week on an amendment declaring that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and Congress should do something about it.
In January, Portman voted "no" on a similar amendment, which said "human activity significantly" contributes to climate change.
Neither amendment has a chance of becoming law and neither was aimed at actually tackling global warming; they were offered by Democrats and designed to put Republicans on the spot on a politically difficult question ahead of the 2016 elections.
And if Portman's votes are any indication, it may have worked.
Portman, who is seeking re-election in a key swing state, said he opposed the January measure because he's not sure how much of a factor human activity is in global warming.
"I'm not going to quantify it because scientists have a lot of different views on that," he told reporters Thursday.
But he voted yes on this week's amendment, offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., because it didn't include a qualifier.
"I do think climate change is real and I do think that human activity contributes to it," Portman said.
David Goldston, a lobbyist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that's a "careful evasion." He accused Portman of playing a semantic game intended to confuse the public about whether he supports strong steps to reduce carbon emissions.
"Sen. Portman in particular likes to send out very carefully worded" statements that make him sound like a moderate on global warming even as he embraces hard-line GOP positions, Goldston said. "The question is, does he think human activity is enough of a contributor that it needs to be addressed? And if so, is there an actual proposal to deal with climate change that he would support?"
Beyond the symbolic Senate votes, Portman has been a vocal opponent of the Obama administration's new regulations designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., generating about 38 percent of the nation's heat-trapping gases.
Supporters say the rules will improve public health, stem the threat of extreme weather and usher in a new era of energy innovation. Portman and other critics say they would devastate the coal industry, impose heavy burdens on the power sector, and raise electricity rates for businesses and families.
This week, Portman introduced an amendment that would let states opt out of those clean power rules if local officials determine the rules would increase electricity prices, threaten reliability of the power grid, or negatively impact low-income people. Portman said the Obama plan would be "particularly detrimental for Ohio."
Goldston said that amendment was an unprecedented attack on federal clean air policy
"It's not only a stake in the heart of the clean power standards, but it would be the first step toward unraveling the Clean Air Act" of 1970, he said.
dshesgreen@usatoday.com
Twitter: @dshesgreen