UPPA/ZUMApress.com

The midterm elections brought an unprecedented number of climate skeptics into Congress, with no incoming Republicans acknowledging the existence of man-made climate change. Environmentalists have all but given up on passing significant climate legislation in the near future, but in the long term, it may be difficult for climate skeptics to hold their ranks: Young Americans are significantly more concerned about global warming than older generations, and there are no major organizations of young climate skeptics.

This raises the question: What will come of climate skeptics as young people begin to rise to positions of power?

[Environment1] The Washington Independent put this question to Warren Meyer, who runs the website climate-skeptic.com. Meyer, in an email, said younger generations are drawn to “the ‘civilization in peril’ line,” and he suggested that people’s views change over time. “The lack of teenage skeptics today is meaningless for whether there will be skeptics in 20 years,” he said.

Meyer said young people will eventually become more attuned to the economic cost associated with lowering greenhouse gas emissions. “This seems really compelling to the young,” he said. “Until you understand that on the other side of the equation is a 100% chance of really high economic costs.”

There is evidence to suggest that older people care much more about the cost of policies like cap-and-trade than younger people. A June National Journal/Society for Human Resources Management poll shows that while 65 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds favor “protecting the environment” — to 29 percent concerned with “keeping prices low” — those numbers change for older people: 40 percent of people over 65 care about protecting the environment, while 47 percent are concerned with keeping prices low.

Overall though, the issue breaks down along party lines. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that about 79 percent of Democrats and just 38 percent of Republicans believe the earth is warming. Among Republicans who identify with the Tea Party, just 23 percent say there is solid evidence of climate change. The majority of Tea Partiers are over 45, with just 7 percent between the ages of 18 and 29, according to an April New York Times poll.

In an effort to find young people who question the science behind global warming, I allowed Meyer to put a call out on his blog. During the last several weeks, I’ve heard from about half a dozen young people who question climate science.

Andrew Funk, a 27-year-old biologist at the Department of Agriculture, is one of those people. Funk rejects the term climate skeptic in favor of “rational optimist.” In a phone conversation, Funk said he believes climate science is “pretty shaky.” He added, “I think it’s a shaky platform to re-engineer large portions of society.”

In a city flush with young Democrats, Funk said he has found a small group of like-minded individuals. “I end up hanging out with friends that are more independent, a little more libertarian-minded,” he said.

Other skeptics preferred to remain anonymous. For example, one 26-year-old graduate student at the University of Maryland said in an email:

It would be imprudent of me to let my heterodoxy on this issue be publicly known, as, sadly, I feel this has become more of a political matter in academic circles than a scientific one. I would rather my name not be associated with dissent on this matter.

The student’s comments say a great deal about the way young people think about climate change and the potential implications for somebody who questions the broad scientific consensus on the issue.

Anthony Watts, a prominent climate skeptic who runs the popular and controversial site “Watts Up With That,” blamed the “liberal” education system for the lack of young climate skeptics. “I suppose such a group would be unlikely because our children are conditioned by textbooks and a generally liberal education process to believe in the [man-made global warming] premise as factual and without question,” he said.

“In colleges, there are so many activist groups recruiting to ‘save the planet’ that skepticism generally gets drowned in the cacophony,” he added.

Maura Cowley, national director of the Sierra Student Coalition, organizes the types of “save the planet” activists Watts criticizes. “My opinion is that this whole dialogue will just fade into the past,” she said. “If you look at the millennial generation, you look at a generation that is savvy and soon to be the best educated generation.”

Cowley said young people recognize what’s at stake if nothing is done to address climate change “It’s really clear that this generation has the most to lose with this issue,” she said. “I think that’s a big part of the reason they care about this.”

Polling shows that climate skepticism has increased significantly in the last couple of years, as the issue has heated up in Congress. A recent Pew Research Center poll shows that between April 2008 and October 2009 — a period that saw the passage of a cap-and-trade bill in the House and the beginning of debate on a similar bill in the Senate — the percentage of Americans who believe there is “solid evidence” that the earth is warming fell drastically, from 71 percent to 57 percent.

Joe Romm, a former Clinton administration official who now runs the popular blog Climate Progress, said any effort to address climate change in Congress will run into opposition from a number of powerful industry interests.

“The disinformation campaign is incredibly well funded,” he said. “There’s a staggering amount of money in it.

But he said the effects of climate change will become more obvious over time, forcing skeptics to change their tune. “Come 2020 we’re going to be desperate to respond to global warming and the skeptics will be condemned,” he said.

Mark Critz's (D-Pa.) district is at risk of being eliminated following a strong Republican showing in Tuesday's midterm elections. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette/ZUMApress.com)

Freshman Rep. Mark Critz (D) managed to survive Tuesday’s Republican onslaught in Pennsylvania, a tidal wave that swept out five of his Democratic colleagues from the state’s House delegation, flipped a U.S. Senate seat and handed full control of the state government to the GOP. Critz, who took the seat in a May special election, will get a full term in office — but it may be his only one. His district in the rural area south of Pittsburgh is at risk of being eliminated, a victim of redistricting. Rust Belt states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania, are some of the most likely ones to lose seats in this round of redistricting — and Republicans’ strong showing Tuesday in the region could allow them to use those losses to their advantage.

[Congress1] While the GOP’s 60-plus-seat gain in the House of Representatives has grabbed the biggest post-election headlines, the major gains the party made in state governments — increasing the number of states fully under its control from eight to at least 19 — puts it in its strongest position for redistricting in decades.

The GOP takeover of state governments in Pennsylvania and Ohio may be especially important because those two states, along with New York, each gave the party five of its House pickups, more than any other states this year.

Critz came the closest to defeat among Pennsylvania’s seven surviving House Democrats, edging out Republican challenger Tim Burns by less than two percentage points. Though no one knows for sure which of the Democratic districts in Pennsylvania will be on the chopping block, his seat may be the likeliest candidate.

“It appears, just from conversations with people in the capitol, that it will be the Critz seat,” said pollster G. Terry Madonna, director of Franklin & Marshall College’s Center for Politics and Public Affairs. “He’s junior. It’s in the area where population losses are the greatest in our state, in the southwest. It’s been assumed that he will be in the bull’s-eye. But it could be [Rep.] Tim Holden (D). He’s in a district that if they can figure out how to carve it up, they might not pick up a seat but they can strengthen their suburban seats.”

The Republicans’ resurgence in Ohio has left the state with just five Democrats in the House delegation. Given that the state government is again under Republican control, it is likely that the number of Democratic seats may go down even further after redistricting.

“Ohio will lose a House seat or two because of the census, and it is highly likely that whatever Ohio loses will come from the Democratic side,” said Justin Buchler, a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University.

A two-seat Democratic loss in Ohio would mean 13 Republican seats in the House delegation to just three Democratic ones. Democratic areas around Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown have seen the largest population losses in the state, but Buchler said Republicans will need to protect their own incumbents rather than try to make any further House gains in the state.

“In order for Republicans to pick up seats through a partisan gerrymander, they would need to pack Democratic voters even more efficiently into a smaller number of districts, while giving themselves more narrow majorities in several other districts,” he said. “The risk of that is that a small shift towards the Democrats would cause the Republicans to lose the narrow Republican majority districts.”

Pennsylvania Republicans will not be thinking much about expanding beyond the House seats they will hold at the start of the next Congress either, Madonna said.

“They can’t just play offense; they have to play defense,” he said. “They’ve got one seat in a heavily Democratic area and they’ve got two in the politically volatile suburbs.”

“They’re playing a little bit of roulette with themselves if they try to pick up a seat,” Madonna added. “Remember, the state has 1.1 million more Democrats than Republicans. They run the risk, if they get too expansionistic, of weakening their hold on their own seats.”

Jimm Phillips is a former intern for The Washington Independent.

1. Reduce the federal deficit

2. Promote a clean energy economy

3. Make sure our children are the best educated in the world.

No mention of cap-and-trade, no mention of immigration reform. Pushing health care reform when he had a large majority in both chambers made sense strategically. Pushing education reform and investments in clean energy makes sense now that he doesn’t.

If the margin ends up within a half a percentage point — it’s right on the cusp of that now — then state law will mandate a recount, but it may not necessarily come to that. Counties outside Denver like Boulder, which heavily favor Bennet, still have 30 percent of their vote to tally, while Arapahoe, which has thus far favored Bennet as well, has only reported 11 percent of its vote.

No race featured more outside money flowing in than Bennet v. Buck, but in the end the two sides battled largely to a draw. FEC reports show that both candidates faced a barrage of approximately $11 million of negative ads brought against them in the form of independent expenditures, making it one of the most negative races in the country. The pattern of big guns canceling each other out appeared to hold true in most Senate races from Pennsylvania to Illinois to Nevada, where Democratic Party spending was matched by GOP outside groups and the ultimate result was near parity.

Update 11:10 a.m.: With 88 percent of precincts reporting, Bennet has a lead of half a percent. It’s precarious — there’s an automatic recount if the margin of victory is under half a percent — but all of the ballots remaining to be counted are in four counties (Boulder, Arapahoe, Chaffee and San Miguel) where Bennet is currently leading, so it’s looking good for the incumbent.

Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) (Pete Marovich/ZUMApress.com)

Pundits may differ over which natural disaster analogy was most fitting — tidal wave or  earthquake? — but Republicans made large gains in both chambers of Congress and various statehouses across the country on election day. And while, at the time of writing, races in several key Western states were far from decided, the election night shaped up to be one of few surprises for either party. Republicans guaranteed themselves a majority in the House, while Democrats can rest assured that they’ll retain a majority in the Senate come 2011.

[Congress1] The evening began with quick victories for GOP Senate candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida, raising expectations of a Tea Party-backed surge in Congress. Bellwether House races, including those of Rep. Barron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all went for their Republican challengers, causing pundits to revise their estimates for GOP House gains from the 50s up into the 60s, or perhaps higher.

Whether one voted for the Obama health care bill, like Rep. Tom Periello (D), or against it, like Rep. Glenn Nye (D), being a House Democrat in Virginia tonight ended up spelling doom and setting the tone for Democrats’ chances in House races across the country. Even veterans like Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C), chairman of the House Budget Committee, and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, were not spared by the GOP wave that swept Southern and Midwestern Democrats. And while DCCC head Rep. Chris Van Hollen criticized the news networks for calling the House for the GOP early, a takeover quickly began to look inevitable.

While liberal Democrats like Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) also lost their seats, groups that had backed them maintained that Democrats lost because they failed to fight and defend their liberal values. “Democrats lost because party leaders never truly fought for popular progressive reforms like the public option and breaking up the big banks, leaving voters uninspired to come to the polls and vote Democratic,” wrote Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “What the average voter saw of Democrats was weak, watered-down change — and weak Democratic leaders who cut deals with the very Wall Street banks and insurance companies they are supposed to be fighting.

On the Senate side, however, quick and decisive victories for Gov. Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R) in West Virginia and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) over Linda McMahon (R) in Connecticut allowed Democrats to breathe easy about their control of the upper chamber.

“Tomorrow starts the rebuilding, the road of rebuilding America,” Manchin told supporters in his victory speech. “We must start tomorrow. And I really believe that Washington can learn a few things and a few lessons from West Virginia.” What kind of Democrat Manchin will be after having to run so far to the right to win office remains a big open question for Democrats.

A solid defeat for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, meanwhile, at the hands of Chris Coons (D) put Republican chances of taking the Senate nearly out of reach and revived questions about the efficacy of the Tea Party in aiding a GOP wave. “It gave me no pleasure to say that she was unlikely to win,” said Karl Rove after her loss became clear. “But this again provides a lesson. This is a candidate who was right on the issues but who had mishandled a series of questions brought up by the press.”

Likewise, a victory for the Democrats’ very vulnerable majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle confirmed the dangers of a Republican nomination process that often stressed ideological purity over electability.

Democratic Senate candidates Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania and Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois got off to strong starts in the polls with high turnout and early reporting from Philadelphia and Chicago, prompting talk of small but significant upsets for the Democrats in those races. But as the rural counties began reporting their tallies, Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Mark Kirk in Illinois eventually took control of both races. Likewise, Sen. Michael Bennet in Colorado, who shot out to an early lead over Ken Buck, fell slightly behind as more ballots were counted.

In the governors’ races, Democrats lost seats as well but managed to hang on to victories in close races in Colorado, where Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper held off his American Constitution Party challenger, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, and Minnesota, where Democrat Mark Dayton was the beneficiary of a three-way race and defeated Republican nominee Tom Emmer*. But in key races in other swing states — ones that President Obama will likely have to win to secure re-election in 2012 — Republicans can look forward to being in control. Rick Scott (R) rode the coattails of Rubio’s victory, defeating Alex Sink (D) in Florida, while the close race in Ohio never got close enough for incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D), who lost to challenger John Kasich (R).

As for the fate of the Tea Party, early decisive Senate wins for Paul and Rubio were offset by decisive drubbing of Christine O’Donnell and a narrow loss for Angle. In the House, Tea Party candidate Sean Bielat, who at one point looked to be posing a credible challenge to Rep. Barney Frank (D) in Massachusetts, lost by a wide margin — but enough Tea Party candidates claimed seats to form a sizable caucus in the next Congress.

Speaking at the Grand Hyatt Ballroom in Washington, likely House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was unable to hold back his tears. “Listen, I’ll be brief, because we have real work to do, and this is not a time for celebration,” he said, “not when one in 10 of our fellow citizens are out of work … not when we have buried our children under a mountain of debt … not when our Congress is held in such low esteem.

“While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. The American people have sent an unmistakable message to him tonight, and that message is: ‘change course.’ We hope President Obama will now respect the will of the people, change course, and commit to making the changes they are demanding. To the extent he is willing to do this, we are ready to work with him.”

*UPDATE: Democrat Mark Dayton continues to lead Republican Tom Emmer in the Minnesota Governor’s Race, but the margin is so slim that a recount appears likely.

The invitation makes clear that the Koch-led meetings are a twice-annual affair. At its last meeting in Aspen, Colo., in June, its participants, which include some of the wealthiest people in America, listened to a presentation on “a vision of how we can retain the moral high ground and make the new case for liberty and smaller government that appeals to all Americans, rich and poor.”

The letter obtained by the Times also included a brochure from the Aspen meeting, along with a list of the event’s approximately 200 guests:

The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.) The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot.

The list also included prominent GOP figures like Fred Malek, current chairman of the 501(c)(4) American Action Network, which shares office space with American Crossroads, and Foster Friess, a wealthy investor, evangelical Christian and Bush donor. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave a presentation at the Aspen meeting, while past attendees have included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Govs. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) and Bobby Jindal (R-La.), and Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Protesters advocate for climate change legislation in front of the Capitol. (Flickr/UOPowerShift09)

This year, Congress passed the most ambitious agenda in recent memory, overhauling how the nation regulates banks and financial products and dramatically reforming the health-care system. President Obama had hoped to add comprehensive energy legislation — with a cap-and-trade program — to that list, but the Senate failed to move even a slimmed-down version of the bill this summer.

[Environment1] Environmentalists are increasingly realistic about the dwindling chances for ambitious legislation, despite a recent pledge by Obama to move a comprehensive energy bill in 2011. Next session, they fear, Congress will be more conservative, whether Republicans control either house or not. As a result, environmentalists hope that Senate Democrats might try to move energy bills during the crowded lame-duck session. And, they are carefully watching key races, to see how next year’s Congress might deal with environmental priorities.

Dan Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, says the fate of energy and climate legislation will be decided on Nov. 2. “Depending on what happens on Election Day, during the lame duck there could be a strong push by [Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)] to not do anything because Republicans picked up more members,” Weiss says, noting that Democrats can’t pass any bill without a “dedicated cadre of Republicans.”

He said he is pleased with Obama’s promise to push for a bill next year, but said it is mostly out of the president’s hands. “I think that remains to be determined based on who gains seats in the mid-terms,” Weiss says. “One of the challenges is that some climate deniers could be elected.”

Weiss points to a list of six close Senate races that could have climate change implications, a list put together by the Wonk Room. “Even if half of them get elected, it’s going to be much more difficult to do anything in the Senate,” Weiss says.

Included on that list is the Senate race in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is trailing in the polls behind Pat Toomey. The Colorado Senate race is another one to watch, Weiss says, where Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) is behind his Republican challenger, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck. Both Buck and Toomey have been named to the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen” list for, among other things, their opposition to comprehensive climate change legislation. The Cook Political Report predicts a “7 to 9 seat net gain for Republicans” in the Senate.

Obama, speaking with Rolling Stone, said that it may be best to pass energy and climate legislation in chunks rather than as one big, comprehensive bill. There are a number of pieces floating around the Senate that environmentalists are hoping to move in the coming months.

The lowest hanging fruit are the less-controversial proposals, like a bill to provide incentives for natural gas and electric vehicles. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week filed cloture for the bill, setting an initial vote for Nov. 17. Electric vehicle advocates say they are confident the bill can pass because it has gained support from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

At the same time, Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) have offered renewable energy standard legislation that would mandate 15 percent of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2021. The proposal has been co-sponsored by 33 lawmakers, including at least four Republicans. One renewable energy advocate closely involved in efforts to move the RES who is not authorized to speak on the record says backers of the bill remains “laser-focused on the lame duck.”

“The votes are there for the RES. All that’s needed is floor time. And Senate leadership — Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Dorgan and Stabenow – are co-sponsors,” the RES advocate says. Reid has said he won’t bring the bill to the floor until lawmakers show him it can pass.

In a move that could complicate efforts to move an RES, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is circulating a so-called “clean energy standard” bill that would include in the mandate nuclear and “clean coal” technology, something that liberal Democrats say they can’t support. Graham’s bill may throw a wrench in plans for passage of an RES this year and next year, as Republicans could be lured away from supporting the Bingaman proposal in favor of Graham’s. The RES advocate dismisses the Graham bill as a distraction that could not garner 60 votes in the Senate.

In addition, Bingaman, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), ranking member on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, have introduced an energy tax incentives package they want to move before the end of the year.

Looming over all of this are efforts to respond to the Gulf oil spill. While the House has passed its version of an oil spill response bill, the Senate has been unable to move forward. The main flash continues to be whether an oil company responsible for a spill should pay for all of the resulting economic damages. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) proposed legislation making oil companies 100 percent liable for the damages from a spill. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), both from drilling states, argued that full liability will keep small- and medium-sized oil companies from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico because they would not be able to insure against the potential damages.

Staff from the lawmakers’ offices have been negotiating for more than a month and Senate sources familiar with the conversations say they are nearing a compromise that would establish a mutual insurance pool into which all oil companies drilling in the Gulf would pay. In the event of a spill, oil companies would be responsible for much of the damages, but the insurance pool would cover some of the costs.

Environmentalists are livid at the slow progress of oil spill legislation in the Senate. Bob Deans, federal communications director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, says, “The country expects the Senate to act on this. We had a national disaster. Every American expects the Senate to act on this.”

And Weiss, of the Center for American Progress, points to oil industry lobbying as one reason the bill may have been slowed down. Though he says he can’t “demonstrate causality,” he adds, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Still, environmentalists say they are going to be lobbying for action when the Senate returns in November, despite warnings from Senate leadership that there may not be enough time to move major energy provisions in the lame duck.

“The Senate is in a state of paralysis that’s hurting our economy and it has to end. The next opportunity for that to happen is when senators come back from the elections,” says Franz Matzner, climate center legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That’s the next opportunity to go forward. That opportunity should be seized.”

OBAMA: I think, I am very confident that if people know what the choice is, if people take a look at what Democrats stand for and what Republicans stand for, who we’re fighting for, and who they’re fighting for, then we will win. And so, my challenge, and the challenge of every Democratic candidate who’s out there is just making sure the people understand there’s a choice here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And now you’re–

OBAMA: If the election is a referendum on are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is, then we’re not going to do well. Because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to do better than it’s been doing.

This basically encapsulates both party’s positions and best hopes in a nutshell. Republicans will hammer Democratic incumbents over the state of the economy, while Democrats will place an emphasis, as Obama did, on the word choice. They’ll try to remind voters that Republicans haven’t exactly been proposing a lot of bright ideas to make it better (besides returning to the policies of the Bush era).

On generic ballots, it’s clear that Republicans enjoy a big advantage — which might make the GOP wish it had more candidates who were, well, more generic. The only hope for Democrats is that the views of individual Republican candidates like Nevada’s Sharron Angle, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, or Colorado’s Ken Buck will prove too radical or wacky for voters to tolerate.

For Brown, the purchase is significant because while Whitman has spent at least $104 million of her own money on the race (both the primary and the general), Brown has held on to basically all of the approximately $23 million at his disposal. As his poll numbers have slipped (a Survey USA poll now has him down by seven points), some Democrats have feared that he’s allowed Whitman to define him as a free spending liberal with a failed track record in California. His current ad, which advertises his fiscal record as governor from 1974-1982, is the first attempt of the Brown campaign to turn that narrative on its head:

Meanwhile, in Florida, Crist has an ad that’s broad in its appeal to independent voters but short on specific policy proposals or accomplishments. Meek, on the other hand, is continuing his quest to convince voters he’s the only liberal voice in a race he hopes to steal by letting Crist and Rubio split the conservative vote. Here’s Crist:

And here’s Meek: