Editorial: On climate, Ayotte heads in right direction





Last modified: 2/2/2015 12:43:19 AM

Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire’s junior senator, has set an example that other Republicans would be well-served to follow. In repeated votes on the Senate floor last week, she reaffirmed her belief in man-made climate change, and by extension the importance of tending to our environment. Given the rabidly anti-science bias currently infecting her party, those votes are refreshing.



We have the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project to thank. As the U.S. Senate considered a bill approving the pipeline last week, Democrats offered amendments meant to put Republicans on the spot. Senators were asked whether they believed climate change was real and whether they believed human activity played a significant role in it.



Ayotte first voted for an amendment affirming that climate change was real. In that vote, she was joined by all the senators, Democrat and Republican, with the exception of Mississippi Republican Roger Wicker. But believing that the climate can change isn’t the same as believing that humans caused that change or should be responsible for addressing it. So Democrats offered another amendment, noting the “human activity significantly contributes” to the change. Ayotte voted for that amendment, too, splitting with most of her party. The only Republicans who joined her were Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.



The GOP offered a weak-tea version of that second amendment, omitting the word “significantly,” but even that revision attracted only 15 votes from the party. Ayotte voted for it, too.



This isn’t necessarily a new position for the senator. The Monitor reported back in 2009 that she called climate change a “real issue,” although in a 2010 debate among GOP Senate candidates she suggested it wasn’t proven. Last year, she was one of only three Republicans voting to advance a bill from New Hampshire’s senior senator, Jeanne Shaheen, to encourage energy efficiency.



While it’s been suggested her recent votes were politically calculated, the record says that Ayotte has, somewhat hesitantly, been consistent. The real question she must answer, along with other Republicans acknowledging the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue, is what we do next. Her votes on the pipeline itself, for example, are not encouraging. It’s difficult to see how a project transporting hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil a day could possibly help the situation.



Bills encouraging private and public investments in alternative energy, such as wind and solar, would be a good start. Ayotte might also want to take a look at the federal gas tax, which hasn’t been raised in 20 years. A sizable increase, especially in this time of low gas prices, could both help boost gas mileage and repair our aging infrastructure.



Ayotte hasn’t yet shown herself committed to taking the steps necessary to slow or stop the catastrophic warming of our planet, but at least she’s acknowledged that we have a problem. Let’s hope that her recent votes aren’t the end of her engagement with the issue but only the beginning.





