Hillary Clinton’s break with President Obama on Arctic drilling this week represented a public shift left for the Democrat, a move greens say could be the start of a push to shore up support among environmentalists ahead of primary season.
Clinton’s rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, primarily Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, have each staked out more liberal positions than Clinton on environmental issues.
But activists say they hope Clinton will join them there soon — not just on Arctic drilling but other major topics like the Keystone XL pipeline and broader climate policy.
{mosads}Clinton’s silence on Keystone in particular has left environmentalist groups frustrated, prompting biting criticism from a key constituency, said Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesman for 350 Action.
“I think she understands that’s a problem, and I think she understands she can’t go into the general election or even into the primary without such a huge and intense part of her base,” he said. “I think she’s feeling like there’s a problem she has to correct and I think that’s why we’re seeing this kind of leftward tack on climate issues.”
Before this week, Clinton had mostly aligned herself with Obama’s environmental agenda, endorsing his controversial emissions standards for power plants and promising to protect them as president.
But she distanced herself from Obama, swiftly and noticeably on Tuesday, after his administration approved a permit for Royal Dutch Shell to explore for oil in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska.
“The Arctic is a unique treasure,” Clinton said in a signed tweet. “Given what we know, it’s not worth the risk of drilling.”
Republicans knocked Clinton over the decision, with presidential candidate Jeb Bush saying it was “wrong” to move left of Obama on drilling.
“Being more-anti energy than Obama is extreme,” the former Florida governor said in a tweet. “We should embrace energy revolution to lower prices & create US jobs.”
But activists, many of whom have pushed Clinton to speak more aggressively on environmental causes and climate change, were pleased to hear the stance, and indicated they expect her to move further left on environmental causes.
The announcement was a “pleasant surprise,” Greenpeace USA spokeswoman Cassady Sharp said.
“But honestly she doesn’t have the best environmental record, particularly when it comes to Keystone or fracking,” Sharp said. “But so far she’s definitely getting it right on the Arctic.”
Clinton has remained noticeably mum on the day’s highest-profile environmental issue — the fate of Keystone — so far this campaign. But she suggested this week that she’s getting closer to announcing a position on the beleaguered project if the Obama administration doesn’t finish its review of the project first.
“I am getting impatient, because I do feel like at some point a decision needs to be made,” Clinton said in Nevada on Tuesday.
“Because I’m not comfortable saying, you know, ‘I have to keep my opinion to myself’ given the fact that I was involved in it,” she continued. “So at some point, I may change my view on that.”
By distancing herself from Obama — overtly on Arctic drilling and subtly on Keystone — Clinton finds herself moving closer to positions held by her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders and O’Malley.
Both candidates have long opposed offshore drilling, as well as the Keystone pipeline. O’Malley’s climate platform is lofty — with a goal of phasing out fossil fuels by 2050 — and Sanders has a reputation for pushing aggressive climate bills during his tenure in the U.S. Senate.
The two have looked to use their environmental proposals as leverage against the front-runner. Sanders, for one, has slammed her for refusing a position on Keystone, and he tweeted Tuesday that he’s opposed Arctic drilling “for years.”
By moving left now, Clinton may be able to solidify her position with a key Democratic voting bloc ahead of primary season.
“I think part of what it goes back to is for her trying to solve this electoral, political problem,” Ganapathy said. “I think she understands that it’s untenable for her to keep feeling the heat for months and months and months and she needs to do something to close the gap on these.”
But opposing Arctic drilling alone won’t be enough to appease environmental groups, many of whom are hungry for more specifics from Clinton on what she would do on climate change as president.
They also worry she may follow in Obama’s footsteps by supporting further oil and natural gas development around the United States. Clinton riled environmental activists at a July campaign stop when she said she opposes banning fossil fuel development on public lands until renewable options are more viable.
“Bernie is the candidate that is presenting a much more comprehensive view of what needs to be done,” Friends of the Earth Action President Erich Pica said. Friends of the Earth endorsed Sanders earlier this month, praising his climate push during his tenure in the Senate.
“The president has been using very specific tools that he’s had to use existing regulatory regimes to handle some of the pollution. But he’s also complicated that with the all-of-the-above energy policy that he kind of pushed out there for many years. Even Secretary Clinton has picked up on the all-of-the-above, it’s kind of all-of-the-above lite.”
Clinton begun releasing her environmental platform in waves. Last month she pledged to install 500 million solar panels as president and create enough renewable energy to power American homes within 10 years of taking office.
Greens say that’s a good start, but they’re looking for more.
“We really would like to see something a little more aggressive from all the candidates, something a little bit more tangible to show they really are committed to leaving, quite honestly, public fossil fuels — Arctic oil included, but other coal and gas — in the ground,” Sharp said.
“Particularly as these candidates broaden out their platforms for voters, it’s going to be something we really consider a deal-breaker when it comes to environmental and climate policy.”