Politics

Could this billionaire environmentalist make or break the Democratic primary?

California billionaire and environmentalist Tom Steyer. AP Photo

By Nik DeCosta-Klipa @NikDeCostaKlipa

July 14, 2015

4 minutes to read

You probably haven’t heard of Tom Steyer.

He’s just a man — a man with millions to spend on 2016 election candidates that have a plan to address climate change. Think of a lefty, California-version of the Koch brothers.

While visiting New Hampshire last week, Steyer declined to endorse any candidate for president.

“Other than the beautiful day, the great business, and the charming people, is that your question,’’ said Steyer when a reporter asked him why he was visiting the Granite State.

The question remains whether Steyer, who made his money in hedge funds, will make a primary endorsement or wait until the general election(s), but the billionaire environmentalist has the potential to make a huge impact in 2016.

Steyer spent roughly $74 million attempting to make climate change and the environment wedge issues in the 2014 election. Through his Super PAC NextGen Climate Action, Steyer funded large-scale canvassing and advertising efforts against climate change skeptics, ultimately with mixed results.

In 2016, Steyer and NextGen plan to turn up the heat, and already have organizers on the ground in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Florida.

Neither Steyer nor NextGen have publicly endorsed any candidate for president. According to NHPR, Steyer wouldn’t say much about who he would support for president, except that he or she will have to be “pro clean energy.’’

“Any serious candidate for the presidency must embrace common sense solutions that will reduce carbon pollution and accelerate America’s transition to a clean energy economy,’’ NextGen spokeswoman Suzanne Henkels told Boston.com “And we’ve been heartened to see leaders like Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton stand up on the campaign trail for clean energy and climate action.’’

Henkels pointed out O’Malley has already outlined a “bold’’ clean energy economy plan, and that Sanders and Clinton have “strong records of embracing climate action.’’

NextGen could not — or would not — say whether they plan to make a Democratic primary endorsement, though the group’s chief operating officer, Josh Fryday, posted a picture July 10 with Steyer in New Hampshire teasing a pledge to “call on candidates to back an ambitious clean energy goal.’’

However, Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, did host a fundraising dinner for Clinton in May, despite the former secretary of state’s (non)stance on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, a project that many environmental activists, including Steyer, oppose.

It’s not just Clinton’s stance on the pipeline that environmentalists balk.

At last year’s 300,000-person march against climate change in New York City, some prominent activists said they were not sold on Clinton on environmental issues.

“I think Hillary Clinton has an awful lot to demonstrate to environmentalists and people who care about climate change,’’ Bill McKibben, environmentalist author and founder of 350.org, told MSNBC. “She oversaw the complete fiasco that was the Copenhagen Conference as secretary of state. That was the biggest foreign policy failure since Munich. It’s not a proud record.’’

Former Barack Obama green jobs advisor Van Jones said, “I think she has some distance to make up in terms of reassuring people about where she comes down as a climate champion.’’

Jones, as well as actor Mark Ruffalo — not unfamiliar with green energy — also listed fracking as a concern regarding the former secretary of state’s record on the environment. Mother Jonesreported that as head of the State Department, Clinton promoted the practice of drilling shale for natural gas.

At the march, according to MSNBC, Steyer himself said Clinton could benefit from a primary challenge.

The Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders did not respond to requests for comment.

A Clinton spokesman told Politico “tackling climate change will be a top priority for Hillary Clinton in her campaign,’’ the current Democratic frontrunner has yet to outline a specific climate change plan.

Clinton’s main opponents, Sanders and O’Malley, have — to paraphrase the National Journal — sprinted to Clinton’s left on climate change and other environmental issues.

Both Sanders and O’Malley agreed to a pledge proposed by The Nation magazine to “neither solicit nor accept campaign contributions from any oil, gas, or coal company.’’ According to the magazine, Clinton’s campaign did not reply.

In a lengthy USA Today op-ed, O’Malley said he would “zero out’’ fossil fuels and reach a 100 percent clean energy economy by 2050. He also said he would create a Clean Energy Jobs Corps, increase energy efficiency standards, and direct the EPA to take “aggressive action to limit greenhouse gases.’’

Following the op-ed, NextGen linked to an article on O’Malley’s climate change vision on Twitter. O’Malley also used the medium in November to oppose the Keystone pipeline.

For Sanders’s part, he has made addressing climate change one of the three central tenets of his campaign. He told the Washington Post his climate change plan included a carbon tax, “massive’’ renewable energy investment, and increased rail funding to “towards breaking our dependency on automobiles.’’

Sanders also “led opposition’’ to the Keystone pipeline, according to his campaign website, and secured $3.2 billion in stimulus grants to upgrade buildings to reduce emissions and to install nearly 10,000 solar energy systems.

McKibben spoke at Sander’s campaign kickoff and even penned an article titled “Why the Planet Is Happy That Bernie Sanders Is Running for President.’’

A question for Sanders is whether he would even accept Steyer’s support. The Vermont senator has pledged he won’t accept any support from Super PACs.

Steyer was 2014’s single biggest spender — universally supporting Democrats and the amount he spent in 2014 is more than what the Sanders campaign has raised so far in 2016.

Regardless of Sanders’ philosophical opposition to the wealthy influence in elections, even a portion of that money would significantly tilt the primary scales.