Talking to Conservatives About Climate Change: The Congressional Climate Caucus

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Political Scene | The New Yorker
Episode: Talking to Conservatives About Climate Change: The Congressional Climate Caucus
Air Date: August 21, 2023
Host: David Remnick
Guest: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (Iowa), Vice Chair, Conservative Climate Caucus

---

Main Theme & Purpose

In this episode, host David Remnick speaks with Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, vice chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus, to explore how Congressional Republicans approach climate change. Against the backdrop of severe weather events and partisan stalemate, the conversation examines what—if any—common ground exists and how conservative lawmakers frame “common sense” climate action, energy policy, and economic realities.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Framing the Urgency of Climate Action

• Context: The episode opens amid record-breaking heat and disasters like the Maui wildfires, with Remnick questioning if these will mobilize real bipartisan action.
• Republican Engagement:
  • Miller-Meeks reflects on her early advocacy (starting 2017/2018) for more GOP engagement on climate:
    “I didn’t think Republicans were engaged enough in the conversation.” (03:02)
  • She distances herself from presidential candidates who downplay climate change, instead emphasizing “pragmatic sense” in balancing climate with economic realities.
• Incrementalism vs. Crisis Response:
  • Miller-Meeks is skeptical of urgent, sweeping changes:
    “Having rapid change without having affordable, available energy is not a solution.” (03:33)
  • She supports an economic growth-focused, “common sense” approach, arguing energy demand will rise, not fall.

2. The Conservative Climate Policy Approach

• Defining “Common Sense”:
  • Miller-Meeks contends there's little consensus even on definitions:
    “Is hydropower clean energy?... Iowa is a state where 50 percent of its energy is from renewables… all that without mandates or emission standards.” (04:37)
• Support for Nuclear and Domestic Supply Chains:
  • She notes Democratic shifts toward nuclear but criticizes regulatory and supply chain hurdles:
    “Every energy generation source should have a life cycle carbon analysis.” (05:20)
  • Miller-Meeks describes the local example of the Duane Arnold nuclear plant and criticizes the Biden administration for restrictions on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon.
  • She highlights difficulties in permitting new domestic mines for materials needed in the energy transition (copper, rare earths):
    “You need copper...The Duluth Copper Mine...has been trying to get permitted for over a decade.” (07:00)
• Balancing Global Impacts:
  • She points to environmental abuses abroad in mining for transition minerals:
    “Do you know how much earth you have to move…? Read ‘Cobalt Red,’ which is akin to blood diamonds.” (07:30)

3. Opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)

• Criticism of Mandates:
  • Miller-Meeks frames the IRA and associated EPA guidance (like EV mandates) as anti-choice and not sufficiently bipartisan:
    “Policies that mandate and take away choice are not policies I could agree with.” (08:24)
• Perceived Lack of Republican Involvement:
  • “Had we been involved, I think...there would have been more participation and more bipartisan support.” (08:52)

4. Political Influences & Fundraising

• Fossil Fuel Money:
  • Remnick challenges Miller-Meeks on the disproportionate influence of fossil fuel money in GOP fundraising, compared to environmental groups for Democrats.
  • Miller-Meeks deflects by referencing influence from “radical environmentalists.” (09:20)

5. Talking Climate with Constituents

• Town Hall Example:
  • Miller-Meeks describes frank discussions—often with Democrats or climate activists—about the pace and form of action, highlighting Iowa’s agricultural innovation and her attendance at international climate summits (COP 26, 27):
    “I don't try to scare people...lead them to believe that the world is coming to an end if we don't adopt policies...” (10:20)

6. Gradualism vs. Urgency—Philosophical Divide

• Criticism from Left:
  • Remnick puts forward the argument that incrementalism is in itself unrealistic, citing disasters and economic costs.
• Miller-Meeks’ Response:
  • She asserts the practical need to balance climate with economic survival for her constituents:
    “My job is to look out for my district and my state. How do we lower emissions while allowing the United States to compete economically?” (11:30)
    • She criticizes catastrophist rhetoric for undermining credibility:
      “Every time we advance that there is a crisis and there’s doom and it doesn’t materialize, scientists...lose credibility.” (12:41)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “I thought that we had, you know, not been involved. And so I can’t control what the presidential candidates say.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (03:02)
• “Having rapid change without having affordable, available energy is not a solution.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (03:33)
• “Iowa is a state where 50% of its energy is from renewables...We’ve done all of that without mandates or emission standards.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (04:37)
• “If you want to have an electric grid... you need copper... The Duluth Copper Mine... trying to get permitted for over a decade.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (07:00)
• “Our mining practices are more environmentally friendly than the mining practices in China.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (07:40)
• “Policies that mandate and take away choice are not policies I could agree with.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (08:24)
• “My job is to look out for my district and my state. How do we lower emissions while allowing the United States to compete economically around the globe?” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (11:30)
• “Every time we advance that there is a crisis and there’s doom and it doesn’t materialize, scientists and we as political leaders...lose credibility.” – Rep. Miller-Meeks (12:41)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 01:17 – Opening context: Climate disasters and political gridlock
• 03:02 – Miller-Meeks: GOP needs stronger engagement on climate
• 04:17 – "Common sense" as conservative climate philosophy
• 05:20 – Discussion of nuclear, domestic mining, and global supply chains
• 08:24 – Opposition to IRA, mandates, and regulatory approaches
• 09:43 – Miller-Meeks on talking climate with constituents, town halls
• 11:02 – Remnick challenges gradualism as unrealistic
• 12:41 – Miller-Meeks on the danger of alarmist rhetoric to credibility

---

Tone & Language

The conversation is civil yet pointed, with Remnick posing sharp but fair challenges and Miller-Meeks sticking closely to pragmatic, constituent-centered talking points. She stresses incremental, economically conscious action and critiques alarmism, while Remnick aims to surface underlying urgency and the limits of gradualism.

---

Summary prepared for listeners seeking an in-depth understanding of the political divides and practicalities in conservative engagement on climate policy, as articulated by a leader of the Republican Climate Caucus.

Transcript

[A]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

This is the political scene and I'm David Remn with the record breaking heat of this summer. Record after record after record. We didn't need any more evidence of the appalling consequences of climate change. But now we have the tragedy on the island of Maui in Hawaii, a rainy state that rarely had wildfires until recently. So the question on a lot of minds is will this hottest summer in recorded history be a wake up call, an opportunity to put aside some of the partisan fighting and and begin at last to face the reality as frightening as it is? Or are we just going to keep sleepwalking? To further self immolation, I'm joined now by a leader of the Conservative Climate Caucus, a group of about 80 Republicans in Congress. Iowa Representative Marionette Miller Meeks was elected in 2020. She's an army veteran, a physician, and she formerly ran the Iowa Department of Public Health. Miller Meeks serves as Vice Chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Now, the leading presidential candidates in the Republican Party tend to downplay the climate crisis if they refer to it all, certainly on the national level on the campaign trail, Donald Trump has said climate change might affect us in 300 years. He used to say that it was part of a Chinese hoax. Ron DeSantis has said we're politicizing the weather. How do you feel about that? Are they wrong? What are you doing to get top members of your party to care more about the climate issue?

[C]

One of the reasons I started speaking on the issue in 2017 and 2018 was because I didn't think Republicans were engaged enough in the conversation. I thought that we had, you know, not been involved. And so I can't control what the presidential candidates say.

[B]

I guess what I'm asking is, do they disappoint you by their lack of urgency?

[C]

No. Again, I'm a member of Congress and we're trying to work on, you know, bipartisan solutions. I think perhaps where there's difference among individuals is with what urgency. People believe there needs to be changes. I believe that having rapid change without having affordable, available energy is not a solution. We're trying to bring some pragmatic sense to the discussion of climate, environment and energy. Our mission is to advance, I think, common sense solutions that allow our economy to grow, allow our economy to strengthen and compete globally around the world. But. But there are common sense solutions that afford us, you know, we have to have affordable energy. Energy demand is going up. It is not going down.

[B]

It's going up. I hear you say repeatedly the phrase common sense. No one's against common sense. It's hard to argue against common sense. So let's get that out on the table. Can you explain what the conservative approach to climate policy is and how does it differ from what we might hear from the Democrats?

[C]

I don't think there are. There's a vast consensus on what's common sense policy. Is hydropower clean energy? To me, it would be clean energy. But yet you have a state, Washington state, that's trying to shut down their hydroelectric dams along the Snake River. But yet it would be clean energy. Iowa is a state where 50% of its energy is from renewables. Now, almost 60% of our electricity is from wind. We are a net exporter of energy. We've done all of that without mandates or without emission standards. I haven't heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, until recently, talk about nuclear energy.

[B]

Well, a lot of people, Democrats and others, have changed their minds about nuclear energy. Despite the risks, you support it?

[C]

Well, I think if you're trying to electrify an economy and reduce emissions, first and foremost, every energy generation source should Have a life cycle carbon analysis. So things that may be without emissions when they produce electricity may have a significant carbon footprint through their production to their disposal, first and foremost. Secondly, I understand the fear of nuclear, but I also think that the fear in some ways was unwarranted. And like many people, we saw what happened at Three Mile Island. But were there any deaths that occurred there?

[B]

Sure were. At Chernobyl.

[C]

Chernobyl, yes. But at Chernobyl, bad reactor design, didn't have the right coolants. We have a nuclear power plant in Iowa. Dwayne Arnold nuclear power plant in paloma. Even in 2008, when we had the massive flooding that flooded downtown Cedar Rapids, the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant was a source of electricity for the eastern part of our state. Was never flooded, was an excellent facility, well managed, well done. And what we're seeing with the small modular reactors, number one, that they're safer. And we certainly have other countries that have a track record, a great track record. So. So I think nuclear is certainly an option. It's unfortunate that the Biden administration has taken offline land near the Grand Canyon, which is a source of a lot of high grade uranium for this country, so that we can mine our own uranium. How can you have domestic energy production if you're not allowing mining? If you want to have an electric grid because you need to have longer power lines in order to take wind or solar energy from one area of the country to another area of the country. You need copper. The Duluth Copper Mine in Duluth, Minnesota has been trying to get permitted for over a decade. You have an inflation reduction act, which on one hand says you need to domestically support source minerals, but yet we won't allow permitting. So permitting reform, liability reform when it comes to energy production, those are things both Republicans and Democrats agree need to happen to. To allow us to be able to have a cleaner energy future. Our mining practices are more environmentally friendly than the mining practice is in China. Do you know how much earth you have to move in order to get the rare earth elements? Do you know how many children read cobalt red, which is akin to blood diamonds, about children that are put into mining cobalt? I think those things.

[B]

I can't disagree with that. I can't disagree with that.

[C]

Those things have to be brought into consideration too.

[B]

Congresswoman, the Inflation Reduction act was the most significant climate legislation ever passed in the United States. Why do you oppose it?

[C]

I think there were pushes toward, such as when the EPA puts forward its guidance on tailpipe admissions, such that it's pushing to have electric vehicles to be 67% of vehicles on the road within about eight years. You know, those policies that mandate and take away choice are not policies I could agree with had they been individual bills. Had we been involved, I think you would have seen that there would have been more participation and more bipartisan support.

[B]

Let me ask you this. The fossil fuel industry gives campaign donations at some very high multiple to Republicans and some Democrats like Joe Manchin, far more than Democrats. Do you think the fossil fuel industry puts its thumb on the political game in such a way that it influences things for the worse?

[C]

Do radical environmentalists put their thumb on and influence politicians on the Democrat side?

[B]

Are you going to compare the fundraising of radical environmentalists to the fossil to Mobil and ExxonMobil?

[C]

My viewpoint on carbon based fuels and liquid fuels is, would be as it is now, based upon the research I've done.

[B]

Regardless, Congressman, when you talk about climate change with your constituents, what's the conversation like? I just want to get a sense of what that back and forth is like.

[C]

I talk to my constituents the same way I talk to you. So I had a town hall last night in Iowa City where the University of Iowa is. It's a county that votes about 80% Democrat. The majority of people who attended were Democrats. The Citizens Climate Lobby was there. They had several questions. They appreciate the fact that I've gone to both. Cop 26, cop 27. I will be going again this year. I'm glad to see that the International Panel on Climate Change has finally recognized American Agricultural's contribution to reducing admissions. We have farmers in our state that are doing truly amazing, groundbreaking things. Young farmers that are doing sustainable regenerative agriculture, training other farmers how to do it, mentoring them. I don't try to scare people or frighten people or lead them to believe that the world is coming to an end if we don't adopt policies which I know are going to lead to a lack of electricity, a lack of heating and cooling, a lack of an ability to drive your vehicle to work, lack of the ability to recreate and lead to higher energy prices and less energy.

[B]

I guess what people would say who respectfully disagree with you from the other side of the aisle is that you talk about what's realistic. But given what we know about the destructiveness of climate change, the deaths, the property damage, the cost of rebuilding after disasters, that a gradualist, incrementalist approach like you're describing, however well intentioned, is in fact not realistic. That's the argument.

[C]

I understand your position, but I'd respectfully Disagree. Isn't it important that people are able to drive from a job to a job? Isn't it okay for people to live in a rural area and are we going to be able to have farmers be able to farm? I'm in an area where has the highest unemployment and the lowest wages of the state and you're going to tell me that I should be okay with $4 gasoline because you want an electric vehicle on the road? I reject that premise. You know, my job is to look out for my district and my state. How do we lower admissions while allowing the United States to compete economically around the globe? But if your narrative is that the world is going to end, I think it was. We were going to end in, you know, 10 or 12 years and, you know, we're now six years into it. Every time someone advances a narrative that it's a crisis if we don't do something now. And I think Al Gore said that what we were going to have no Antarctica and no Arctic by 2013.

[B]

The year might be off by this or that, but Antarctic ice is plunging into the ocean. We see it on film. This is not some made up narrative.

[C]

I didn't say it was a made up narrative, sir. I just said that every time we advance that there is a crisis and there's doom and it doesn't materialize, scientists and we as political leaders and people who are advancing policy, lose credibility.

[B]

Congressman Miller Meeks, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

[C]

You're so welcome. Thank you very much.

[B]

Marionette Miller Meeks is Vice Chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus and she represents Iowa's 1st congressional district.

[D]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial Director.

[B]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[D]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley. And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.

[B]

Right. So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are.

[D]

Affecting Washington and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[C]

From prx.