January 22, 2015 11:19 AM UTC

Cory Gardner and Climate Change: What Did You Expect?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

As FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports:

After campaigning successfully last year as a "different kind of Republican," Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner is under fire from conservationists for voting Wednesday against an amendment stating that humans contribute to climate change, something 69 percent of his constituents believe to be a fact.

Fifteen Senate Republicans, including 2016 presidential contender Sen. Rand Paul, joined Democrats in backing the amendment, but not Gardner…

During a competitive U.S. Senate race last year, Gardner ran a TV ad shot in a wind farm touting himself as a next generation conservative who supports clean energy and an all of the above energy plan; however, during debates, he was reluctant to state a clear position on the role of humans in causing climate change.

"During this fall's campaign, Senator Gardner declared himself to be a different kind of Republican," Maysmith said. "Instead, his vote today shows that he is not yet ready to stand up to those in Washington DC who deny that people play a role in climate change.  He ducked this issue during the campaign and now on the floor of the U.S. Senate." [Pols emphasis]

Sen. Cory Gardner's campaigns have long been heavily funded by the oil and gas industry, and Gardner has consistently returned the favor as a reliable vote for the industry's bottom-line interests. What we're talking about here was a token concession to the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global climate change–nothing that would have changed any policy, as an amendment to a bill President Barack Obama has already promised to veto to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

The vote took place amidst a flurry of amendments to the Republican bill to build the Keystone XL pipeline and were part of an effort by Senate Democrats to bait Republicans into a number of politically risky votes on the subject of climate change.

Meaning that there was absolutely no reason to vote against it, and if Gardner had voted for it, he could have avoided the negative press that comes with voting against something 69% of his constituents believe. It would have been a significant validator of his campaign slogan, "A New Kind of Republican."

So why didn't he? That's simple–he's not up for election for six years, and there's no need for any of that kind of pretense for at least four or five of those years. On abortion, on immigration, and now climate change, the Cory Gardner you always knew was there is shining pearly-white bright.