In the wake of Tuesday's elections, there appears to be two ways of thinking about the repercussions for climate policy. One school of thought holds that this is essentially doomsday, with U.S. President Barack Obama's administration facing the potential gutting of its environmental programs — including the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon emissions regulations — by a Republican-dominated Congress.

The other view holds that this election was not in any way a referendum on how voters view climate change. In fact, the race revealed indications that it is increasingly untenable to be a candidate for major office while holding the view that manmade climate change does not exist.

I think the second view is closer to reality, and here are five reasons why:

1. Big Green forced some Republican candidates to tack left on climate.

The Colorado Senate race is an excellent example of a race where big environmental donors, including billionaire Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate Action super PAC, spent big on holding on to Democratic Sen. Mark Udall's seat. Udall has a solid voting record in favor of clean energy, and has long spoken out about the dangers of global warming. But Republican Cory Gardner blurred the differences between him and Udall by advertising his support for natural gas and wind power.

This move was one of many made by Gardner that showed his adroitness as a candidate, and it wouldn't have been necessary if it were not for the spending by Green groups. So, even though Steyer's organization spent big for Udall (to the tune of at least $7.4 million) and lost, there is a silver lining in that Gardner is now on the record as holding less extreme energy views than when he entered the race as a House member.

In other races, Republican candidates were forced to resort to the ridiculous "I'm not a scientist" line when asked about their views on global warming. A few years ago, most candidates simply were not asked about their views on this subject. So that's slight progress right there.

2. The polarized midterm electorate is not the same as the 2016 electorate.

This was not a climate change election. Races from Colorado to Georgia were dominated by Obama's sinking popularity and a sense that the country was on the wrong track domestically and abroad, plus an electoral map and midterm electorate that favored Republican candidates. Viewed this way, the climate change implications of the Republicans' success are fuzzier.

Polls showed that while Democratic voters were overwhelmingly likely to count climate change as a serious issue, very few Republican voters on Tuesday felt the same way. Some used that exit poll data to argue that the partisan divide on climate change is deepening, not softening. However, the midterm electorate is smaller, older and whiter than the general election electorate that will likely turn out in 2016, so treat such polls with caution.

When 400,000 of us took the streets of NYC on September 21, we showed that a new sort of climate politics is possible.

— 350 dot org (@350) November 5, 2014

Another indication that this does not reflect the broader public's views is that numerous national polls have shown that a majority of the public supports actions to reduce the severity of climate change, especially younger voters.

Those voters showed their strength at the People's Climate March in New York in September, signaling the rise of a new, more formidable climate movement. Jamie Henn, a spokesperson for 350.org, which helped organize the march, told InsideClimateNews on Wednesday that activists need to do more work to foster a grassroots movement.

"We've always said we need to find another currency to drive change than campaign contributions. We've learned we to need to strengthen the grassroots movement. We are not going to win climate through a series of ad buys," Henn said.

3. One of the most ardent supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline lost.

Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry lost his bid for reelection in a race that climate activists tried to turn into a referendum on the Keystone XL pipeline. Terry has been a major supporter of the project, which would carry oil from the oil sands in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The planned pipeline route goes through Nebraska, which has energized a grassroots movement against it due to safety and environmental concerns. So, while a Republican Senate will likely be far more supportive of Keystone overall, Terry's election offers a warning shot not to overreach on the issue.

Then again, Terry had other issues weighing him down, including controversial comments he made about keeping a congressional pay raise.

Interestingly, the recent crash in oil prices may make the pipeline a less attractive investment for TransCanada, which is the company seeking to build it. So, despite the election of many senators who have said they would vote to permit Keystone, the need for it may not be as great anymore, anyway.

4. Most climate policy progress in the next two years will come from international deals and executive action.

International climate negotiations will take much of the spotlight away from domestic climate policy in the next two years, with the world facing a 2015 deadline for crafting a new climate treaty. The U.S. has shown some success in working out bilateral cooperation agreements with other major emitters, most notably China, and Obama will continue to be free to use his executive authority to pursue such arrangements, going forward. As for a United Nations treaty, it's not like the old Senate was poised to pass a climate treaty anyway.

Obama's administration was already planning to craft a treaty that will avoid Senate ratification, so Tuesday's results didn't affect the likelihood of a global climate deal next year.

5. The administration can still press forward with executive actions, albeit with more of a backlash.

Although it will face a more recalcitrant Congress that will try to force the White House to accept cuts to climate programs, there is no need for Obama to swerve away from his stated intention of enacting climate policies through executive action rather than legislatively. Before Tuesday, the Senate could not pass a climate bill, nor will they be able to afterward.

As for federal climate action the next two years, it’ll be nothing but defending EPA carbon regs from unceasing attack.

— David Roberts (@drgrist) November 5, 2014

What Senate Republicans will be able to do is try to slow down the EPA's landmark greenhouse gas emissions reductions, potentially delaying the implementation of the rules. They will also be able to cut funding for climate research and climate-change adaptation programs. However, if items are zeroed out, that may prompt a presidential veto.

Two major caveats: governors and the ticking clock.

The results at the state level are, in fact, a significant setback for climate advocates, considering how many climate policies have been enacted at the state level in the past several years. California, for example, has its own cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions, and many states have enacted renewable portfolio standards that mandate a certain amount of electricity must come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power.

New Republican administrations in Massachusetts and Maryland, for example, could mean different policies on renewable energy and climate adaptation in those states after years of Democratic control. However, in Massachusetts, the incoming governor has signaled support for continuing a regional, market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In Florida, local officials will have to continue to try to hold the impacts from rising sea levels at bay, while working with a governor who doesn't think the science on manmade climate change is sufficiently convincing yet. And the reelection of numerous climate contrarians, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, to state capitals means a continuation of existing backwards climate policies in many places.

In addition to governorships, the other reason for pessimism — or at the very least, impatience — on climate policy is the increasingly stark scientific evidence showing that the window for acting to prevent dangerous climate change is closing fast. The most recent delivery of this message came on Sunday, by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As the science shows, we simply can't afford to lose two years to obstruction, or worse — regression.

Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.