During the State of the Union address earlier this week, President Barack Obama spoke at length about clean energy, with nary a mention of climate change. This is the new environment in which America's energy policy is being made.
Just two years ago, Democrats were rallying to combat climate change, one of the most worrying challenges the country faces. But now, Obama has apparently given up his plan to openly fight climate changeduring his presidency. It's hard to imagine how, even in a second term, he would choose to re-fight the lost battle to create a cap-and-trade system.
The Obama Administration has instead resorted to a sort of insurgent strategy. Instead of waging an all-out battle against energy interests, the U.S. government will try to chip away at the edges of the industry's power and rally citizens' allegiances to a new flag, that of "clean energy."
Climate bill's absence is smothering clean energy
Since Washington hasn't succeeded at tackling climate change head on, Obama's new strategy is to attack the problem obliquely by promoting innovation in clean energy and setting goals for the use of technologies like electric cars. But can clean energy efforts and innovations thrive in the absence of a wholesale climate policy? When a climate bill was still a possibility, clean energy entrepreneurs were promising substantial investments in the sector, if only Congress could give them a framework. And as Monica Potts explains at The American Prospect, in the absence of a climate bill, clean energy has flagged:
What's been problematic about the president's approach up to now is that, despite his efforts to pump funding into the clean-energy sector, as he did with about $90 billion of the stimulus, renewable energy hasn't taken off. Obama had a line in his speech that summed up why this is so: "Now, clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
Short on influence
It's possible that clean energy investors will take the President's new promise as incentive enough to push forward. But, they will also have to consider the influence of the newly empowered Republicans. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard isn't convinced that the president's new tactic will stick:
"There are plenty of people-and most of them happen to be Republicans-who don't think that policies to support clean energy are worthwhile and who will oppose any attempt to move away from them," she wrote. "Meanwhile, this latest iteration of the Obama climate and energy plan includes few of the driving forces that would actually make renewables cost-competitive in the near future and allow renewables to compete (the big one being, of course, a price on carbon pollution)."
When "clean" energy includes coal
Another weak point in the President's new strategy is his reliance on the vague idea of clean energy, which becomes dirtier the more it is used. As Sheppard writes, "Environmental groups weren't all that excited about the inclusion of "clean coal" and nuclear in that mix, but that's pretty broadly expected as the price one must pay to draw broader support for a clean energy standard."
Another key source of clean energy is natural gas. In Washington, it's become a given that natural gas, which releases less carbon when burned than coal or oil, will help the country transition away from its high-carbon diet and be phased out as energy sources like solar and wind become more viable. (The natural gas industry, of course, doesn't see its role as transitional. It's playing for keeps.)
And while some places are rightly celebrating the freedom that natural gas gives them from coal-as Care2's Beth Buczynski reports, Penn State is investing $35 million to convert its coal-fired power plant to natural gas over the next three years-other places are bearing the environmental toll of this new, clean fuel. In North Carolina, for instance, hydrofracking, the controversial technique that natural gas companies have been using to extract the gas from shale, is not even legal, but already environmental groups are having to fight efforts from energy companies to buy up potentially gas-rich properties, Public News Service reports.
A poverty of political capital
The president's new strategy on clean energy will surely succeed at turning current energy economy slowly towards a new path. In the absence of any overarching strategy to fix the country's energy problems, it's going to have to be good enough. But ultimately, this sort of tactic, born out of a poverty of political capital, cannot move fast enough to keep energy companies from scouring the earth for more profits doing what they've been doing.
That means that there will be more scenes like the one in Kern County, California, where companies are dredging up the last resources of oils from the tar sands. In Orion Magazine, Jeremy Miller writes:
The land also reveals the Frankensteinian scars and machinery necessary to keep up that level of production. Gas flares glow on hillsides. Nodding donkeys lever over thousands of wells, some of which are spaced fewer than a hundred feet apart. Between the wells and imposing cogeneration power plants-which supply energy and steam to the senescent fields-run wild tangles of pipe. These are the conduits of an elaborate industrial life-support system, breathing in steam and carrying away oil.
Will the president's new strategy prevent the creation of more landscapes like this one? It seems overly optimistic to hope so.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
I learned last week that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is floating the idea of stopping EPA's work to reduce carbon dioxide pollution for at least one year.
To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I have known and admired Senator Sherrod Brown for years, and I respect his track record on defending the environment.
Sherrod's consideration of undermining the EPA's ability to keep our air free from pollution doesn't jibe with his past positions or with what's good for Ohio's economy and for its residents' health.
And it certainly doesn't match up with what I know of Sherrod Brown's leadership.
I first met Senator Brown when he was in the House and I worked for another member of the Ohio delegation. Both members served on the Energy and Commerce Committee. During the long committee hearings, members often left to attend other events, but Hill staffers had to stick around to listen. Staffers aren't allowed to speak at committee meetings-only members can-so when we would hear witnesses making inaccurate statements or exaggerating the facts, we felt powerless to correct the record.
That was until we realized we could turn to Sherrod Brown. He was one of the few members who would sit through the bulk of hearings, and we could always trust him to correct the record when the speaker was off the mark, we could count on him to challenge falsehoods-especially when it came to environmental issues.
More recently, Senator Brown has been a supporter of clean energy-something that has been very good for Ohio. In fact, Ohio is the best in the Midwest when it comes to green job growth. Toledo and Cleveland have led the way by transforming struggling auto-parts factories into manufacturing centers of solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced batteries.
These opportunities led Senator Brown to play an active roll drafting comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that would have cut global warming pollution and brought as much as $5.6 billion in investment revenue and 67,000 new jobs to Ohio.
Unfortunately, that legislation never made it to the floor. So why would Brown want to put put on hold the only chance we have right now for cutting carbon dioxide pollution? The only thing likely to be different a year from now is that one more year of pollutants will be in our air and businesses will have suffered through another year of renewed uncertainty about the standards they will have to meet.
And EPA has not put in place some Draconian plan. All that's being required is that new plants, or plants undergoing major changes install the latest, affordable equipment. Why would we want new plants to be dirtier than they have to be?
We shouldn't stop work already underway to clean up our air and tackle climate change while we wait for Congress to get its act together. And Congressional "delays" tend to be extended year after year. Before we know it, America will be four or five years further behind in confronting the worst environmental, economic, and national security challenge of our time.
That isn't something the Brown I know would want. And it's not something the people of Ohio should want. Ohio has one of the best clean energy stories to tell in the nation. Confronting climate change and shifting to more sustainable energy will bring more jobs to your state and make the hard-working families of Ohio healthier.
When your children are sick, you don't stop giving them the medicine they need because a better product might be available someday. Heck, you don't even wait for your kids to GET SICK if you can take pre-emptive action to avoid it.
Sherrod Brown can stand up for the health and welfare of Ohio's families by working WITH the EPA to make sure implementation of the Clean Air Act is successful in bringing standards up-to-date to protect public health and drive innovation. That is the leadership we need.
This blog was originally posted on the NRDC Action Fund blog, The Markup.
The Progressive Platform we are building will be a sort of blueprint that we believe all progressives, especially candidates, should follow. It will be our beliefs as progressives, where we stand on various issues, and in many cases, what we believe needs to be done on those issues.
In the first post, the idea of creating a Progressive Platform was introduced. I had posted links to various political platforms, so everyone could get an idea of what we are trying to accomplish. Then you were asked to vote on what planks we should include in our platform.
This week we will briefly discuss planks for our platform.
A year ago, it seemed possible-likely, even-that President Barack Obama would sweep into the international negotiations on climate change at Copenhagen and make serious progress on the tangle of issues at stake. The reality was quite different. This year, the expectations for the United Nations Climate Conference in Cancun are less wild.
The conference will be held from Nov 29 to Dec 10 and the same issues from 2009 are up for debate. Countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany are still contributing an outsize share of carbon to the atmosphere. Countries like India and China are still rapidly increasing their own carbon output. And countries like Bangladesh, Tuvalu, and Bolivia are still bearing an unfair share of the environmental impacts brought on by climate change.
A very different set of expectations are building in the climate movement this year. If last year was about moving forward as fast as possible, this year, climate activists seem resigned to the idea that politicians just aren't getting it. Change, when it comes, will have to be be built on a popular movement, not a political negotiation.
Climate change from the bottom up
Last year, climate activists put their faith in international leaders to make progress. This year, they believe that it's up to them, as outside actors, to marshal a grassroots movement and pressure their leaders towards decreased carbon emissions.
"There's a recognition that the insider strategy to push from inside the Beltway to impact what will happen in DC, or what will happen in Cancun has really not succeeded," Rose Braz, climate campaign director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Making Contact's Andrew Stelzer. "What we're doing in conjunction with a number of groups across the country and across the world is really build the type of movement that will change what happens in Cancun, what changes what happens in DC from the bottom up." (This entire episode of Making Contact is dedicated to new approaches to climate change, at Cancun and beyond, and is worth a listen.)
Fighting the indolence of capitalists
Here's one example of this new strategy. As Zachary Shahan writes at Change.org, La Via Campesina, an international peasant movement, is coordinating a march that will begin in San Luis Potosi, Guadalajara, Acapulco, Oaxaca, and Chiapas, then converge on Cancun. The march will include "thousands of farmers, indigenous people, rural villagers, urbanites, and more," Shahan reports.
After they arrive in Cancun, the organizers are planning an "Alternative Global Forum for Life and Environmental and Social Justice" for the final days of the negotiations, which they say will be a mass mobilisation of peasants, indigenous and social movements. The action extends far beyond Cancun, though. Actually, they are organizing thousands of Cancuns around the world on this day to denounce what they see as false climate solutions.
These actions echo the strategy that environmentalist and author Bill McKibben and other climate leaders are promoting to push for climate change policies in the U.S. All this talk about building momentum from the bottom up, from populations, means that anyone looking for change is now looking years into the future.
The U.S. is not leading the way
Of course, ultimately, politicians will need to agree on a couple of standards. In particular, how much carbon each country should be emitting and how fast each country should power down its current emission levels. The U.S. is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to agreement on these questions, especially due to the recent mid-term elections. As Claudia Salerno, Venezuela's lead climate change negotiator wrote at AlterNet:
Unlike what many suggest, China is not the problem. China, along with India and others, have made considerable commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and are already working to realize them. Other developing countries have done the same, although we only generate a virtual drop in the bucket of global carbon emissions. The key player missing here is the U.S.
China, the U.S. and Clean Coal
The most interesting collaborations on clean energy, however, aren't happening around the negotiating table. This week, The Atlantic's James Fallows wrote a long piece about the work that the U.S. and China are doing together on clean coal technology, the magic cure-all to the world's energy ills.
In the piece, Fallows recognizes what environmentalists have long argued: coal is bad for the environment and for coal-mining communities. But, unlike clean energy advocates who want to phase coal out of the energy equation, Fallows argues that coal must play a part in the world's energy future. Therefore, we must find a way to burn it without releasing clouds of carbon into the atmosphere. That's where clean coal technology comes in. So far, however, researchers have had little luck minimizing coal's carbon output.
A few progressive writers weighed in on Fallows' piece: Grist's David Roberts thought Fallows was too hard on the anti-coal camp, while Campus Progress' Sara Rubin argued that the piece did a good job of grappling with the reality of clean energy economics. And Mother Jones' Kevin Drum had one very clear criticism-that the piece skated over the question of progress on carbon capture, the one real way to dramatically reduce carbon pollution from coal. He wrote:
All the collaboration sounds wonderful, and even a 20% or 30% improvement in coal technology would be welcome. But that said, sequestration is the holy grail and I still don't know if the Chinese are doing anything more on that front than the rest of us.
On every front, then, the view on climate change is now a long one.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
(Yes, I already did a diary about this during the week. But there's going to be an intense anti-environmental backlash in the House, and it doesn't hurt to be reminded of this once again, and maybe discuss what you might have already seen along these lines. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
[This post is written by NRDC Action Fund's Rob Perks, who is the Director of NRDC's Center for Advocacy Campaigns]
The role of federal climate legislation in the mid-term Congressional elections, to paraphrase Mark Twain, is being greatly exaggerated. For instance, Politico was quick to blame last year's vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) for the defeat of House Democrats.
In reality, 160 Democratic representatives who voted for the House climate bill won their elections yesterday. (This does not include four races that are still too close to call as of this writing.) On the other hand, 19 of 34 representatives who voted against the bill went down in defeat. (This excludes two races that were not decided as of this writing.)
[UPDATE, 11/04: E&E Daily has a story today that echoes my analysis, with a headline that is on point: "Being a Democrat, rather than voting for cap and trade, was the true political killer." (Sorry, no link provided because subscription is required.) As the article explains: "According to conventional wisdom, House Democrats who voted for a sweeping climate change bill last year paid a steep price for it on Election Day. But the theory of greenhouse gas emissions limits as ballot-box poison only goes so far, according to an E&E Daily analysis of competitive races. Among the Democratic-held House seats rated most endangered on election eve by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, 61 percent of incumbents who voted for the 2009 cap-and-trade bill lost their races. But the most threatened incumbents who opposed the legislation fared even worse, with 79 percent falling despite their resistance to a measure the GOP savaged as "cap and tax." The better overall performance by vulnerable House Democrats who survived after backing the climate plan - a camp that ranges from the Mountain West to the South and includes three Iowans - is hardly a vindication of a legislative process that left even some environmentalists soured on the final cap-and-trade bill. It does suggest, however, that many Democrats in swing districts were brought low by voter discontent with a bad economy and an ambitious federal agenda, not the 1,200-page climate plan specifically."]
It seems that disgruntled independent voters tipped the election away from the party in power toward Republicans. So, whether this election is viewed as a sign of antipathy toward or flat-out repudiation of the Democrats over the lackluster economy or any other policy frustrations, one thing is clear: concern about the ill-fated cap-and-trade climate legislation barely registered with voters.
Indeed, according to a survey released today by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, when voters who chose the Republican candidate were asked in an open ended question to name their biggest concern about the Democrat, only 1 percent cited something related to energy or cap and trade. And when offered a list of six arguments Republicans made against Democrats, only 7 percent of voters selected the so-called "cap and trade energy tax."
There you have it: the mid-term election was about the economy, stupid - not clean energy and climate legislation.
But make no mistake, voters of all political stripes still care about those issues. Indeed, polling from across the country shows that Americans overwhelmingly support clean energy policies and comprehensive efforts to protect our air and water.
And in California, voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 23, a move by Texas oil companies to roll back the state's landmark clean energy and climate law.
So the takeaway from the contentious mid-term elections is this: voters may disagree on a number of political issues but there is common ground to be found on the issue of clean energy - and elected leaders should take notice.
A chill is coming to Washington. A wave of climate change deniers were elected to office this week, and come January, we can expect a freeze in all reasonable and productive discussion about the fate of the planet.
Last year, the political discussion about climate change and carbon regulation was complicated and bogged down, but at least it was happening.
Who are the deniers?
Grist has pulled together a list of the climate deniers headed into power in the Senate. "Overall, the Senate next year will be more hostile to climate action than ever before," the site's staff says.
If these climate-denying legislators came from deeply red states, Tuesday's results might not be so shocking. But many of them represent swing states, or states that might be red in presidential contests, but that have previously elected Democrats to Congress.
Farewell, moderation
These latter states include North Dakota, whose new senator, John Hoeven, made Grist's list, and Indiana. Also on the list are Marco Rubio, from Florida, Kelly Ayotte, from New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey, from Pennsylvania.
Perhaps most disheartening is the replacement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with Senator-Elect Ron Johnson. Johnson is to the right of the independent-minded Feingold on a host of issues, but as Mother Jones' Andy Kroll writes, "What landed Johnson in headlines earlier this year was his claim that climate change wasn't created by humans but instead was the result of 'sunspot activity.'"
The new climate "science"
Sunspot activity is just one explanation that newly elected Republicans have grabbed onto to explain the very real phenomenon of climate change. Care2's Beth Buczynski has rounded up a few choice quotes from these new leaders:
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda." -Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." -Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri
What does this shift mean? In short, that the United States and our environmental policies will be limping forward and falling behind the rest of the world as international communities try to deal with climate change. As Brian Merchant writes at AlterNet:
...the current crop of GOP politicians have adopted a somewhat united ideological front opposing not only climate legislation, but the general notion of climate science itself. Nowhere else in the world has a leading political party availed itself of a position so directly in opposition to science -- indeed, today's GOP is the only party in the world that incorporates climate change denial as part of its political platform.
On the domestic front, writes The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia, that means that even unambitious legislation, like the renewable energy standard, stands little chance of passing. As it's currently written, the renewable energy standard would require a certain percentage of the country's electricity to come from renewable sources. In reality, it would not even push clean energy production to grow faster than market forces alone would. The main purpose of passing a standard would be to signal to clean energy investors that the government supports their work.
In other words, in the current legislative climate, our leaders wouldn't even get behind legislation that is just a sign of support for clean energy and the jobs it would create.
Zombie Climategate
Instead, the House's leadership plans on spending its time staging a show trial of climate science. The chief executor of this strategy will be Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is set to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Change.org's Jess Leber explains:
From his new position, the former car-alarm company owner plans to raise false alarm about climate conspiracy theories. As Nikki Gloudeman wrote, just a few weeks ago Issa vowed to make investigating "Climategate"-the climate pseudo-scandal that's already died 1,000 deaths-a top oversight priority should he win the committee.
In theory, Issa would be investigating a series of emails, sent by British climate scientists. Climate skeptics argue the emails prove that scientists are falsifying evidence of climate change. Extensive investigations have already debunked those claims.
In short, environmental leader Bill McKibben had the right idea back in September. Anyone who's interested in advocating for climate change action in this country would do well to stop trying to convince Congress to do its job. Our leaders won't be listening.
The best path forward may be to start convincing the American people, in the hope that, t
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
A chill is coming to Washington. A wave of climate change deniers were elected to office this week, and come January, we can expect a freeze in all reasonable and productive discussion about the fate of the planet.
Last year, the political discussion about climate change and carbon regulation was complicated and bogged down, but at least it was happening.
Who are the deniers?
Grist has pulled together a list of the climate deniers headed into power in the Senate. "Overall, the Senate next year will be more hostile to climate action than ever before," the site's staff says.
If these climate-denying legislators came from deeply red states, Tuesday's results might not be so shocking. But many of them represent swing states, or states that might be red in presidential contests, but that have previously elected Democrats to Congress.
Farewell, moderation
These latter states include North Dakota, whose new senator, John Hoeven, made Grist's list, and Indiana. Also on the list are Marco Rubio, from Florida, Kelly Ayotte, from New Hampshire, and Pat Toomey, from Pennsylvania.
Perhaps most disheartening is the replacement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) with Senator-Elect Ron Johnson. Johnson is to the right of the independent-minded Feingold on a host of issues, but as Mother Jones' Andy Kroll writes, "What landed Johnson in headlines earlier this year was his claim that climate change wasn't created by humans but instead was the result of 'sunspot activity.'"
The new climate "science"
Sunspot activity is just one explanation that newly elected Republicans have grabbed onto to explain the very real phenomenon of climate change. Care2's Beth Buczynski has rounded up a few choice quotes from these new leaders:
"With the possible exception of Tiger Woods, nothing has had a worse year than global warming. We have discovered that a good portion of the science used to justify "climate change" was a hoax perpetrated by leftist ideologues with an agenda." -Todd Young, new congressperson from Indiana
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth." -Roy Blunt, new senator from Missouri
What does this shift mean? In short, that the United States and our environmental policies will be limping forward and falling behind the rest of the world as international communities try to deal with climate change. As Brian Merchant writes at AlterNet:
...the current crop of GOP politicians have adopted a somewhat united ideological front opposing not only climate legislation, but the general notion of climate science itself. Nowhere else in the world has a leading political party availed itself of a position so directly in opposition to science -- indeed, today's GOP is the only party in the world that incorporates climate change denial as part of its political platform.
On the domestic front, writes The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia, that means that even unambitious legislation, like the renewable energy standard, stands little chance of passing. As it's currently written, the renewable energy standard would require a certain percentage of the country's electricity to come from renewable sources. In reality, it would not even push clean energy production to grow faster than market forces alone would. The main purpose of passing a standard would be to signal to clean energy investors that the government supports their work.
In other words, in the current legislative climate, our leaders wouldn't even get behind legislation that is just a sign of support for clean energy and the jobs it would create.
Zombie Climategate
Instead, the House's leadership plans on spending its time staging a show trial of climate science. The chief executor of this strategy will be Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is set to become chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Change.org's Jess Leber explains:
From his new position, the former car-alarm company owner plans to raise false alarm about climate conspiracy theories. As Nikki Gloudeman wrote, just a few weeks ago Issa vowed to make investigating "Climategate"-the climate pseudo-scandal that's already died 1,000 deaths-a top oversight priority should he win the committee.
In theory, Issa would be investigating a series of emails, sent by British climate scientists. Climate skeptics argue the emails prove that scientists are falsifying evidence of climate change. Extensive investigations have already debunked those claims.
In short, environmental leader Bill McKibben had the right idea back in September. Anyone who's interested in advocating for climate change action in this country would do well to stop trying to convince Congress to do its job. Our leaders won't be listening.
The best path forward may be to start convincing the American people, in the hope that, two years from now, they'll vote for candidates who have a clue.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
wo years from now, they'll vote for candidates who have a clue.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Despite the anti-incumbent, frustrated mood of yesterday's elections, there are some silver linings and some important messages for the months ahead.
In California, voters overwhelmingly rejected Big Oil's attempt to circumvent the most important climate law in the nation. This is an incredibly significant development. For the first time, VOTERS got to have direct input into whether or not they want to move forward with climate solutions. They gave a full-throated call for building the clean energy future in California.
Still, you probably won't hear much about this resounding victory because some pundits will view it as a wacky, West Coast aberration. But think about it: if the fossil fuel guys had won, the media would have been trumpeting the death of environmentalism, and industry allies in Congress would have been citing the vote as reason to abandon climate legislation. And you can call California "liberal," but it is also the state with the third largest unemployment rate in the nation. If voters thought clean energy hurt the economy, we wouldn't have won.
But voters know that clean energy means good things for our economy, and the California vote proves it. Unfortunately, the federal races were less clear.
We saw the House flip last night and several of our climate champs were defeated - but so were many lawmakers who had voted AGAINST climate change.
In Virginia, we saw Congressmen Tom Perriello (VA-5) and Rick Boucher (VA-9) go down. Both supported the climate bill. But, it's not easy to figure out how much of a factor climate was in those races. We also saw Rep. Glenn Nye (VA-2) bite the dust and he was a vocal opponent of the clean energy legislation.
Same thing in Ohio. We lost Rep. John Boccieri (OH-16) who voted for the House bill, but Rep. Charlie Wilson (OH-6), an outspoken critic, also went down. Meanwhile Rep. Betty Sutton (OH-13) actively defended her vote for clean energy and cruised to reelection. Other Ohio Reps like Zack Space (OH-18) lost their jobs, but they had tried to play both sides of the fence. Space voted for the climate bill, but then tried to keep the Environmental Protection Agency from actually addressing global warming. You can't have it both ways in an election year when people are looking for leadership.
Yet another example is found in Pennsylvania where we saw clean energy advocate Patrick Murphy (PA-8) defeated and Chris Carney (PA-10), an opponent of our issues, also handed his walking papers.
In race after race, we found voters kicking out the incumbents regardless of their stance on energy. Yet leaders on the issue in the Senate like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid won.
So, clean energy and climate change probably wasn't a factor in most races. In the end, this election came down to one thing: the economy.
Our stumbling economy continues to be on the minds of every working family in the country. They are worried about losing their jobs, their homes, and any sense of security that they may have created. The promise of clean energy provides a lot of hope for our stumbling economy and the American people believe that, regardless of who is in charge.
So, we will continue to work. Congress is going to have to take up mandatory bills on spending, infrastructure and agriculture. There are opportunities to make great progress on renewables, adaptation, efficiency and a plethora of other clean energy areas in all of those pieces of legislation. It will be a tough road, but a road worth taking.
This is the thirty-fifth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of political candidates in key races around the country.
All eyes turned to Alaska this summer when incumbent Lisa Murkowski was defeated in the Republican primary by challenger Joe Miller, an attorney and veteran endorsed by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Murkowski, who has been in the Senate since 2002 (when she was appointed by her father, then the Governor), has decided to mount a write-in campaign to retain her seat, leading to a three-way race between her, Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams, the Mayor of Sitka.
Following the primary, some political observers tried to attribute Murkowski's defeat to her acknowledgment that climate change is a problem. But the facts didn't bear this out. For one thing, as the Action Fund has previously written, Murkowski has been far from an environmental champion in the Senate. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gives her an 18% career rating, and in June, she led an attempt to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific finding that global warming threatens our public health and welfare, the first step needed to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act.
Miller, though, goes even further. On his website, Miller writes that global warming "may not even exist." Tell that to the National Academy of Sciences, our foremost scientific authority, which recently concluded, "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
McAdams, on the other hand, has been mostly saying the right things about clean energy and climate issues on the campaign trail. On his website, he decries the "political grandstanding and partisan rhetoric" that has stalled progress on comprehensive energy legislation. In an interview with Mother Jones, he said it was Murkowski's opposition to raising the liability cap on oil spills in the wake of the Gulf disaster that inspired him to run for the Senate. Remembering the effects of the Valdez spill on his home state and the many "who have still not been made whole," McAdams said, "I was outraged. To say that $75 million is enough to cover the claims, cover the cost of lives that cannot be valued or monetized is outrageous." And in a DailyKos post McAdams writes:
"I would not support Congress acting to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its greenhouse gas emission authority. Alaska is on the front lines of climate change from warming permafrost, receding glaciers and communities literally falling into the ocean. Also, the same pollutants causing climate change are causing our oceans to become more acidic, threatening our fisheries. I am the only candidate in the Alaska's U.S. Senate race putting new ideas on the table to increase our nation's energy security through increased use of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology, while responsibly developing our domestic oil and gas resources. I see Alaska as key to a renewable future for America: we have vast untapped renewable resources like tidal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. We have massive reserves of traditional sources of energy, like oil and natural gas, which must be brought to market while we transition to a more sustainable future."
The Alaskan race offers voters clear choices on the environmental stands of the candidates.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the thirty-fourth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
New Hampshire politics can be quirky, especially in its first-in-the-nation presidential primaries. In 1992, Pat Buchanan won a surprising 37% of the Republican vote, and in 2000, John McCain overtook George W. Bush. But New Hampshire was part of a national trend in 2008 when Jeanne Shaheen became the first Democrat elected to the Senate from New Hampshire in more than 30 years. And this year, New Hampshire has a critical race for its other Senate seat. Next week, Rep. Paul Hodes (D), a Representative who represents the state's 2nd Congressional District, and former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R), a former state Attorney General, will face off to replace retiring Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican.
In his first term in Congress, Hodes has already proven to be a consistent vote for clean energy and the environment. In 2009, he earned a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). This includes voting for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that has ever passed by a chamber of Congress. Following the vote, Hodes said in a statement:
"Today, we began rebuilding our economy by facing a major challenge: how we power our economy. This is no small task, but it is vital -how we make and use energy affects our jobs, the air we breathe, and the security of our nation.
That is why I was proud to support an historic green jobs and American energy independence bill. It will reduce carbon emissions by 83% by the year 2050, it will create millions of jobs in domestic energy industries, and it will help end the dependence on foreign oil that endangers our national security.
We cannot continue our failed energy policy that costs American families so much, pollutes our environment, and funds our enemies. This plan will create over 7600 new green collar jobs right here in New Hampshire as we invest in locally produced energy. I have been a strong proponent of alternative energy that is plentiful throughout New Hampshire like wind, solar and wood pellets. I introduced and passed the first ever federal biomass tax credit for wood pellet stoves that help heat homes and power communities. By investing in locally produced alternative energies like wood pellets, we can create green collar jobs in New Hampshire and bring new industry to economically distressed communities throughout the North Country."
On the campaign trail, Hodes has continued to advocate for clean energy and environmental policies, writing on his website, "We must create a 21st century energy policy that will use alternative forms of energy to power our economy, create new green collar jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil." Recognizing his strong positions on environmental issues, Hodes' campaign has been endorsed by LCV. As LCV President Gene Karpinski said in their endorsement, "LCV Action Fund is proud to endorse Congressman Paul Hodes for U.S. Senate because he understands that instead of spending billions on foreign oil, we should be investing in clean, secure energy sources right here in America. He has been a champion in the U.S. House and we know as senator he will add to bipartisan efforts to implement clean energy and climate policies that will make America more energy independent, reduce harmful carbon pollution and bring clean energy jobs to New Hampshire."
Ayotte, in sharp contrast, has mapped out a clearly anti-environmental stand on clean energy and climate change issues, contradicting her own earlier stands. On her website, she expresses support for an energy policy that embraces coal and oil as well as natural gas and nuclear energy. And she says she opposes cap and trade legislation, inaccurately calling it a "tax on Granite State families at a time when they can afford it least." Contrary to her claim, according to collaborative researchers at Yale University, the University of Illinois, and the University of California climate legislation like ACES would strengthen New Hampshire's economy, creating new jobs and increasing household incomes.
Worst of all, Ayotte denies the overwhelming science of global warming. This is a reversal of her previous statements on clean energy and climate issues. A little more than a year ago, Ayotte was saying that global warming is a 'real issue' and that human activity could have contributed to higher temperatures.
Voters in New Hampshire have a clear choice on clean energy and protecting the environment.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and for the voters of specific states, to be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Today's Washington Post points out how China is being cast by many congressional candidates as the boogeyman of the mid-term elections. In particular, anxiety over that country's growing economic dominance has manifested itself on the campaign trail. Currently, 250 ads targeting China are being aired by both Democrats and Republicans in dozens of the most competitive races across the country.
"More than a spasm of political season piling-on, the ads underscore a broader shift in American society toward a more fearful view of China," the article notes. "Inspired by China's rise and a perceived fall in the standing of the United States, the ads have historical parallels to the American reaction to Japan in the 1980s and to the Soviet threat."
On the issue of clean energy, China seems like fair game. After all, experts agree that when it comes to that country's push to become the world's leader on renewable energy technologies, the Chinese are eating America's lunch. "It is heartbreaking to think that China would be the leader in clean-energy technology because we can't get our act together," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview last week with historian Michael Beschloss. "If we stand on the sidelines and just complain and try to oppose whatever China is doing . . . and don't deal with our own issues at home," she added, "I don't know what the future will hold."
Throughout our nation's history, American ingenuity has been tied directly to our economic prosperity. That makes it all the more frustrating that during our country's present fiscal crisis some politicians are all too eager to thwart economic opportunities offered by clean energy jobs.
Indeed, by opposing comprehensive energy and climate legislation that could create 1.9 million jobs and help make American firms competitive in the growing global clean energy economy, some candidates are willing to set back the creation of new jobs - ensuring that other countries economies' are better positioned to capitalize on the growing clean energy sector. This means more jobs for China, which is investing in clean energy and developing expertise in clean energy technologies.
This is why NRDC Action Fund and our partner BlueGreen Alliance have launched an advertising initiative. Our nation-wide campaign this election cycle supports clean energy policies and raises awareness about their implications.
We're running ads right now against anti-environmental candidates in a number of places, including: Phil Hare (IL-17), Baron Hill (IN-9), Steve Kagan (WI-8), Mark Schauer (MI-7), Zach Space (OH-18), and Tim Walz (MN-1).
In addition to the jobs issue, the candidates should not ignore the national security implications of climate change and how our country compares to China in this regard. The U.S. military now recognizes climate change as a security "threat multiplier" and, as a result, federal spending is being reallocated for climate security. Between FY 2008 and FY 2011 the federal climate change budget has more than doubled, from $7.4 billion to $18.1 billion. In 2008, the U.S. budgeted $94 on tools of traditional military force for every dollar spent on climate security. That ratio will narrow to $41 to $1 in the 2011 fiscal year.
This is progress, obviously. But a shift of one percent of the military budget does not come close to bringing climate security investment in line with the magnitude of the threat. China's performance in this regard is far superior. Estimates are that China spends between $2 and $3 on its military for each $1 it spends on climate. In other words, China spends one-sixth as much as the United States does on military security - and twice as much on climate security.
All the polls presage an election next week in which Americans vent their anger and frustrations over the state of our economy by punishing the ruling party for policies they believe are to blame.
That gloomy prospect for Democrats is no surprise. With one in ten Americans unable to find work, and millions more struggling to stay in their homes, the ruling party is bound to face voter backlash. That also would be in keeping with historic trends: the party in control of Congress generally suffers big losses in the first mid-term elections after the election of a president of the same party.
But a closer look at recent polls suggests that voters on Tuesday also will be sending a very different message -- a positive one: They strongly support smart, clean energy policies that promote job creation and foster 21st-Century prosperity as well as efforts to combat climate change.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported Wednesday that 87 percent of Americans favor legislation to require utilities to produce more energy from renewable sources, such as solar and wind. And 78 percent favor tougher energy efficiency standards.
Such sentiments also show up in localities around the country. In more than two dozen tight congressional races, Americans are almost 20 percentage points more likely to vote for the candidate who supports clean energy legislation, according to a series of NRDC Action Fund polls released last week.
That mindset undoubtedly will lead voters to re-elect the vast majority of House members who voted for last year's historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). For poll after poll shows that Americans embrace a clean energy agenda that puts our neighbors back to work, makes our country more secure and creates a healthier future for our children.
And by every poll, California voters will overwhelmingly defeat Proposition 23, a Big Oil-sponsored initiative designed to gut the country's first-in-the-nation climate change law.
So even before voters cast their ballots, their message to Washington already is resoundingly clear: on clean energy issues and the urgent need to end global warming, the era of gridlock is over.
Chen is the federal communications director at the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. He spent most of his career as a Washington-based political reporter, first at the Los Angeles Times and, more recently, at Bloomberg News as its senior White House correspondent. From 2009-2010, he was president of the White House Correspondents' Association.
This is the thirty-third article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
The 19th Congressional District includes much of the historic lower Hudson Valley, sprawling over five counties (Orange, Dutchess, Rockland, Putnam, and Westchester). Traditionally Republican, the district's voting has become more Democratic recently. Although party outcomes have changed, the district continues to be politically moderate. In 2004, the district voted to reelect President Bush, but voted for President Obama in 2008. The former singer, Democrat John Hall, is in his second term representing the district in the U.S. House. Republican Nan Hayworth is challenging Hall in next week's election.
Rep. Hall has been a consistent vote for the environment in Congress, receiving a 98% career rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Last year, Hall voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. Following the vote, Hall said in a statement:
"Doing nothing on energy policy is not an option... Doing nothing, like we did during the Bush-Cheney Administration, caused our national security to weaken, dependence on Middle East oil to grow, average American household energy costs to increase by $1,100 and the slowest job growth of any administration in 75 years...
The American Clean Energy and Security Act is going to be the first step to creating this American-made clean energy technology. This landmark legislation will eliminate the need to buy millions of barrels of oil from foreign dictators and give us, our children, and our grandkids a chance at living in a healthy and safe environment. This bill will help stop the flow of U.S. gas dollars to the Middle East, and invest in a diverse, comprehensive American energy portfolio."
Because of his strong position on clean energy and environmental policy, the New York State LCV has endorsed his reelection bid.
In sharp contrast, Hayworth makes her opposition to ACES abundantly clear on her campaign website, inaccurately saying that it "will put an enormous burden on American consumers, and will increase the cost of American goods. The United States will lose businesses and jobs to countries that refuse to abide by our cap-and-trade restrictions." She couldn't be more incorrect. According to the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office, ACES will cost "about $175 per household" annually; a number which "does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions." Furthermore, CBO found that low-income households would see a "net benefit of about $40" per year. As for her claims about jobs, according to collaborative research by Yale University, the University of Illinois and University of California, ACES could create 1.9 million jobs nationally, and more than 126,000 in New York alone.
That's not all she's wrong about. Hayworth also believes that "[r]ecent controversies," (likely referring to the bunk Climategate non-scandal), should lead us to "regard any claims [about global warming] with skepticism." Tell that to the National Academy of Sciences, our foremost scientific authority, which recently concluded, "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
The district is being given a clear choice on environmental issues.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
If you need more of a reason to get out there and vote, let’s reflect on a few of the memorable moments in the 2010 midterm election season.
Remember when Ron Johnson, running against Senator Feingold in Wisconsin, said that extreme weather events were caused by sun spots, not global warming pollution.
Or when the Senate candidate from West Virginia John Raese posited , “If you have one volcano in the world, that one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything man puts out.”
Rabid climate denial—despite all facts to the contrary— has received a lot of attention this campaign season. But what got less coverage were the many times candidates denied or conveniently forgot their own party’s history and contradictory policy positions—again, despite all the facts pointing to the truth.
One after another, GOP candidates denounced the cap and trade approach to reducing global warming pollution. Senator Grassley said, “Since a cap-and-trade system inevitably involves increased costs for American consumers, it is in effect a national energy tax.” Nevada’s Sharron Angle said that people who pass things like cap and trade are “certainly not friends of the free-market system.”
But what these candidates failed to mention is that cap and trade is a Republican policy. It was created under President Ronald Reagan as a flexible, market-based system to reduce pollution without resorting to the “command and control” approach of regulation. (Read this fantastic post by Dan Weiss for more on the history).
President Reagan used cap and trade to phase out lead in gasoline and CFCs. Then President George H.W. Bush used a cap-and-trade system to reduce acid rain. And here is the amazing thing: the 1990 cap and trade system passed the Senate by 89-10 and the House by 401-25. Among its supporters: Senator McConnell and Representatives Gingrich, Barton, and Inhofe.
But that was back in 1990. Fast forward to 2010, the year when the GOP’s philosophy could be summed up by the famous Groucho Marx song: “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.”
So what if the revered President Reagan pioneered cap and trade? If Democrats support it, it must be bad. So what if every time we used cap and trade it has dramatically cut the cost of reducing pollution? If environmentalists support it, it must be an energy tax.
One of the most obvious flip-floppers is Senator McCain. During the presidential campaign just two years ago, McCain said the famous line, “I don’t see how you can be a conservative and not support cap and trade.” But come 2010, he suddenly started calling it a “cap and tax” measure and refused to support it in the Senate.
So, a lot is at stake in this election. You need to go vote. Knock on your neighbor’s door, tell your Mom, call your best friend and tell them all to vote. The issue is not the details of legislation, but an entire worldview. Are important matters going to be dealt with using reason, analysis, science and consistent thinking? Or are ignorance, stubbornness, negativity and political expediency going to rule the day?
We also have to be prepared. We have to fight the deniers by setting the record straight and broadcasting the truth. And we have to do it right away.
We won’t even have a respite after the election because the Clean Air Act will be under attack within weeks by another campaign of falsehoods. So let’s start fighting the ignorance right now.
This is the thirtieth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Staten Island is New York City's least densely populated borough and its voting tends to be more conservative than the rest of the city. The borough was represented in the Congress by a Republican in recent years until Democrat Michael McMahon took office in 2008. Republican Michael Grimm is challenging McMahon in next week's election.
During his first term in Congress, McMahon has proven to be reliably pro-environment. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave him a perfect 100% rating in 2009. His perfect score includes his vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. Following that vote, McMahon said:
We can no longer deny that our climate, and our planet as a whole, is facing a dire situation, and the way to solve this increasing threat is to invest in clean energy technologies....The semantics need to stop; we have a moral imperative to pass this legislation, if for no other reason than for our children's future. We need to stop turning a blind eye now.
[ACES] presents a balanced approach to American energy independence....It allows us to compete in the global marketplace, where the United States is severely behind others in the development of clean energy technology, and promotes innovation and creativity, two fundamental American values. Most important, the bill also provides consumer protections that will help keep energy costs low. Further, a vote for this bill is a vote for our troops, who, in reality, would not be fighting in the Middle East if we did not rely so heavily on foreign oil.
Because of his steadfast support for clean energy and environmental protections, both the New York LCV and the national LCV Action Fund have endorsed McMahon's reelection bid. As LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski said, "Congressman McMahon has quickly become a leader in working to pass legislation that ensures America is creating the clean energy jobs of the 21st century." New York LCV President Marcia Bystryn added, "From helping to keep Fresh Kills Landfill closed, to improving the waterfront and preserving open space like Pouch Camp, Mike McMahon has been a true champion for the environment of Staten Island and Brooklyn....Mike McMahon knows that environmental sustainability is not a luxury - it is the way forward to a greener, more economically vibrant New York. We enthusiastically endorse him for a second term."
Grimm, on the other hand, believes that the "jury is still out" on climate change, citing "experts from around the world [who] disagree on the prevailing theories of climate change." He claims to make it a point to stay informed on this issue, but he must have missed the recent report from the National Academy of Sciences, our most authoritative scientific body, that concluded, "Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
Grimm has also signed Americans for Prosperity's "No Climate Tax Pledge." Americans for Prosperity is a front group funded largely by oil industry tycoons, the Koch brothers, and is a major backer of Tea Party activities. Friends like these leave little doubt how Grimm would vote if elected to Congress.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the twenty-ninth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Connecticut leans Democratic - the state legislature, all five Congressional Districts and both Senate seats are currently occupied by Democrats (Joe Lieberman is a former Democrat, who ran as an Independent in 2006) - but that hasn't led to an uncompetitive or uninteresting race to replace retiring Senator Chris Dodd. Though, perhaps, drama should be expected when one of the nominees is the former CEO of the World Wresting Entertainment Linda McMahon. McMahon is a political neophyte facing Democrat Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's Attorney General since 1991, in the race to succeed Dodd. As the Connecticut Post reports, there are stark differences between the two candidates on energy and environmental issues.
Because of his strong positions on environmental issues, Blumenthal has earned endorsements from the Connecticut chapter of the Sierra Club and from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). John Blake, Connecticut Sierra Club Chapter Chair, said that:
Richard Blumenthal has worked with unfailing determination to protect the environmental quality of Connecticut... We trust he will be a strong advocate for rebuilding America's economy and creating jobs by promoting clean energy technologies, saving Americans money through energy efficiency projects, promoting smart land use policies, restoring water protections eroded by the courts, and reducing pollution. He strongly supports assisting US industry as we move away from fossil fuels and towards a clean energy economy. We expect that his environmental values will inform his future work as a Senator as strongly as they have his past work as the state's Attorney General.
In their endorsement, the Connecticut Sierra Club lists several areas where Blumenthal exhibited environmental leadership as Attorney General including: protecting the Long Island Sound by opposing Broadwater Energy's proposed liquefied natural gas plant and the Islander East Pipeline, bringing numerous lawsuits to prevent illegal dumping of hazardous waste, and ensuring that states funds dedicated to clean energy projects are not diverted for other uses. On the campaign trail, Blumenthal has pledged to "fight to ensure that the United States leads in the global green marketplace."
McMahon, in sharp contrast, has expressed uncertainty about the role humans have played in climate change, attacked Blumenthal for supporting the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which is the comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation passed by the House in 2009, and has called for eliminating the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.
On her website, McMahon writes, "I oppose cap-and-trade legislation because it will increase energy costs... multiple studies report that a CO2 reduction would cost an average household $455-5,000 a year."
And on Facebook she writes that ACES was an attempt "to force through an energy tax that would destroy on average 13,649 jobs in CT and raise electricity prices by $927.55 per household." None of these claims is true. According to the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), ACES would cost "about $175 per household" annually; a number which "does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions." CBO also found that low-income households would see a "net benefit of about $40" per year. Furthermore, researchers from the University of Illinois, Yale University, and the University of California found that ACES could potentially create as many as 16,000 new jobs in Connecticut.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and for the voters of specific states, to be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
STATE BLOGS
