The Political Climate: an ongoing commentary on the NH Primary and Climate Change

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (D) was in New Hampshire at the end of last week, talking at both Saint Anselm College and New England College (coverage here and here). Vilsack is talking up energy and climate issues under the umbrella of “energy security,” which he sees as the best way of positioning the issue to voters. In a briefing following his appearance at New England College he displayed an impressive grasp of the issues around climate change and could point to both his work in Iowa and concrete ideas he had about how the nation could address this massive problem. He is giving an address on energy security this week at the Council on Foreign Relations. The Political Climate will keep you posted.

Also in New Hampshire, the town of Temple approved the construction of a 40-foot wind turbine on Rob Wills’ and Victoria Nichols’ farm. The Telegraph’s David Brooks has this column about the complications surrounding the project.

The times they are ’a changin.

What do politicians have in common with pundits?  With business leaders?  With scientists and religious leaders?  Since the 2004 presidential election they’ve changed their minds about global warming.  Seems that some at the National Wildlife Federation had fun with a Nexis Lexis search and in quick order turned up sixteen instances (view list) where some pretty impressive people have gone on record, here and there over the past 2 years, and explained that they’ve seen the evidence, seen that the evidence is compelling if not overwhelming, and now see global warming as real.  Thanks, NWF guys! 

Be on the look out for Carbon Coalition members this weekend.  One of our “Carbon Cooler” volunteers will be collecting signatures at the Candia Old Home Days Fair on Saturday.  The Lakes Region Public Agenda is hosting three of our speakers to present, “Global Warming-A local issue“–impacts in the Lakes Region and what we can do about it.  The Carbon Coalition panel, Nancy Girard, Barry Rock, and Jim Rubens will present from 2:00 to 4:00 at the All Saints Episcopal Church in Wolfeboro this Sunday.

The Bush administration’s, “Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan” was released yesterday.  This article in the Washington Post supplies a synopsis of the “strategic plan,” as well as responses to the 244-page vision from the White House.  Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that the plan “breaks new ground with its visionary 100-year planning horizon, global perspective, multilateral reserach collaberations, and public-private partnerships.”  The document’s long-term plan budgets $3 billion a year in efforts to utilize technologies to curb the impacts of global warming, encourage voluntary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and employ national research intiatives to seek solutions.  “It’s good as far as it goes, but it needs to go a lot further,” responded Republican Sherwood Boechlert, the House Science Committee Chairman.

Will $3 billion a year be enough?  Two weeks ago (Sept. 11th “Monday Recap“) TPC reviewed this article from the Washington Post that reported on a study by Reuel Shinnar and Francesco Citro, two chemical engineers at the Clean Fuels Institute at the City College of New York.  Shinnar and Citro published a paper estimating it would take the US $200 billion a year for the next 30 years to address climate change–”spending $200 billion a year for the next 30 years would be a hard sell to policymakers, but [Shinnar] argued that it’s worth it in light of how climate change is transforming Earth.”

 This “strategic plan,” budgeting $197 billion less per year, must be heavily relying on voluntary action, which to date has been the only action against climate change the US has seen.  However, current data shows that voluntary action isn’t likely going to cut it.  The NY Times ran this article today reporting on upcoming forums that Ceres, Marsh & McLennan, and Yale University will host this winter.  The article provides results from the Carbon Disclosure Project, a report detailing corporate response to global warming.  The project shows that more than 80 percent of the companies involved in the study “acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of climate change.  But fewer than half said they were working to reduce emissions or the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.”  Hopefully actions, such as the sustainable governance forums that Ceres, Yale, and Marsh will hold for 200 directors of Fortune 1000 companies will change some of these results.

There’ve been wild rumors in DC that the current White House may roll out a national CO2 cap and trade proposal this fall. October surprise? John Fialka reports in the Wall Street Journal that candidates in both parties are “scrambling” to put their spin on climate change. In the article he includes an interview with James L. Connaughton, head of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, who said there is no “imminent” policy change in the works. But Connaughton added that White House policy makers continue to review incentives to push new technologies that help reduce greenhouse gases. In the same article Fialka reports on mortgage incentives and tax code changes proposed by Al Gore.

Why all the attention from politicians? In a June 2006 nationwide poll (Lake Research Partners, +/- 3.2% MOE) 78% say that global warming is a real phenomenon, with just about half saying that it is definitely happening. Just one in ten voters say it likely is not happening. Furthermore, majorities of Democrats (90%), independents (85%), and Republicans (61%). Finally, “despite the cost, 60% of voters believe action needs to be taken to combat global warming.”

So when the Bush White House released a report a month earlier (May 2006), that states:

● “The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases.”

● “Also, the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.”

…mid-term candidates are “scrambling” on the issue, and in the June poll 36% of New England voters believe Congress should make global warming a top priority - when will we in the Granite State begin to hear about solutions and specifics from visiting politicians?