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

The general consensus among business leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland was that the President’s State of the Union Address left people wanting more–on the issue of climate change at least.  Business leaders said they were pleased he acknowledged climate change as a “serious challenge,” but most were dissappointed when he stopped there.  James Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, said “it is a good step, but we need to take many more.”  K. Srinivas, a campaigner for India Greenpeace, explains why many are frustrated: “He is diluting the issue by talking in terms of cutting the United States’ oil dependency, rather in terms of the serious environmental consequences.”

Some, however, are trying to see the glass half full.  Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, thought Bush’s comments were “very encouraging,” and Nicholas Stern said “he did have quite strong targets for biofuels.  That is in itself an important step forward.”  (Read the entire article from the New York Times here.)

In the Granite State the Laconia Citizen and Foster’s Daily Democrat got reactions from opinion leaders on both sides of the aisle.  Environmental activist Jan Pendlebury said ‘’The president’s big ethanol gamble is a pipe dream.  In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter proposed creating a giant alternative fuels industry, too. Three years later, oil prices fell and the whole thing went bust.”  Rep. Jim Ryan believes the energy policy the President is offering is “too little, too late.”  However, Rep. Fergus Cullen thought “This is his best speech yet.”

Reviews of potential presidential contender Gov. Bill Richardson’s Jan. 16 State of the State Address were much more positive in regards to his stance on climate change.  Richardson declared that New Mexico should become the first state to power all of its state buildings with 100% renewable energy.  He would also like to implement tax credits and cuts for green offices and homes, set up a fund to promote innovations, and his long-term goal is to cut carbon emissions by 30% and set more technological control over coal-fired power plants.  (Read the whole story from ScrippsNews here.) I wonder if his speech writer would be interested in a position at the White House?

Also, check out the blog “A Few Things Ill Considered.”  It offers a guide on “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic.”  Between this guide and the very similar one from Grist, you should have all the answers you’ll ever need.

As expected in last night’s State of the Union Address, President Bush brought forth an energy proposal calling for a 20% reduction of gasoline over the next 10 years.  It only took him a year to elaborate on his “Americans are addicted to oil” statement from last years speech, leaving many to wonder what his pace will be in adressing “the serious challenge of global climate change” (to use his words).

In order to achieve this goal, the President plans to set a mandatory requirement that 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels are manufactured each year by 2017.  He also would like to see fuel-efficiency standards of cars and trucks increased by 4% a year, amounting to about 1 mile per gallon, beginning in 2010 for cars and 2012 for trucks.  But is this enough?

Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says “if this was a real effort to solve the climate problem, it would include large stationary sources and utilities” which contribute 40% of US greenhouse gas emissions.  Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Truts, explains “the big numbers may sound impressive, but this is nothing more than stay-the-course on global warming.” (Read the entire article from the New York Times here.)

The President, who is currently at his lowest in opinion rating polls, didn’t quite hit the mark many were hoping for in regards to global warming.  Maybe next year?

Bill Thompson, owner of North Country Angler in North Conway, wrote this letter to the Conway Daily Sun.  He said it’s been hard to ignore the latest talk of the town–”hot enough for you?” or “you think there is anything to this global warming thing?”  “The fact is” he writes “most would agree there is something indeed to this global warming thing.”  He says a warm winter or two should not necessarily be cause for concern, but instead it is the trend that is “undeniable.”   As an angler he is already beginning to see the effects–the striper population of northeastern coastal waters already seems to be showing signs of decline as ocean waters have warmed by “nearly a full degree” since 1980. Thompson argues that Americans are watching as “the situation is deteriorating before our eyes,” yet the issue has been so divided by party lines that nothing has been done.

This article from the Washington Post ”Internal Rifts Cloud Democrats’ Opportunity on Warming” only amplifies the point that this issue has been caught in a political storm.  Last week TPC reported here that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has plans to speed up legislation on global warming.  Some, like Jay Inslee of Washington, agree with Pelosi ”this should not be a debating year.  this should be an action year.”  But not everyone is in agreement.  John Dingell, chairman of the committee Pelosi is challenging “has made it clear that he expected to lead the party’s global warming debate in a rather leisurely fashion.”  He said global warming is a priority, but not the only priority. 

A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows that only 27 percent of Americans approves the way Bush is handling the issue of global warming.  Will these numbers change after his State of the Union Speech tonight?  Stay tuned.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reevaluated former conclusions about human impact on climate change.  Their previous assessment, published in 2001, estimated that there was a 66-90 percent chance that human activities were responsible for recent warming.  The new report, scheduled for release on February 2nd in Paris, is expected to confirm a much stronger relationship–a 90 percent chance that humans are significantly influencing climate change.  (Read the entire article from the New York Times.)

Tomorrow night the President will deliver his much-anticipated State of the Union address.  There has been a lot of speculation that he will use it to address the issue of global warming.  Yet Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation reminds us that a bold statement in last year’s address, “America is addicted to oil,” only made “people expect extreme action, and there really hasn’t been” any.  Betsy Loyless of the National Audubon Society says, “We have a White House that has yet to deliver on its own rhetoric about ending our dependence on fossil fuels, and up to now has placed its emphasis on Big Oil.”  Bush is expected to call for an increase in the use of ethanol, but he will probably not touch on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. (More about this from Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center, in an NPR interview yesterday.)

Many are looking to the President to take action, but former Vice President Al Gore says “this really shouldn’t be approached as a political issue.”  National Public Radio’s “Living On Earth” interviewed Gore at one of his “An Inconvenient Truth” slide show trainings in Nashville, Tennessee.  Gore believes that there needs to be a change “in public opinion that [will] make it possible for political leaders in both parties to do what’s necessary.”  If Bush pays attention to the news–evangelical Christians, congressional members, and corporate leaders all calling for action against climate change–then maybe he will see that public opinion has changed and now it’s time to take political action.

Of course, there’s noise coming from NH as well…On Saturday, Foster’s Daily Democrat published “Seacoast Residents Take Aim at Global Warming.”  If it’s true what Gore says–that we “need to go to the grassroots level…to the maximum extent possible”–then Saturday’s article seems the latest evidence that NH is on the right track.