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

How can Americans ask for national action on climate change, when they’re not even willing to change a couple of light-bulbs in their own homes?  Last week The New York Times reported that 90% of Democrats, 80% of Independents and 60% of Republicans (a different poll shows NH Republicans are ahead of the game) said “immediate action was required to curb the warming of the atmosphere and deal with its effects on the global climate.”  Even more striking is that “84% of Americans see human activity as at least contributing to global warming.”  Basically, the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that global warming is a serious, immediate threat that we are contributing too.  

It is ironic then that one of the simplest (and most cost-effective) ways for individuals to “do their part,” is still not catching on.  Today’s Washington Post had this article about the popularity (or the lack-there-of) of compact-fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).  In Japan 80% of the population use CFLs, and in Germany 50% does.  Even fellow Kyoto-rejector Australia has announced a phase-out of incandescent bulbs by 2009.  In the US, which contributes 25% of the worldwide total greenhouse gas emissions, only 6% of our bulbs are the energy efficient CFLs.  Many blame this issue on the history of the bulbs–something consumers can’t seem to break free of: the resistance to CFLs stems from “indelible consumer memories of the hideous looks and poor quality of earlier generations of fluorescent lighting.  They were bulky.  They were expensive…they had an annoying flicker and hum.”  Fair enough, but today that’s simply not the case.  Polyester has moved on from the leisure suit, TRON is no longer the latest in computer animation, and CFLs aren’t the same as the ones in your high school cafeteria.

After Thursday’s debate, we at least we know that Sen. Barack Obama has CFLs in his home (and that’s all we know because he changed the subject: “but one thing that I do have to go back on, on the issue of terrorism…”)  A reader of the NYT’s political blog “The Caucus” referred to this answer as “definitely a low point in the debate” (we agree).  Sen. Chris Dodd said in general it was ”a strange debate if I ever saw one…it was remarkable to me that education didn’t come up.  We didn’t talk about the environment.  We didn’t talk about the issue of race relations.”  Maybe next time he’ll be given the “what in your personal life have you done recently to make for a better environment.  Personal life?”  question.  We’d be interested in his answer.

The first debate of the primary season took place last night, and prolonged focus on the Iraq war and terrorism dominated the majority of the conversation.  Woven into the agenda were discussions about abortion, health care, gun control, and yes, energy and climate change.  Not all of the candidates had a chance to talk about global warming, but for those who did, here’s what they’re saying in the national spotlight.  In honor of Bill Richardson (thankfully his hand gestures are one thing I can’t mimic) I’ll put the responses in a list format:

1.  When John Edwards was asked about the rising price of oil he took the question and ran with it.  Edwards, whom pundits are saying used last night’s platform to distinguish his “specifics” from others’ plain old rhetoric, didn’t necessarily answer the question, but he certainly let Americans know that he wants to talk about global warming and he has a plan to address it.  He quickly rattled off his global warming to-do list:  cap and trade, alternatives, raising fuel efficiency standards, carbon sequestration, clean coal, and implementing conservation measures. 

2.  Joe Biden was asked what solutions to global warming would be “hard” for the American public?  Like Edwards, he didn’t really address the question–although he did say “we need to set hard goals”–but instead took the opportunity to present his ideas on how to address climate change: ”we need a project similar to the Manhattan project,” higher fuel efficiency standards, alternatives (E85) made more accessible,  and emissions caps now.

3.  In one of his many tumultuous sets of remarks, Kucinich, the self-proclaimed “healer,” said we need to stop “global warming and global warring.”  We agree.

4.  Bill Richardson probably deserves the most props for one of his responses (though to be fair, not everyone had the chance to address the issue).  He was asked what he would do his first day in office.  Response: On the first day he would end the war in Iraq.  On his second he would announce a plan for achieving national energy independence.  On his third he would address the issue of climate change.  And on his fourth, he would rest (apparently he’s not as diligent a worker as God). 

5.  Barack Obama was less impressive.  We know he was fired up about Iraq, Iran, and terrorism, but he was handed the opportunity to talk about climate change–what has he done personally to make for a better environment–and instead he fumbled with a weak answer and then took the rest of his 30 seconds to talk about another subject.  Tisk, tisk.  “We’ve worked on changing light bulbs” and ”teaching my daughters about that sort of thing” (about changing light bulbs?)…”but back to the issue of terrorism…”  Maybe Obama should take the NH Carbon Challenge.  It would lessen his own footprint and it might help him provide a better answer the next time.

The last couple of days have turned Portsmouth into a happening town on the political front.  In Prescott Park, Sen. McCain made his presidential bid official yesterday, and today Gov. Mitt Romney made the Republican rite-of-passage stop at Genos Sandwich and Chowder Shop. 

Romney easily made the rounds of the filled but not crowded restaurant, and when he came over to my table to shake hands I had the chance to ask him how he plans to address the issue of global warming.  I was impressed with his ability–almost like a trained ventriliquist–to hold a smile for the camera, while at the same time addressing my question.  He laughed, pointed to my “Stop Global Warming” lapel sticker and said “I had a feeling you might ask me that.”  Prior to the event I read the ”Energy” page on his website, and most of his answer was simply a recitation: “We must become independent from foreign sources of oil…developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol…”  Not very surprisingly, he left out the part of the text that says “and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.”  

“If there is a carbon cap” he said today, “I’ll make sure it’s global and not just domestic.”  I appreciate talk of a carbon cap (that wasn’t on his website), but the “if” is not very encouraging.

Be sure to catch the first official Democratic debate tonight beginning at 7:00pm on MSNBC.  The debate will take place in South Carolina, and if this week’s global warming buzz in the state is any indicator, global warming will likely be a hot (sorry) topic.

“That’s not good enough for America, and when I’m president, that won’t be good enough for me”–apparently the new McCain campaign motto.  Today in Prescott Park in Portsmouth, McCain made his official campaign “announcement” (though I’m not sure what you would call the campaigning he did before today’s announcement).  He touched on many issues including Iraq, social security, Medicare, taxes, and energy, but avoided details.  He brought up energy twice, even saying we’re harming our environment, but he avoided the words “global warming” and “climate change.”   It’s great to hear the candidates talking about energy, the environment and even at times the dreaded “global warming.”  But when it’s all said and done and they climb onto their gigantic, fossil-fueled campaign bus, the sincerity of their messages tends to get lost.  “No nation should become complacent in its greatness,” McCain said; maybe he and his campaign (among others!) ought to take their own advice.  (Go here to listen to audio clips from the event today).

Giuliani got mixed reviews by FOTPCs yesterday.  “My event with Giuliani was disappointing,” one FOTPC told me this morning.   He saw Giuliani at an invite-only event with 50 or 60 supporters.  Giuliani walked in, thanked everyone for their support and volunteer efforts, shook every hand in the room (but without much talk), and then left.  “It left me baffled.”  Fortunately, the reviews he got pertaining to energy and global warming were quite positive.  I got an email from another FOTPC this morning giving his response to Giuliani’s public town meeting event at New England College:

“I was at a Town Meeting style event with Giuliani today, hoping to insert at question about global warming.  Didn’t get it off, but he referenced warming in answers to questions on environment and about global trade.

His responses frame the issue as follows: the US can increase its exports in energy technology to offset imports of low priced goods from China and, at the same time, address environmental concerns including global warming.  Technologies mentioned included: wind, solar, water, sequestration, clean coal, nuclear, ethanol.  He envisions the US being a world leader in the energy industry.

He voluntarily mentioned global warming without it being raised by questioners several times without soft pedaling it (i.e. calling it into scientific question).”