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.