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

Mac is back???  He just couldn’t stay away.  The Straight Talk Express rolled back to The Granite State for a “Thank you New Hampshire” Town Hall this afternoon.  John McCain was met by a crowd of angry anti-war protesters outside followed by a standing ovation inside the historic Exeter Town Hall that brought the Senator close to tears.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, McCain’s “favorite Democrat,” joined McCain on stage and acknowledged a ‘Stop Global Warming’ sign toting crowd member during his introduction.

McCain then took the stage and, as he always does in this state, he devoted a good chunk of his stump speech to energy and environmental issues.  McCain spoke about the environmental, national security, and economic problems that surround our current climate and energy woes.

During Q&A, an audience member thanked Senator McCain for addressing climate change during his speech and then asked:

“If you are elected president, you will have a lot to think about before stepping foot inside the Whitehouse.  Whether appointing a cabinet, creating a budget, and working with other nations, how will climate change be a part of these decisions?”

McCain emphatically responded with an important promise: 

“I promise that I will make it a top priority in my campaign.  I promise you I will make climate change a top priority in my administration.” 

He then listed a mixed bag of renewable and non-renewable energy “solutions” and closed with his favorite climate line:  “My friends, suppose I am wrong about climate change, and I encourage that debate to continue, but we push forward with renewable technologies which help the economy.  All that we will have done is leave our children a better and cleaner planet.  But now suppose I am right that climate change is occurring, and we do nothing.  What kind of a planet have we left for our children then?”

In Myrtle Beach yesterday afternoon, many people gathered outside to show their support for their favorite candidate or issue before the Democratic debate.  Volunteers rallied and chanted with signs for Clinton, Edwards, Obama, health care, an end to aids, climate change action and … coal? 

That’s right.  TPC encountered a group of activists from Americans for Balanced Energy Choices who were passing out stickers, literature and holding signs about “clean coal.” 

According to the Washington Post, ABEC is funded by companies including Arch Coal Inc., Peabody Energy Corp., Duke Energy and Southern Co. and is waging a $35 million “astroturf” campaign to convince the public and candidates that “clean coal” is a viable alternative energy. The group is running TV and radio ads in primary and caucus states and has hired organizers to pass out its materials at candidate events and outside debates.

The Washington Post explains that the coal industry’s multi-million dollar campaign comes in response to mounting opposition to the building of new coal plants, which despite their efforts to get “clean”, still emit tons of global warming pollution.  APEC argues that coal technology is now 70% cleaner because of regulations to limit pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.  Their well-funded campaign neglects to acknowledge, however, that climate change is caused by carbon emissions, which are NOT yet regulated with existing coal-plant technologies.

The article also points out that even though new coal-plant technologies to capture and store carbon may no longer be considered a “pipe dream,”  they are still very expensive, experimental and not in commercial use. 

It’s a good thing that conservationists from all over South Carolina were present to help clarify the message that there is no such thing as “clean coal” - even though their signs were way cooler than ours.

Check out pictures and read more about the conservation community’s response to the “Clean Coal” campaign in South Carolina.

Interestingly, the last few presidential debates have been sponsored by the same Clean Coal lobby.  None of these debates have included questions about climate change, despite how often the candidates have tried to bring it up.  Coincidence?

January 11.  Wow.  This place looks like a summer camp shut down after the season ends.  Torn Tancredo yard signs lay in the gutter. ‘Stop Global Warming’ yard signs stuck in piles of dirty snow, leaning against the rain (and its thundering, now, in January, in New Hampshire).  

Will Smith would be right at home -  they could have filmed I Am Legend in Portsmouth or Manchester now that everyone’s left town.  

Where’s everybody?  Bill Richardson’s dropped out and back home in New Mexico.  McCain has a toehold in the Palmetto State.  Romney has pulled ads from the Sunshine State in order to do battle in the Wolverine State.

How’d we do here in NH?  Science gave us a tip of the beany.  Time said a clear position on climate change was one of the 8 keys to winning NH -  putting this one issue in the same league as an endorsement from the Union Leader ! Wowee!!.

The blogosphere is choc-a-bloc with news about McCain’s global warming rhetoric in the final stretch to the gold medal (Apologies, Mittens for the lame link to the Olympics).  Here here and here for example.  And we’re stirring up the pot … here’s a sample of the emails we’ve received:

“With so many left leaning groups like yours pontificating on the global warming hoax, utilizing scare tactics based on junk science, and essentially endorsing the redistribution of wealth, we will lose our way of life.”

“Global Warming is a religion and a HOAX.  Do your own research and stop taking away American freedom and advocating the redistrubution of wealth to fund your religion.”

“Do you have any proof of any of these things occurring?  Do you think that you are educating people, or scaring them into throwing their money away?”
 

“Where were the suv’s and power companies when the dinosaurs and mastadons died and the glaciers that covered much of our nation melted?  This great earth and universe will continue to renew itself whether people populate this earth or not - so take a deep breath and exhale your carbon dioxide for the trees and plants - they need it to survive…”

Sticks and stones — but what are we to make of the wild reaction to McCain’s position?  People are ripping into him like he’s taking something away.  Freedom, baby.  IT’S MY RIGHT DRIVE MY YUKON TO PICK UP A GALLON OF MILK DOWN AT THE 7-11. 

Crazies out there.  Makes me want to fire up my two-stroke chain saw, take down some trees and build a fence …..  

Before Christmas, LCV was complaining that the media elite were dissing climate change and presidential politics.  If Russert, Stephanopoulos, and Couric won’t listen to LCV, maybe they will follow in the footsteps of one of their peers: The New York Times.

The New York Times editorial board decided to take a look at the candidates’ climate change positions in yesterday’s editorial “The One Environmental Issue.”  The editorial found that in past years Democratic and Republican strategists believed that climate change was “too complicated and forbidding an issue to sell to ordinary voters” and therefore was not an issue in 2000 or 2004 elections, but now they say, “the times have certainly changed.”

Of the Democrats, the editorial now says:

“Still, the country is a long way from a comprehensive response equal to the challenge. That is what the Democratic candidates are proposing. Senators Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, former Senator John Edwards, Gov. Bill Richardson and Representative Dennis Kucinich have all offered aggressive plans that would go beyond the Senate bill and reduce emissions by 80 percent by midcentury (90 percent in Mr. Richardson’s case), much as called for in the United Nations reports.

Internationally, the Democrats say they would seek a new global accord on reducing emissions to replace and improve upon the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Winning agreement among more than 180 nations will be slow-going, so several candidates, including Mrs. Clinton, have suggested jump-starting the process by bringing together the big emitters like China very early in their administrations.”

Two months ago, The New York Times first highlighted “the GOP Divide” on climate change after Mike Huckabee joined John McCain as the only Republicans to endorse a cap on carbon emissions.

This Times editorial described McCain as “authentic pioneer” in the senate on climate change, and “The other leading Republican candidates — Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee — talk about energy issues almost exclusively in the context of freeing America from its dependence on foreign oil. All promote nuclear power, embrace energy efficiency and promise greener technologies. Only Mr. Huckabee has dared raise the idea of government regulation, embracing, at least theoretically, the idea of a mandatory cap on emissions. The rest prefer President Bush’s cost-free and demonstrably inadequate voluntary approach, which essentially asks industry to do what it can to reduce emissions.”

When so much of the campaign news is focused on anything but the actual issues, it is refreshing to finally see national coverage of the climate issue and the presidential campaign.