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

CBS News reported today that “Children may be especially vulnerable to the effects of global warming” according to The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP).  An AAP news release states that ”Children are often most vulnerable to adverse health effects from environmental hazards because they are not fully developed physically and psychologically.”

According to the news release, the AAP has concluded both a technical report and a policy statement to outline how climate change impacts child health.  AAP is asking pediatricians to understand the threats climate change poses for children and advocate for strategies that will lessen the effects.

Chair of the AAP Committee on Environmental Health, Dr. Helen J. Binns, stated that “This is a call for us to look at how climate change may be impacted by what we do as an organization, what we do in our personal business and what we do in our home life.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is an organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians and pediatric specialists, are being advised “to advocate and support policies that strengthen public transportation, expand green spaces and reward energy efficiency.”

It is clear that climate change is an issue for more than just environmentally-minded voters.  Any presidential candidate who is concerned about child health and American family values must take into consideration how climate change is impacting America’s children and families. 

According to Grist, coal looks to be an inevitable part of the future of energy in America.  Brian Beutler writes that “Two important hearings on Capitol Hill earlier this month strongly indicated that we’re stuck with coal — and a coal industry generously supported by the American taxpayer — for the foreseeable future.”

In his blog, “The Coal Nine Yards,” Beutler discusses how the industry could take shape in the coming years and how energy production from coal could largely impact carbon emissions and climate change. 

Beutler notes that there are two options for coal technology: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and coal-to-liquid (CTL).  He explains that while CCS technology remains unproven and is estimated to be quite costly, it could potentially decrease carbon emissions substantially.  While CTL technology exists today, it is costly and is proven to increase carbon emissions.  Beutler states that it is “a filthy technology that’s likely to worsen global warming and could turn out to be the biggest boondoggle in the sordid history of energy subsidies.”

Beutler comments that coal’s “enormity makes unseating it unthinkable if not impossible. It may be an unwelcome hegemony, but it looks like we’re stuck with it for now.”  If coal is inevitably part of the future of American energy, our next president must look closely at its impact on climate change when developing a comprehensive plan to reduce carbon emissions.  The last thing we want is to take steps toward increasing carbon emissions and make the crisis worse. 

LCV’s Heat Is On project has a report on what the presidential candidates’ positions are on coal and other global warming related technologies.

While FOTPC’s here in NH are helping the presidential candidates further the dialogue about their plans to combat global warming, the Arctic is preparing to say goodbye to polar bears - forever.

The U.S. Geological Survey just released a series of reports that will inform the U.S. Government on its upcoming decision over whether or not to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Polar bears, which rely on sea ice to hunt seals, are at risk of extinction due to the increasing loss of sea ice.  With warming temperatures in the Arctic, sea ice reductions are on the rise posing great risk to polar bear habitat.

Dr. Neil Hamilton, director of the WWF Arctic Programme commented that ”The world is still discussing whether or not to take rapid action against climate change.  Politicians are fiddling at the edges while the Arctic wilderness succumbs to global warming; but in the meantime, they are sending one of the world’s greatest species on its way to extinction.”

According to the Environment News Service, the reports predict that almost two-thirds of the world’s 19 polar bear populations will be extinct by mid-century and that three more populations of polar bears will probably be extinct within 75 years.  Hamilton stated that “we now have official confirmation that the largest living land predator is going to go extinct in our lifetime.”  Apparently my grand-children will have to skip the zoo and head to a museum if they want to see a polar bear. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will report back in January on whether or not polar bears need to be protected under the Endangered Species Act.  While the prediction for polar bears seems dismal, the verdict is still out for our children and grandchildren.  The next president must have a plan to combat global warming for the sake of future generations who don’t yet have a voice to fight with on their own. 

Hurricane Dean was the third most intense Atlantic hurricane ever measured, and it ravaged Caribbean islands earlier this week and made landfall in Mexico yesterday with winds of 165 miles per hour.  Now six of the top ten most powerful hurricanes ever recorded have occurred within the last ten years.

Chris Mooney writes in The Daily Green blog: “This staggering decade has occurred in part because of anomalously warm ocean temperatures in the hurricane-prone regions. Many scientists question whether you can explain these warm anomalies without invoking global warming as at least part of the cause.”  One can only wonder how the increasing frequency of intense hurricanes has changed public opinion about climate change.

John Krosnick conducts research at Stanford University focusing extensively on the public opinion of climate change.  In an interview with E&E TV, Krosnick discusses the two ways in which he believes people come to the conclusion that climate change is real.  First is that they listen to a majority of scientists.  Second is that they themselves pay attention to the changing environment in which they live and breathe.  Though there is no proof that climate change caused the mega-storm, Hurricane Dean is a devastating reminder of our changing climate.

Krosnick also found that the general public “absolutely” wants government to get involved to combat climate change.  This has been clear to New Hampshire since the climate change resolution passed in 164 New Hampshire towns this March.  “The wonderful thing for politicians” Krosnick replied to a question about the 2008 elections, “is the fact that such huge majorities of Americans are on same side.  They believe it’s a problem.  They believe it needs to be addressed.”  These ideas are not new on the pages of TPC.

Both TPC and Senator Barack Obama have been recently discussing biofuels - TPC in our blog entry “Memo to Candidates: We Don’t Grow Corn in New Hampshire.  We Grow Wood“ and Obama at a house party in Salem on Monday.  Obama told the crowd that the federal government should invest in cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips, an industry with potential in New Hampshire.  Obama also suggested that the rise in food costs (a product of increased corn ethanol production) would subside as high prices would only encourage farmers to grow more corn.

The specifics of Senator Obama’s support for corn and cellulosic ethanol are not yet outlined as part of a climate change plan, but it is clear that he is a fan of biofuels and would like the federal government to invest in them.