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

Talk of global warming–or at least “energy independence,” “global climate change,” and “being green”–is in the air. From Chris Dodd to John McCain presidential candidates are unveiling their comprehensive “energy” plans (we have yet to see an actual “global warming” plan).

After debuting his energy plan at the Center for National Policy in D.C. last Friday, Dodd carried his message to voters around NH. In Plymouth he told audience members he has a plan to raise $50 billion annually by enacting a “corporate carbon tax.” He wants to make renewable fuels and new “green” technologies such as hybrid cars more affordable, and he warned people to be wary of “people who say they care about reducing carbon emissions and global warming, but aren’t willing to make the tough decisions to make it happen.” In Keene he spoke about the lack of U.S. leadership in the fight against global warming. “It was a disgrace, in my opinion, that this administration abandoned the Kyoto protocol,” said Dodd. “We can offer the world something far better than they did.”

Last Friday the Associated Press reported on Barack Obama’s “energy proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The proposal, which was delivered at UNH’s biodiesel fueling facility, mimics California’s approach. Obama talked about raising fuel efficiency standards with an overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in passenger vehicles by 10% by 2020. He also said we need to invest in renewable energy sources such as ethanol and cellulosic fuels. “I believe we still have a chance to pass on a planet to our children that is cleaner and safer and more prosperous than we found it,” he said. But as reported in TPC last Friday a FOTPC attending the Obama event at UNH was disappointed. If the event was really supposed to deliver an “energy proposal,” it sounds like he fell short: “he avoided getting into details using the excuse that in due time he will have lots of specifics.”

Today John McCain will deliver his “Energy and Security policy.” Although he chose to leave “global warming” out of the title, a sneak-peak of the speech (from this article in the Boston Globe) shows that McCain “is calling the United States’ foreign-oil reliance and global warming twin threats the country must aggressively confront.” We look forward to hearing the plan.

In other news…the Carbon Coalition’s Town Meeting Initiative got a shout out in Grist Magazine’s “The most sexiest greenest unlikeliest environmental stories of the year.” It may be a sort of backwards compliment, granting the initiative the superlative “Most poignant if entirely quixotic gesture.” Hey, we’ll take it, although with all this candidate talk about global warming (see above), especially with a lot of it taking place in NH, I’m not sure how “quixotic” a gesture it is.

For a good laugh you may want to check out these links. This New York Times “he said, she said” story, covers the “global warming run-in” that took place between Sheryl Crow, Laurie David and Karl Rove this weekend–Who needs Rosie’s and Donald’s public feuds when you’ve got global warming? Also, the Daily Show aired this video last week called “Apocalypse How?” which is a spoof on Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, though Frosty is sadly real.

In this article from Foster’s Daily Democrat Eric Hagman, Dover Deputy Fire Chief, said “We never imagined we’d have two hundred-year storms in two years.”  According to Cameron Wake, a research associate professor at UNH’s Climate Research Center, this shouldn’t come as a complete surprise.  “We can’t say this is due to global warming,” Wake explains, but “it is part of this trend and it is a window into what our climate might look like in the future.”  The IPCC’s most recent global warming report projects that North America’s East Coast will be particularly susceptible to “rising sea levels and increasingly strong storms.”  

And as you’re bailing out your basement think about what you want your senators and the next president to do about climate change.  in 2005 Senator John Sununu  voted against an energy bill that would have expressed the Senate’s desire for the U.S. to take action on climate change.  His senior, Senator Judd Gregg, voted for the bill. Today Sununu believes “that the average temperature is increasing and that there is a human component there,” but “the best models out there can’t calculate how much is human influence and how much isn’t.”  This article from the Concord Monitor notes that 150 NH towns have voted to have the national government take action on climate change.  Coupled with the latest convincing science (the IPCC report) hopefully the Senator will rethink his position the next time this comes to a Senate vote.

If China jumps off a bridge, does that mean the U.S. should too?  Thanks to the Bush Administration’s choice to use China’s rising emission levels as an excuse for U.S. passivity, we have been standing on the edge of the bridge for quite some time.  Fortunately, China may be headed in a new direction.  As a developing nation China was excused from binding emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol (an international climate change treaty that the U.S. has not ratified).  On a trip to Tokyo last week, Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, announced that China was ready to take part in new international negotiations set to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This editorial in The New York Times says that “such caps would be costly medicine, which China is unlikely to swallow as long as the U.S. doesn’t  do so as well–thus using America as a cover for inaction just as Mr. Bush is using China to excuse his own.” 

Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Dave Johnson, announced that there has only been a 1% growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, which he says demonstrates that the voluntary approach the Bush Administration has been advocating “is delivering real results.”  But aren’t we trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch responded to this announcement: ‘’Things have come to a pretty sad state of affairs when the EPA tries to spin increased greenhouse gas emissions as a victory.”   (Read the entire story here.)

Sen. John Edwards may have officially claimed April as “Global Warming Action Month,” but this declaration is really only a statement of the obvious.  April is already on the calendar as “Earth Month,” and being an environmental issue that has become an international policy priority, it is only fitting that any month dedicated to the earth be dedicated to climate change (the U.S. has some serious catching up to do).  Climate change continues to make headlines–from Sheryl Crow’s global warming spotlight concert tour to the latest IPCC report–but this month it has gained even more attention (and I don’t think this is due to John Edwards).   In this week’s issue of Newsweek Gov. Schwarzenegger makes the cover with the caption “Save our Planet-or else.”  Time Magazine ran a special double issue of “The Global Warming Survival Guide: 51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference,” and Vanity Fair features Leonardo DiCaprio on the cover of it’s latest issue the “Green Issue.”  Speaking at Georgetown University this past week, Schwarzenegger said “We have to make it mainstream, we have to make it sexy, we have to make it attractive so that everyone wants to participate.”  We seem to be well on our way to doing that,  but now how can we make it a governmental priority? 

Yesterday Mitt Romney gave his first major address on foreign policy.  He’s calling for greater resources for national defense, including higher military spending, and he’s also calling for “government investment in an ‘energy revolution’ to make the country more self-sufficient.”  That’s as far as he got, but an energy revolution?  Now that’s sexy.Eart