A Super (Green) Tuesday

San Francisco -- Tomorrow I will cast my first meaningful vote in a Presidential primary -- I've never before been in a state whose Presidential primary mattered. A year ago, as this race heated up, the Sierra Club told  the candidates from both parties that we were equal-opportunity enablers. We wanted to enable each of them -- regardless of party or political flavor -- to embrace visionary goals for the environment and to recognize that energy and global warming, in particular, were one of the most potent spots on the political chessboard, one where Americans could rally around almost anyone with the vision and courage to simply say, "We need the future, not the past."

Remarkably, a year later, as voters prepare to join me in our first-ever national primary, most of the candidates, if not the press, have figured it out. Begin with the unlikely Republican reality. The candidates -- think Fred Thompson and Rudolph Giuliani -- who really wanted to continue Bush-ism, the all-oil, 24-7 policy that Dick Cheney imposed on the country, are out of the race. The two leading Republicans are engaged in what I can only describe as "graywashing." To appease a narrow segment of the Republican primary electorate, they are both pretending to be less enlightened environmentally than their records suggest. One, Romney, is attacking the other for being too green, even though his own record as governor is not far removed from his opponent's. (By contrast, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, who's looking ahead to a close race in November, has implausibly proclaimed himself "the Godfather of Green." Now that's the kind of green washing we're used to.)

But graywashing stops at the California state line. In the last debate, all four Republican candidates opposed the Bush Administration's decision to deny California the right to have its own, more-stringent, carbon dioxide standards for cars.  McCain came on strongest, sounding like himself again:

"I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states across America to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change.

Now, suppose that the governor and I are wrong, and there's no such thing as climate change. And we adopt these green technologies, of which America and the innovative skills we have and the entrepreneurship and the free market which is embodied by Senator Lieberman's and mine cap-and-trade proposal is enacted, and there's no such thing as climate change. Then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world."

Mike Huckabee took a stand for straight federalism. "Let me tell you why I believe that Governor Schwarzenegger ought to be able to carry out the plan, because, if he's right, every other state is going to copy him. And if he's wrong, every other state is going to recruit the jobs that he lost in California to their own states."

So did Ron Paul, with an intriguing twist that he understands that greenhouse pollution is actually a form of theft. "Yes, I think California should do what they want, and we all recognize that. But one thing that hasn't been emphasized here that should be emphasized when we're dealing with the environment and gas house -- you know, greenhouse gases is property rights. We neglected during the industrial revolution property rights, and governments and big corporations got together and colluded."

And Romney. Well, he sided with California, on federalist grounds, saying "I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I don't always agree with the decisions they make." Then the next day his campaign put out a statement saying "it makes more sense to have one set of Federal rules to address CO2 emissions from vehicles rather than a patchwork of different State regulations...." Evidently Romney has decided that it makes more sense to simultaneously be for and against something, rather than sequentially, perhaps to avoid McCain being able to use John Kerry's "I was against it before I was for it ..." line again.

But snickering aside, it is in fact remarkable that none of the three serious remaining Republican candidates even agrees with Dick Cheney that "conservation might be a personal virtue but it is not a national energy policy." And the degree to which McCain has relied on the greenest figures in his party -- Governors Crist and Schwarzenegger, to help in his quest -- strongly suggests that the Bush era is  truly over, even in Bush's party.

On the Democratic side, both candidates are competing for the title "greenest of them all." I was wrong last week when I wrote that Obama did not yet have an environmental ad up -- he actually did; I just hadn't seen it

So Obama and Clinton both started on the airwaves about the same time, both in California (a state where independents can vote in the Democratic primary, and in which energy is the number one motivating issue for independent voters, according to Clinton's internal polls.) And Obama included the environment in his Superbowl ad, which is a real breakthrough for the environment as a national political issue.

But while the candidates get it, the media are still reluctant to acknowledge that the environment and energy and global warming have become first-tier issues. When all four Republicans  came out against Bush's denial of California's clean-air waiver, it should have been pretty big news, since Bush's hostility to federalism and states' rights has been strongest on environmental issues and a major source of Republican-voter disaffection with the Administration. And Romney had attacked the weaker federal CAFE rules passed by Congress, so the news hook -- flip-flop -- was pretty obvious. The California press covered the unanimous break with Bush -- otherwise, national political reporters continued to ignore the issue. (The LA Times mentioned the environment in its endorsements of McCain and Obama. So did the Kansas City Star, and others. So maybe it's not the media, per se -- maybe it's just political reporters and editors.)

But Big Carbon still has plenty of resources and lots of juice. It may be their last stand, but they are not folding just yet. They will try to keep both candidates from committing themselves to environmental leadership, even if it's clear that they both intellectually get it. So our work has just begun. We need to break through with the press, and use the next nine months to pin down the candidates, whoever they turn out to be -- so that not even Big Carbon can't keep lubricating the skids for our climate and the environment.

Comments

[Harlan Pepper]

In the mpg debate, it turns out that environmental nemesis Republican Ted Stevens, not Democrat Barack Obama, deserves greater credit.

from Barack Obama ad "Quiet":
"I went to Detroit to insist that we have to increase fuel efficiency standards. Now, I have to admit, the room got kind of quiet."

from New York Times, May 7, 2007:
"Appearing before a luncheon held by the Detroit Economic Club, Mr. Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, received a standing ovation when he was introduced by Mayor Kwame M. Kilpatrick, and again at the close of his remarks, which were broadcast live by local television stations.
...
"Chief executives of the auto companies were not in attendance."

By the afternoon of Obama's Detroit speech, the Senate's mpg bill was already well on its way--it passed the Senate Commerce Committee the very next morning, May 8, shepherded by Chair Daniel Inouye (D) and vice-chair Ted Stevens (R). Obama is not a member of the committee.

from Sen Steven's May 8, 2007 press release:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Senator Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii) have secured a bipartisan compromise on proposed increases for fuel economy standards. The result is a substitute version of S. 357, the Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was approved at a markup held earlier today by the Senate Commerce Committee. Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman of this panel.

This bill, which was originally written by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. In January 2007, Senator Stevens introduced legislation that would have increased fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon for passenger cars by 2017.

[Luke]

Carl,

I would be interested to hear what you think of Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, In January of last year.

Was this a purely political move that Obama made knowing full well that the bill would die in committee? And even so, doesn't his support for this, the most carbon intensive of all coal technology, pretty much call into question his judgement and rhetoric on fighting climate change?

Thanks for the great blog. I've been a daily/weekly reader since the day it launched.

Luke

[Carl Pope]

Luke,

Obama's move was not a calculated political ploy, but it was a mistake. As a coal state Senator he wanted to find a way for coal to have a chance to clean up its act -- coal to liquids is, you and I both know Luke, not such a chance, but a fraud -- but the Senator did not understand that. He has since backed off his support for CTL, although one of the challenges ANY Presidential candidate faces is that there is enormous pressure, given the number of states for whom coal mining is economically important, to find a way to give coal a chance to clean up its act -- my own view is that it deserves a chance, in terms of investing in research, but only if it mines responsibly, burns cleanly, and ensures that it doesn't contrribute to CO2 -- and while I think such a version of coal is technically likely to be possible, I doubt it will ever be economic.

Thanks for the compliment.

Carl

[Robert E Fuller]

We know that climate change, warming, has been going on at a modest pace for several hundred years, increasing exponentially in recent times presumably due to human activity. Perhaps we hit a tipping point where the output of greenhouse gases combined with the long term impact of deforestation has pushed us to an inevitable Martian landscape. Perhaps, however, we could rise to the occasion and reach a place where the majority of our energy is not carbon based. It has been argued that increased efficiency just gives people the sense that they can drive more. Certainly populations will continue to increase over the next 50 years, perhaps negating the benefits of all this 'efficiency'. Don't we have to look at massive (millions of acres) of reforestation? I don't hear any discussion of this from the Sierra Club, or in the political race to be "green". It seems to me that if we stave off extinction for a time by changing how we use energy, we had better be using that time to reforest the planet. Perhaps converting BLM land from grazing to reforestation? Trees take awhile to grow, shouldn't this be part of the national imperative right now as well?

[Dee]

Carl,

What about Mike Gravel? What little I have read about him indicates he is the greenest candidate. Unfortunately the media has never heard of him.

[Dufus]

Thanks, Dee, for bringing up Mike Gravel. He is far and away the greenest candidate, and he has been the whole race, not just until it got to California. It's a shame he doesn't get any attention.

[Amanda Goodwin]

By asserting once again that there are only two democratic party candidates to choose from, The Sierra Club becomes part of the problem of the evasion of real, important issues in this presidential primary selection and not part of the solution. I support Dennis Kucinich, but I am familiar with Gravel as another promoter of the progressive agenda among the democratic party's presidential candidates. When Kucinich was blocked from presidential debates, the remaining three and then two candidates were no longer challenged on their stances on the issues of health care, the war in Iraq, or the environment. When Kucinich was unfairly excluded from the ABC Las Vegas debate last month, he pointed out that GE that owns ABC is heavily invested in nuclear power, and, therefore, stands to gain by taking him out of the debate, as he would have been the only democratic party candidate there that would have spoken out against nuclear power and had not accepted any form of contribution from GE. I am going to stand up for the environment by caucusing for Kucinich in the State of Washington on February 9th and by telling everyone I know to do so as well. The more Kucinich and uncommitted delegates we can get into the Democratic National Convention, the more we can influence the leading Democratic candidates to include our progressive agenda in their platform. What's more, every vote for Kucinich, just like every member of the press who chooses not to omit him from their list of democratic party candidates, is a small victory against the corporate owned media that has been going to any lengths they can get away with to cover up all the progressive candidates in this race.

[Leah]

I didn't even *see* Mike Gravel's name on the ballot I just voted with earlier. But Kucinich & Edwards' names were still up on the ballot in spite of the fact they dropped out of the race earlier.

Also, I agree with the poster Robert F. that re-forestation, how ever we accomplish it, should be an important part of a 'green' campaign as well as the energy issues.

[Deborah]

You have probably commented on this in the past, however, I have just now been introduced to your blog. I would like to know the voting and action differences between Clinton and Obama. Has the Sierra Club endorsed one candidate over the other?
Thank you.

[Kathleen Sheehan]

I also would like help as a democrat choosing which candidate is actually greener - I was hoping that Al Gore would come out with an endorsement as well - as it is hard for me to come to the conclusion which candidate would do more to help the health of our planet. -

[PROUD TREE HUGGER]

Sadly, Sen. Clinton is being bought by Wall Street more so than any other candidate in either party. Not very comforting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aVustr6gnSvs&refer=politics

And Georgfe Soros, a Clinton ally, is one of Halliburtons largest shareholders. Am I the only one bothered by that?

[Johnny]

From all I have read upon human activity's impact on the stability of our environmental system, and how critical the next decade or so will be on whether most life survives our ignorant and selfish behavior, I suppose it is some tiny victory should the Democrats gain control of the executive branch. At least they will attempt to stick a finger in the fist-sized hole in the dike, giving the appearance they are doing something to stop civilization's race toward total environmental collapse. Will they do anything but slow the inevitable? Not likely, too much greed, shortsightedness, and inconvenience at stake. So is it really any better than the simpletons, running industry and the White House, being in charge and bringing about the demise of human folly sooner? Doubtful. What with the only candidates gone from the race who may have implemented policy that would have had a chance at repairing the dike, I can only hope that some huge disaster, like both ice caps melting within twenty years and the inevitable mayhem it brings upon us, will act as a last wake-up call to prevent mass extinction and the resulting inheritance of the earth by the meek[bacteria, fungus, and algae].

[Harry]

I think that any wrest-away from the Republican Puppeteers would be a MAJOR blow for the environment, if only in the negative sense. To decrease the Accelerating rate of Global Warming or to not permit oil drilling or wolf-slaughter would be a huge victory.

It's a matter of degree - who would be best for the environment? Who would be the Least Destructive to the environment?

Who would win? Risk a "better environmentalist" losing to a Republican? (Sorry - I think None of the Republicans - not even McCain - are good environmental choices). Take less of a chance on running a candidate less environmentally idealistic but more likely to win?

Kinda like gambling . . .

Despite Super Tuesday, there are miles yet to run . . .

I really would like to get a clearer picture of Obama's and Clinton's environmental records, because I am a conservation voter.

(BTW I recall that the great physicist, Hawking, had said that humans have to go into space to survive as a species - if nuclear war does not get us, Global Warming will.

I see GW as not only the greatest environmental threat, but as the greatest threat to the Planet, period.

We don't have to sell compassion to the callous, but we could point out the Malaria carrying mosquitoes as far up as Moscow.

We could point out the agriculture disasters, the weather disasters - increased frequency and severity of hurricanes, etc. These inconvenient truths HAVE been pointed out, but not strongly enough.

Why not?

[Clare Butler]

I agree with those who posted the comments about Kucinich and Gravel. Not only because they have a much clearer record of environmental concern but because they are untainted by major corporate influence as is Ron Paul. They also oppose environmentally destructive policies, like wars, invasions and NAFTA type treaties.

The big trouble with the so called main stream candidates is that they all support militarism and the expansion of American empire to a greater or lesser degree. They all support trade agreements with no environmental restrictions. Let's not forget that it was Clinton who fast tracted NAFTA. War and militarism are the most environmentally destructive forces on the planet.

In my opinion it is a big mistake to focus so exclusively on the candidates positions on Greenhouse issues when other forces can have as great or greater impact on the environment.

I agree too with the person who mentioned planting trees. What if instead selling arms all over the world and increasing death and destruction we sold trees and environmentally friendly technology? How sad that all the candidates that would have supported such measures have already or shortly will be out of the race.

Maybe all the environmental groups should throw their support behind the Green Party candidates for President instead.

[wesley bruce]

Ron Paul's position is not new, that Austrian school of economics has argued the case he made, in a somewhat clumsy way, for 80+ years and other libertarians have argued that air property rights should be law for decades. Mandated pollution insurance for industry was first proposed in the 1890's (in Britain) and was vigorously opposed at the time. The rest of the world followed them with little debate. M'Cain and others might sound greener than Bush but George W is going green too. He opposed taxes and targets and pushed research, it's now bearing fruit so it is now safe to ease off on the CO2 tax question a little. Now it seems even Amory Lovins is opposing CO2 taxes because it will push unsustainable Palm oil and Ethanol technologies and they will block better technologies that are coming up. Nice to see Lovins catching up on the Bushes.

[Gloria Floren]

The environmental positions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are quite similar; they're both green. However, there's one big difference: Obama calls for nuclear power as part of the energy mix in the U.S.; "hold your horses," says Clinton. Of all the candidates whose energy/environment programs and policies I've surveyed (Republican and Democrat), only Hillary Clinton comes out as "agnostic" on nuclear--she says, and I agree, that we need to solve the problems of nuclear waste and other leak issues before committing millions to building plants that promise to feed the U.S. energy demand and break the oil stranglehold--but that also pose grave dangers for the health of the planet.

[Proud Obama supporter]

Although I disagree with Obama's position or statement about coal and nuclear power, I believe he has the will and courage and diplomacy and intelligence to change his thoughts on both matters. Unlike our current president, Obama reads the newspapers. Most importantly, he's not going to be obligated to lobbyists and big corporations that produce those products. He was always against the war, Hillary voted for it multiple times. The war and the destruction it causes is a terrible environmental hazard too. She says she's against it now, but she has taken over $800,000 in campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers. Kind of like Cheney taking his Halliburton parachute checks when Halliburton is getting the sweetheart deals for rebuilding Iraq after we blew it up isn't it. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for her. But I think Obama, by virtue of his character, has a greater chance of being a greater president.

[hopeful grandparent]

I am frustrated by the general lack of discussion and action on the many alternate energy options which exist. I believe most folks have been brainwashed to believe that these are far off hopes dependent upon years of research. Not so. The economic benefits of alternate energy should push it along. We need the good will of Wall Street. It can happen.
Look beyond the negatives. Look at all the possibilities which turn into good jobs and profits.
Clean coal is a way better avenue for research than ethanol. We need food for ourselves and export. Cars can be propelled cleanly and efficiently without corn.
Doing the right thing will help american pocketbooks as well as the environment. That is the message which must be told.