CE Week #10: “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats”
Candidates Back Costly Proposals
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 6, 2007; A01
All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who from the outset has made global warming one of the three pillars of his campaign, explains his ambitious plan to Democratic primary voters in terms of sacrifice.
“I know what presidential candidates are supposed to do; they roll in here every four years and they promise you this, they promise you that. What I’m going to do is tell you the truth,” Edwards says at nearly every campaign stop. “It won’t be easy, but it is time for a president who asks Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.”
The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling — an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 — tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation’s economy and society.
In a speech yesterday in Iowa, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she plans to address climate change and the nation’s energy needs by launching an effort to require U.S. vehicles to average 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and providing $20 billion in “Green Vehicle Bonds” to help the auto industry transform to production of more efficient cars. Clinton estimated that by 2030, her plan would cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds compared with current projections.
“This is the biggest challenge we’ve faced in a generation — a challenge to our economy, our security, our health and our planet. It’s time for America to meet it,” Clinton said. “. . . I believe America is ready to take action, ready to break the bonds of the old energy economy and ready to prove that the climate crisis is also one of the greatest economic opportunities in the history of our country. . . . It will be a new beginning for the 21st century.”
According to energy expert Tracy Terry’s analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.
“I’d be the first to tell you: This is not necessarily the greatest political calculation,” Edwards acknowledged in an interview, adding that audiences tend to pause before expressing their support when he lays out his climate plan. “No matter what the politics are, there’s such a moral responsibility to address this issue. We’ve got to do it.”
In a Des Moines speech last month, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) predicted that new technology will ultimately bring rising energy costs back down. “But at least on the front end, there’s going to be some costs, and we can’t pretend like there’s a free lunch,” he told the crowd.
While Democrats are working to outdo each other on climate change — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for example, supports a 90 percent greenhouse gas reduction by midcentury — GOP presidential candidates remain more skeptical, to say the least. Former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.) stands by his commentary on National Review Online that warming on other planets has led some people “to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.”
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said in the wake of Gore’s Nobel Prize win that when it comes to global warming, “if we try to deal with it at too hysterical a pace, we could create problems.”
Among Republicans, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — who began crusading against climate change after a heckler dressed as a penguin followed him around New Hampshire during his 2000 presidential bid — backs a specific, 60 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee endorsed a mandatory carbon cap last month but has not laid out specifics.
The issue has turned into a Democratic primary litmus test, and many party strategists say it could be a way to win over in the general election suburban Republican women, who tend to place a high priority on environmental issues.
“It’s a huge issue. I’ve been stunned by this,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who found in a May poll that energy independence and global warming were cited as America’s most important domestic challenge by 29 percent of respondents, second only to health care. “I think this is a top-tier voting issue that has crossover appeal,” Greenberg said.
In contrast to 2000 and 2004, when Gore and John F. Kerry played down their environmental records, these Democratic candidates have already begun advertising on climate change. As of mid-October, energy and global warming issues were second only to Iraq in terms of ad topics. Friends of the Earth, which endorsed Edwards for his aggressive climate change policy, also began running radio ads in New Hampshire on his behalf.
Democrats have promised to ease the pain by taking the money that would come from putting a price on carbon, whether through a tax or auctioning off pollution credits, and investing it in technological research, job training, tax credits for consumers who buy cleaner vehicles and subsidies for those hit hardest by rising electric bills.
Several Democrats have even taken the unusual step of compensating for their campaigns’ sizable carbon footprints by contributing to groups that seek to reduce greenhouse gases by planting trees and funding clean-energy projects. Edwards gave $22,000 to NativeEnergy to atone for the emissions of his campaign’s travel. Clinton gave just under $11,600 to the same group to cover her campaign’s operations in April, May, June and July. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) paid $1,000 to CarbonFund.org for July, August and September, and uses a charter air company that offsets the carbon footprint of its flights.
Democrats’ boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. “They will come at this hard,” said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary.
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who has just co-written a book on the environment called “A Contract With the Earth,” said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on “litigation and regulation” could alienate voters, he said in an interview. “You can just calculate the costs,” Gingrich said.
“Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme,” he added. “A candidate who’s anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs.”
Edward Parson, a University of Michigan law professor who worked in the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Bill Clinton, said that to reach the 80 percent goal by 2050, Americans would have to capture and store carbon emissions from every power plant in the country. “A world that gets to that big a reduction in greenhouse gases is a world where you’re paying more for energy,” he said.
Dodd, the one Democrat to back a carbon tax, has vowed to use the $50 billion that would be generated each year to fast-track research, development and deployment of renewable and energy-efficient technologies. He said Democrats will counter GOP attacks by making climate policy “part of the economic revival of the country.”
“We’re borrowing a billion a day to bring fuel from offshore,” he said in an interview as he campaigned in Iowa. As for the costs associated with confronting climate change: “People can complain about the price. I don’t know how you can think that price is as bad as what we’re paying right now.”
Staff researcher Karl Evanzz contributed to this report.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/06/ce-week-10-climate-is-a-risky-issue-for-democrats/trackback/
The climate is a touchy issue for the Democratic Party. All the candidates have based one idea or another on their campaign about global warming or fuel emissions. John Edwards is trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse oils we use. He say that if we start using other sources it will cost us a lot to begin with, but in the long run will save us money. All these candidates are thinking long term, but not eh same, Hilary wants to make every car by the year 2030 get 55 mile per gallon and give $30 billion dollars in greenhouse oil production so that car companies will have funding in making their cars better for the environment.
All these candidates seem to have different looks on what need to happen, but in the end we need to not only conserve fuel, but also reduce the use of it in the air. Global warming is becoming a big issue that can be stopped. What I want o know is the conservative side of this issue. Why isn’t Bush doing anything to take care of the emissions? He is to busy worrying about the war in Iraq. Why doesn’t he either gets some oil from there or start to reduce troops.
Hehe. How adorable. Change? Americans are ready to change? Americans are NEVER ready to change. Take for example, oh, our High School. I recognized men hauling out or water and soda machines and immediately thought, “…What the heck is going on with the health regulations now? This is obnoxious…I wonder if the health department really considers the fact that our student store still sells soda, and our school lunches, although smaller, are usually not better for us.” Ugh!
So Hillary thinks that she can make it plausible, no, not PLAUSIBLE, she thinks she can FORCE the American Automobile industry to make the standard mile-per-gallon tanks 55. Here’s my question. WHY NOT START TODAY? And not in thirty years, after you’re DEAD, lady. I dunno, will she be dead?
It’s kind of dumb that we keep relying on the old saying “keep moving forward.” We don’t stop to take in our surroundings, we’ll be moving forward, but we’ll be missing out on so much.
Good old Edwards. He always comes out of top of these sorts of issues. Maybe that’s because he is actually willing to take a solid stance on issues instead of just jumping around all the important topics.
I’m not too sure if I like Hilary’s standard for 55 mile per gallon cars, because that could very possibly kill the sports car industry which a lot of teens and men in general are very interested in. I’m also thinking that it could stop NASCAR too which I guess I wouldn’t be all too unhappy with since I never watch it or care about that type of racing.
What made me really laugh was when the article mentioned what Giuliani had to say about the issue. He said that, “if we try to deal with it at too hysterical a pace, we could create problems.” This statement makes me think of saying, “Problems like what? Actually solving something?” I think its great how McCain still sticks to his guns on these issues a lot like Edwards does even if it’s not the popular thing for his party. The only problem I have with McCain is that he is actually a Republican even though he has a few liberal views here and there.
All in all I think its great that these pointed questions are being asked of the candidates so that they have to at least take some sort of a stance at some time.
Man, I love John Edwards. The man always tells the truth. Even when it’s inconvenient. (Sorry.)
Yeah, this climate change business is tons o’ fun. Most people agree that a change is going to need to come (except for Fred D. C. S. I. Thompson) (sorry again) to save the world from the current climate crisis. Of course, the road ahead is difficult. Most programs are going to cost tons o’ money, which means we will we wasting billions on the imaginary phenomenon known as global warming. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing some change come about—you know, flying cars that replenish the ozone and such—but I think that the problem will eventually solve itself. Car companies are currently making more and more cars that are fuel-efficient and better for the environment than their predecessors. I can see this trend continuing until our cars are all fuel-efficient and the gas-guzzlers just sort of fade away. Of course, this probably wouldn’t happen until 2395 when the Zyphlomadorides from the planet Zyphlomadore have taken over and all car use has been removed by those cruel, cruel beings. But in all seriousness, I think, yes, our society will experience a shift to fuel efficiency. I really like what Hillary Clinton is doing, planning to give money to the car companies to produce more efficient cars. I think this will provide a solution to the problem while not forcing Americans to make dramatic changes to their lifestyle because, as Kelsea said, “Americans are NEVER ready for change.” (They might like the sound of it, but when it comes down to it, most people are not overly fond of it. Especially when it includes them spending more money.)
Brian Baker
Yikes! 2050!? According to Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, by 2050, carbon dioxide in the air is going to be waaaaaaay more than it is now. We need to start now, and make it fast. By 2050, the Arctic ice isn’t even supposed to be there anymore.
Personally, I do not think that any of what the democrats are proposing will work. Carbon taxes will shut our economy down, helping the auto industry develop “new technologies” that already exist is pointless, and giving tax refunds to consumers who buy these new cars will bankrupt our country, and in a sense, the government would be “buying” your car. A government “purchased” car, anyone?
What we really need to do is invest money in alternative fuels that have lower carbon emissions and have new regulations for emissions, and setting stricter deadlines (such as by 2020, rather than 2050). The thing is, it’s going to be hard to change the American lifestyle by telling people to drive less, and trying to get people to buy new cars. If we invest in alternative fuels, Americans can still drive like they used to, without paying carbon taxes, etc. It’s also important to make the point that while driving like usual, Americans will use a fuel such as ethanol, and they will be emitting less carbon without changing their lifestyle. Also, when the time comes, they will purchase a new car that will get 55 miles to a gallon. If we start putting in new regulations and deadlines today, society will eventually convert itself into a green society; the government doesn’t have to give incentives for citizens to convert to green. If we just make today’s fuels and cars unavailable to consumers in the future, the only choice they will have is to go green.
-Jason Wong
Is there anything more sacred than the American dollar? Must the future of our planet be relegated to low-priority status because responsible existence means change and money? Arguments over climate change clearly exemplify the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see a problem and work toward solving it, asserting that drastic change is necessary and admitting that drastic change requires cash. Conservatives grow nervous at the prospect of change, and oppose any measure that spends money on something besides war. I understand this fundamental conflict of ideology and see its value in most aspects of government. But we’re talking about our planet. We’re talking about the most destructive qualities of the human race, epitomized by the consumer-centered American society, permanently altering the natural balance of our world. Can Republicans honestly argue that hesitation is the best response to global climate change because shifting our habits will be psychologically and financially difficult? Politicians must confer with scientists and each other to determine the best way to implement positive change, but they cannot continue to deny the existence and eminence of global warming.
-grace
I think the issue with the environment is pointless. I’ve already posted on a blog earlier this year about this although this article does have it’s differences. This article deals with greenhouse gases and gas pollution more than the other one did. The democrats say that our gas usage, electricity usage, and such is the problem when it really isn’t. Ask a professional ecologist about it and he will tell you that the earth has gone through a pattern for millions of years, and Americans driving cars hasn’t effected it one bit. Even though it would be a good idea to allot money to companies so that they make more efficient cars, I believe that it is the choice of the American Citizen as to what car they should drive.
Change is good and a little change in the car industry is good, but I also agree with Giuliani when he says that dealing with it too fast just causes problems. If change is to be made, for better or for worse, we need to pace ourselves and take it carefully. Gas is part of the center of our economy. The problems caused by cutting gas usage or getting rid of gas at all will be unlimited.
I’m not usually one to support giving the government more reason to tax us but I would approve of this measure, even if people deny global warming they cannot deny the poor quality of our air in America. For health reasons alone, I think it is worth giving car companies incentive to produce more efficient and “greener” cars. Although, perhaps an alternative to sending a check to these companies for their efforts could be providing them with tax breaks. Of course, I don’t know much about the tax system so I’m not sure if this would work BUT, I think alternatives need to be discussed before this is actually made into law. I’m of the school of thought in which I believe, as long as something gets done, it doesn’t matter why people choose to do it (no, I’m not talking about torture, I’m talking about legal bribery… It’s like high schools with community service graduation requirments for all their students. The service gets done, it’s not purely a selfless thing, but it still benefits people).
FYI: Despite the fact that I think this is a good idea… still not voting for Billary.
I personally didn’t like this article. I found it to be scattered and very unorganized. It went to make a point that they need a presidential candidate that will do what they go ahead and promise. Overall that’s a good idea but close too impossible in reality. Which brings me to my point about how it goes into talking about solutions for the climate change. They speak of green house gases and emissions and regulating them. But we need to act over talk about. “Action speak louder than words” couldn’t apply more here…because we have been talking about doing this, or doing that, but either way it’s not helping us.
These new idea’s aren’t bad, but something needs to be doe. Because it’s our world at stake and we need to do what ever we can to fix it. I am not turning down change, because that’s exactly what we need. We need new ideas and change of how we’re running out system. It just needs to be done, now, in the right way. If something isn’t done, then we will soon have nothing left of our once home called earth.
Reply to Ryan Brannan:
How do you suppose actions can be coordinated without talk first? Actions do speak louder than words but politics and mass action to help the environment or do anything on a national level for that matter cannot simply happen. Talk is a necessary part of the political process. Solutions do not occur spontaneously. When it comes to something as delicate as our environment, every angle has to be looked over, it has to be decided how mass action can be coordinated, it has to be decided how it will be funded. Actions do speak louder than words but we can’t just go at it blind. I think it’s ignorant to say that all this talk is for naught.
Personally, I find myself in the middle when it comes to global warming. In some cases I tend to agree with Brian that global warming is just an imaginary phenomenon. I mean really, the earth has gone through hot and cold cycles for millions of years; maybe we are just experiencing a warming period. I also agree with Brian that I think our car companies and Americans are creating and buying more eco-friendly motor-vehicles. That is one of the reasons why I really don’t think we should tax the heck out of Americans to do what a lot of the Democrats are proposing. Don’t get me wrong, I do think we should try and do something, just not something that has the possibility to destroy the American economy in the process. Also the kinds of cuts that these Democrats are proposing are ridiculous and almost impossible. Not only this but in the process of getting there we could lose more than just money; we could lose more American jobs. If we were to cut emissions that would mean means bad news for a lot of manufactures and their employees as well. Many of those jobs could end up being outsourced which would further dampen the American economy. I think that we just need to take it one step at a time, not try to end all pollution in one fell sweep.
Lindsey Devaney
Global warming: what President Bush likes to call “climate change”, or as some of my classmates prefer to call an imaginary phenomenon. But I call global warming one of the most important issues facing our nation, and the world, today. People-and the U.S. government itself- can say they don’t care, that there is no scientific evidence, and that trying to adjust current emission standards etc. will “destroy the American economy” but, and I don’t want to sound too melodramatic-, what we are facing here today is quite literally destroying the world.
There is so much proof supporting global warming and its impacts, I don’t even have space to put into this blog. But here is what global warming has already caused:
Antarctica is heating up drastically. The annual melt season has increased up to three weeks in 20 years. Mount Kilimanjaro has lost 75% of its ice cap since 1912. The ice on Africa’s tallest peak could vanish entirely within 15 years. Lake Baikal in eastern Siberia now freezes for the winter 11 days later than it did a century ago. Montana will lose all the glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2070 if their retreat continues at the current rate (which hits home for me, having backpacked through Glacier various times and spent time admiring the awesome “Blue Glacier” at its base). Venezuelan mountaintops had six glaciers in 1972. Today only two remain. Pacific salmon populations fell sharply in 1997 and 1998, when local ocean temperatures rose 6 degrees F. Polar bears in Hudson Bay are having fewer cubs, possibly as a result of earlier spring ice breakup. Diseases like dengue fever are expanding their reach northward in the U.S. butterflies are relocating to higher latitudes. The Edith¹s Checkerspot butterfly of western North America has moved almost 60 miles north in 100 years.
Specifically, one effect of global warming that I am particularly upset by is the bleaching of one of nature’s most awesome and beautiful elements: coral reefs. According to a National Geographic Article from 2006, the small but prolonged rises in sea temperature caused by global warming have forced coral colonies to expel their symbiotic, food-producing algae, a process known as bleaching. In 1998 in particular, over 16% of the world’s reefs were lost to bleaching.
People like shrug off global warming as the brain-child of fanatical, tree-hugging, Al Gore loving, environmentalists and there is “no scientific evidence”.
This actually sounds kind of familiar: recall an extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. Now we know that (According to the National Cancer Institue) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by cigarette smoking. But Tobacco Companies had their own interests to protect. And remember, history repeats itself.
The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. The Bush Administration has issued a campaign, much as big tobacco companies once did, contributing “large sums of money to finance pseudo scientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public’s mind about global warming. They issue one misleading ‘report’ after another, pretending that there is significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad -based consensus” (The Assault of Reason, by Al Gore). Bush has even gone so far as to publically demean scientists in his own administration who author official reports exposing the danger facing the U.S. and the world through global warming. Bush has censored “elements of an EPA report dealing with global warming and [substituted it with] official government report language from the Exxon Mobile document.” Gore cites data collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists stating that “Exxon Mobile has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”