There's lots of buzz in the progressosphere about a new poll in Iowa -- site of a pivotal Dem primary -- showing John Edwards in the lead.
Another poll of Iowa Dems commissioned by Environmental Defense also found some interesting stuff:
- A 72% of majority of Democratic caucus-goers say they consider global warming to be extremely (32%) or very (39%) serious -- while another 15% say it is fairly serious. Only 11% dismiss it as just somewhat (9%) or not at all serious (2%).
- Among a separate poll of Democratic county chairs and vice chairs, 77% think global warming is extremely (37%) or very (40%) serious -- plus 14% who say it is fairly serious.
Perhaps even more interesting, voters don't know which candidates are best on the issue:
- Fully 69% of caucus-goers and 80% of county chairs/vice chairs say they would be more likely "to support a presidential candidate who made cutting carbon pollution and global warming a big issue in their campaign." Only 14% of caucus-goers and 9% of county chairs say they would be less likely to support such a candidate.
- Large blocs of caucus-goers -- ranging from 43% to 86% -- either do not know the candidates or more likely do not know their stands on global warming. In no case are a majority of caucus-goers able to offer an excellent or good rating of likely Democratic candidates' performance on addressing the issue of global warming (ranging from 42% excellent/good for John Edwards to 28% for Tom Vilsack to 6% for Chris Dodd).
There's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem here. Voters always say they worry about global warming, but they never really use it as a basis for how to vote. There are no global warming single-issue voters like there are on trade, or immigration, or abortion, or the war. So candidates don't make efforts to distinguish themselves on the issue. But because candidates don't distinguish themselves on the issue, voters can't really figure out how to express their concern with their vote.
The fact is, aside from not-yet-a-candidate Al Gore, no Dem presidential hopeful takes a particularly distinct position on global warming. They all mouth basically the same platitudes and support the same mushy policies.
It's not hard to figure out why, either. While voters claim to be concerned about global warming, it takes almost nothing to knock it back among their priorities. They're concerned, sure, but they don't want higher gas prices, or any new taxes, or any new government bureaucracies, or any lost jobs, or any, you know ... cost. That leaves a pretty limited palette for politicians to work with, since any policy with teeth will come with costs -- or at least will be susceptible to being portrayed that way by industry groups that stand to lose out.
I return to a familiar point: I doubt global warming will ever be a primary political issue. By that I mean, we'll see lots of policies pitched like this: "Policy X will solve Problem Y ... and will also help fight global warming." But "Policy X will fight global warming" will never be enough, on its own. To quote myself:
I wish enviros would do a lot more to sell their ideas -- renewable energy, local food systems, bright green cities, etc. -- on their own merits, rather than as a way to dodge an oncoming train.
Enacting those ideas would produce a better, safer, cleaner, more equitable, more enjoyable world. That's worth doing totally irrespective of climate change. Don't you think?
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
randino Posted 8:50 am
14 Dec 2006
Recently one of our hyper consevative columnists in Cleveland did the usual blather of global warming denial. Much to my surprise, the response in the letters to the editor section was like a tar and feather lynch mob. There was not one letter that came to his defense, and the letters filled an entire page. I think it is a very smart idea to sell on the positive side, but people do respond to danger (it is natural) and will respond to the global warming threat.
The Democrats are not going to do anything for us without having our foot firmly planted up their asses. We have to organize, organize, organize, and then organize somemore. One thing I would like to do is take a page from gay politics, where gays have organized into gay democratic clubs. A friend of mine just got elected to the state legislature with the support of a local gay democratic club. He got gay baited by a rival, and it blew up in his opponent's face and sank his campaign. I want to organize a Bob Marshall Democratic Club in the area, leave behind the non-profit castration syndrome, and get into the bare knuckles of it. In politics you are either a participant or a victim. Environmentalists need to lose their political chastity and become players.
randino
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
KathyF Posted 7:57 pm
14 Dec 2006
Did you read Monbiot's book Heat? I thought it should be subtitled "Why Al Gore Will Never Be Elected President". His solutions are just too unpalatable for most people. A platform of cutting 90% of jet flights, for instance, won't get you elected. Except maybe in Africa, where most people would rather eat than fly.
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:40 pm
14 Dec 2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39502/...
--------------------------------------------
NEW YORK - An environmental group Thursday called on banks worldwide not to finance TXU Corp.'s project to build 11 new coal-fired plants in Texas.
It is the latest in a string of challenges to TXU expansion plans by environmental, community and business groups concerned that the pulverized coal plants will dirty Texas' air and spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) said it sent letters asking 54 financial institutions not to participate in lending TXU US$11 billion to fund construction of the plants.
According to RAN, the plants will produce 78 million tons of new carbon dioxide emissions per year, greater than the greenhouse-gas emissions of 21 US states or the entire emissions reduction commitment of Japan under the Kyoto Protocol.
Scientists believe that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause global warming.
"The world's financial institutions can prevent this project from ever leaving the ground by simply declining to be a part of it," RAN said in a statement.
But TXU defended its program, arguing that Texas needs new power plants to meet rising electricity demand and that the new plants will be built with the latest environmental controls.
TXU said in June it had secured a commitment for US$11 billion of bank loans to fund the construction of the plants, with Citigroup Inc., Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch & Co. the three lead arrangers for the funding.
Some loan commitments allow banks to provide financing only if they can find other banks and institutions to share the risk of the loans, while others require the banks to shoulder the load themselves if they cannot find partners.
It was not immediately clear under what terms the banks have agreed to provide financing to TXU.
Citigroup and Merrill Lynch declined to comment. Morgan Stanley also had no comment on the TXU financing, but a spokesman said the bank was currently revising its environmental policy.
"We take this issue very seriously," he said.
Permalink
Tod Posted 3:03 am
19 Dec 2006
Kathy - Al Gore will never get elected? He DID get elected as VP, remember (and perhaps as Pres). Did he enact any of his "radical" thinking? Rather, did he even really try? Did he take his case directly to the people? Apologists too often say "the VP has no real power". Tell that to Cheney. What's more, Gore could have, had he found it more important to 'save the planet' than advance his policial career - called a press conference at any time to decry both parties' lack of action on the most significant task that faces humanity. Sure, it may have been political suicide - but it would have been the right thing to do. Leaders do what is right, not what is good for them as an individual. Gore is not the leader you are looking for.
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch
Permalink