A professor of mine once remarked that while the environmental movement is wide, it is also thin. Nowhere is this more evident than in national elections, where candidates focus almost exclusively on national security issues and bread-and-butter economic agendas. (In contrast, local and state elections often produce clear environmental mandates.)
Despite the perception that Democratic candidates place more of an emphasis on environmental issues, in 2000 Gore talked more about putting the social security surplus in a lockbox than he did about global warming, while in 2004 Kerry barely mentioned the environment or energy policy despite numerous opportunities and the obvious link between our addiction to Middle Eastern oil and terrorism.
So far, the top Democratic presidential candidates for 2008 have not made the environment a major centerpiece of their campaigns. In speeches, they have done little more than make passing references to global warming or energy security. (This brings up another major issue: energy security may very well turn out to be the enemy of the environment if the focus remains mostly on clean coal and biofuels. I am still waiting for a candidate of either party to show a level of sophistication and differentiate between good and bad energy-security initiatives.)
Whether we like it or not, with a simple stroke of the pen, our national politicians can do more to benefit or the harm the environment than the individual actions of even millions of committed environmentalists. And the issues that are most pressing -- climate change and biodiversity preservation -- require national and international leadership.
I think investing significant resources to pressure the major candidates to lay out clear and prominent environmental objectives would be a good investment of resources by the environmental community. More on this later.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 2:49 pm
04 Apr 2007
You're right that both Gore and Kerry muted their environmentalism -- thanks in no small part to the toxic Democratic consultant class that surrounded them -- but it's also the case that when they did speak up about it, no one listened or cared -- not the media, not the public. Gore gave speeches on global warming where almost literally no media showed up. So did Clinton, back in his day.
The candidates are surrounded by people who tell them to talk about issues that poll well, and for the most part the environment is not top of mind for Americans. It's not candidates' job to make Americans care about something; it's the other way around.
To the extent global warming has risen on the public's list of concerns, now you're hearing candidates talk about it.
We've gotten accustomed (rather quickly) to energy and climate being prominent topics, but it's worth pointing out that John Edwards' energy/climate plan is something we couldn't have possibly dreamed about even two years ago. It pushes up against the edge of the politically possible. Things are changing quickly.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:13 pm
04 Apr 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:38 pm
04 Apr 2007
I think I would emphasize EDUCATION, RESEARCH and FOCUSSED LOBBIES.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have think tanks developing Position Papers, doing studies, etc.? And to have rigorous thinking, not the usual wishy-washy light greenism.
I like what Energize America has started for energy issues.
I like the debates on Gristmill about energy, climate policies, economics. I don't always agree with everybody, but I think we are talking about the important things.
Two recent examples of significant findings uncovered by researchers:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last week released a study saying that peak oil is coming, the consequences will be great, and we need better studies/data.
The Energy Watch Group (independent European researchers) discovered that supplies of coal are much less than has been assumed and coal production will peak by 2025. (Excerpts from report; commentary by David Roberts).
How can we pursue rational energy/environmental policies without having basic knowledge such as this?
Finally, I think we need focussed lobbying, pressure groups. Politicians respond to positions that are well articulated and that come from an organized group.
It would be good to make such efforts non-partisan. Once the Republicans drop their current craziness, they too will be responsive to information and lobbying. I'd like to see competition between the parties to see who could be the most green... we get a hint of this in the way that Gov. Schwarzenegger is giving the Democrats a run for their money.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:31 pm
04 Apr 2007
Here in northern Wisconsin lake levels are dropping year after year as a snow drought destroys various parts of our local economy. Forest fires are next.
Fish are contaminated with mercury and lawn chemicals and stunted. Forests are being sold off for pennies on the dollar to cronies of regulators.
Join your local democratic party and get the ear of the state party organization by showing that voters will pay attention to these issues when they are reframed into a more local personal perspective.
Grassroots. That's where the real mother's milk of politics comes from. Real money, real economics, real citizens, not from bribes by corporate "citizens".
The local GOP party environmental concerns here? They want to kill wolves and environmental regulation of any kind.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Adam Markham Posted 4:13 am
05 Apr 2007
Join the discussion! Adam
Permalink
Marci Posted 4:40 am
05 Apr 2007
But I do see hope as more and more, citizens are clamoring at the local level for their elected officials to take a strong stand for the environment. And who is to say that this is not the proper venue. Local citizens can become much more vocal and active when their local habitats are threatened or to when asked to approve bond referendums to create more parkland.
In my view, while the national scene may not make much hay with the environment, I take great satisfaction in the local movements that are springing up as the need arises.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:19 am
05 Apr 2007
The problem is how are we going to justify soaking the public for tax money? So, enter Global Warming -- a scare issue that has everyone scared, not matter if the science is bunk.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Sustainable Bend Posted 9:36 am
05 Apr 2007
Permalink
wbecap Posted 10:22 am
05 Apr 2007
Because politics today is so aligned with corporate interests, the easiest way for us to help the environment is to focus on the demand side of the energy equation. It is going to take a massive educational movement by the environmental community to convince Americans:
1) That our current economy is unsustainable and that we are leveraging our children's future for our short term gain
2) By shopping and purchasing locally not we can rebuild our communities but by transforming from a carbon based society we will be healthier and live in a world that is sustainable
3) Reduce our dependence on a dwindling number of corporate interests for jobs and security and start to depend on our communities/families to provide us with what we need. This will make us much happier in the long run
Though I understand that this is a huge undertaking, changing the way how America consumes and thinks about the environment is very possible. Americans overall are not better off than they were 20 years ago and I feel that they are looking for a change. Also, 20 years ago if you would have said that cigarette smokers would eventually become outcasts to the point where you could not even smoke in bars many people would not have believed you. It is possible. What we need is publicists and pundits of our own broadcasting this message. Does anyone know of any Washington groups that support and lobby these interests?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:33 am
05 Apr 2007
I both agree and disagree with David's point that politicians follow public pressure- while this is true, it is also the mark of a great leader to convince and illustrate to the public why certain issues are important- with respect to the environment we should demand that our national leaders understand the key issues, articulate them, craft effective policies, and be good at making the case why the rest of us should care- I don't see much of that.
Education is definitely key- the word environmentalist didn't really exist 40 years ago and now it's as common as any- education creates the groundswell that politicians can't ignore- which is why Grist is important
As to the demand side, I agree that our collective purchasing power can have big impacts, but like I said in the piece, what a single president can do with a sign of the pen is more than millions of us can do collectively because the global economy is so big and America's influence so vast
To be continued...
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:45 pm
05 Apr 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
allseasuntrails Posted 8:43 am
06 Apr 2007
It only takes a quick glance at China to know that they are growing stronger very fast, because they have the political will to invest in long term planning in all resource areas: natural resources, a strong workforce and growing number and type of jobs, development of energy sources, transportation, etc. China has a dream and a national political platform that is based on growth and strength. They have centuries of knowledge about being powerful. They get national security. They leverage their resources--politically, all the time. And like the USA, they can choose to base their growth on clean and sustainable resources...or not.
We "get it" too, the connections between sustainable resources, power and political will, but we'd rather not talk about how we got where we are today, and where we plan go next to get more resources for tomorrow. What we really need to do is band with other countries, especially China, to create a shared sense of the future where resource sustainability is agreed upon as the source of all political power, and then to use that power (political will) to truly be powerful world leaders in the most humane and "politically correct" way. (See http://www.ipcc.ch/ for an example of strong willed nations working together politically for a sustainable future).
Permalink