Above, report from ABC News shows how Republican politicians with hopes for future credibility are sidling toward the exits of the CrazyTown Hilton.
George P Bush, newest clan member, is running for Texas Land Commissioner, and, for now, copping the “I’m not a scientist” line.
Aaron Huertas for Union of Concerned Scientists:
There was a slight thaw in the climate change debate this month. Six candidates for high office – three Republicans and three Democrats – publicly debated what to do about climate change instead of arguing about the science.
Climate and energy issues have taken prominence in the ad war leading up to Election Day. But politicians running for office in coastal states seem to be realizing that they need to debate how to respond to the effects of climate change too, especially as the effects of sea-level rise become increasingly evident to their constituents.
Public perceptions of climate change are moving from the theoretical to the practical. Coastal residents who are watching streets turn into estuaries at high tide, in particular, want to hear about solutions. Politicians have clearly taken notice.
The level of our political discourse around climate change seems to be rising, along with the sea.
Candidates express concerns about rising seas in low-lying Hampton roads
In the Virginia Senate race, Sen. Mark Warner (D) and his Republican challenger Ed Gillespie were asked about rising seas at a forum hosted by the state’s Central Business District Association. Although the event was not recorded, the Associated Press summarized their comments this way:
The Hampton Roads region routinely floods during even minor storms, and flooding is expected to worsen because of sea level rise. Warner said that sea level rise and man-made climate change are clearly linked. He said Gillespie doesn’t believe climate change is caused by humans.
Gillespie denied that characterization. He said in two debates that he’s had with Warner that he believes there’s ample evidence of climate change and that man contributes to it. Gillespie said sea level rise is a major concern and that he believes the federal government has a role to address it, including seeking funding.
In a previous exchange over the summer, Gillespie — the former head of the Republican National Committee — said “I believe there is ample scientific evidence that contributes to climate change but I’m not entirely dismissive of those who have a different point of view…Norfolk is dealing with rising sea levels but people can debate what contributes to that or not.”
Did Gillespie repeat the line about the causes of sea-level rise or his non-dismissal of people who challenge established climate science at the forum? I put in a call to the organizers and a local media outlet looking for a recording — none appears to exist — and contacted Gillespie and Warner’s campaigns to learn more. I’ll update this post if I hear back.
Maryland candidates agree: climate change is worth “the time and attention of the next governor”
Earlier this month in Maryland, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown (D) and Larry Hogan (R) squared off in a televised gubernatorial debate. At about 18 minutes into this video, News Channel 8’s Bruce DePuyt cited a recent report from my colleagues in his question:
Bruce DePuyt: I’d like to get from each of you, and if you can get it to a word, I would love it. The Union of Concerned Scientists says that we can expect in cities like Annapolis and Washington and many others significant tidal flooding by mid-century. Four hundred times a year was their estimate. Global warming, glaciers melting, sea-level rise, our cities in peril. If you can get it to a word or two I’d be grateful. Do you accept the basic premise that global warming has a connection to human activity and is a significant problem worthy of the time and attention of the next governor?
Larry Hogan: Of course it is. Of course it does.
Anthony Brown: Yes, and unlike Mr. Hogan I do believe a governor in Maryland can make a difference. You know, sustainable growth, transit oriented development, renewable energy, energy efficiencies.
You don’t need to be a scientist to deal with rising seas in Florida
I’ve written previously about last week’s gubernatorial debate in Florida. CNN’s Jake Tapper did an excellent job getting the candidates to focus on policy instead of politicized disagreements about science. Peter Sinclair has helpfully posted a video of the exchange on his blog.
Learning to disagree about policy instead of science
For several years, nationally prominent politicians have been arguing about whether or not climate change is real. That’s not their job. As my colleague Andrew Rosenberg recently put it in an op-ed, politicians should be able to trust the scientific process, including robust assessment reports such as the National Climate Assessment that lay out the risks of climate change.
According to research from Robert Brulle, a social scientist at Drexel University, political discourse about climate change drives public opinion on the topic. When politicians disagree about science, the public does, too.
It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
I’m glad to see that at least along our coasts, political discussions are coming into stronger alignment with scientific reality.
I’d chalk this up to a Bush being a savvier politician than the average Republican. He avoids getting locked into a stance and he uses his words carefully to broaden his appeal. He’s not allowing himself to be pigeon-holed while at the same time not upsetting his base.
George P. Bush can afford to appear moderate, too, because of his name recognition and because of an automatic support from oil and gas donors for a Bush running for Texas Land Commissioner. He’s the exception to the rule in a solidly conservative state.
I think the trend is that swing states (Maryland as an example) will see a much more nuanced approach than an entrenched area. You won’t see a diehard denier spouting their opinions while running for Congress from San Francisco, and you’re certain to see the reverse in Oklahoma.
If that alters, though, and we start to see an example like Inhofe backtracking a bit on his rhetoric, that’s when I’d be more on board about a sea change in politics about the issue.
The Bloomberg Grid covers the story of energy/environmental political ads in the current election cycle:
http://tinyurl.com/k44skug
In brief:
This election is supposed to be all about energy. Billionaire oilmen are spilling their wallets, and environmental groups are spending record amounts. The New York Times joined others last week with a story declaring “an explosion of energy and environmental ads.”
End the enormous subsides and tax breaks for animal agriculture!
With 60+ BILLION food animals on the planet our best chance to mitigate climate change is to severely reduce consumption of animal foods. More than 1/3 of human induced warming is attributable to animal agriculture. Methane is 24 times more potent than CO2 but takes only 7 years to cycle out of the atmosphere. CO2 takes around 100 years to come out. Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act!
“As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease.” Worldwatch Institute, “Is Meat Sustainable?”
“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains… the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund
“A 1% reduction in world-wide meat intake has the same benefit as a three trillion-dollar investment in solar energy.” ~ Chris Mentzel, CEO of Clean Energy
There is one single industry destroying the planet more than any other. But no one wants to talk about it… http://cowspiracy.com
Step by Step Guide: How to Transition to a Vegan Diet http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/step-by-step-guide-how-to-transition-to-vegan-diet/
Thanks for again reminding us of yet another of mankind’s failings. You’re mostly right of course, (except perhaps with the hyperbole about “the leading cause of methane release”), and I would also suggest that burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is the “one single industry destroying the planet more than any other”, and that the “industry” of capitalism and finance is right up there too.
You are tilting at windmills here, and what you suggest will never be undertaken voluntarily by enough people to make a difference. If and when it is forced on us by circumstances it will help, but a bigger cause of CO2 reduction will be the collapse of industrial society and the death of a whole lot of humans (and if there are enough left living to bury the dead, that’s a form of “carbon sequestration”)
I cut out eating meat for breakfast and lunch, reducing my meat consumption by 30 to 50% in doing so. I’ve been doing that for a few years now.