Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
In an Iowa Senate Debate, Ernst made it clear that she denies the science of climate change. "I don’t know the science behind climate change," she said.
Ernst attended a conference hosted by the Koch brother this past June where she reportedly thanked here hosts and their "wonderful network" for putting her on the map. “I was not known at that time,” Ernst said. “A little-known state senator from a very rural part of Iowa, known through my National Guard service and some circles in Iowa. But the exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you, that really started my trajectory.”
Along with other Republicans opposes Agenda 21. She makes the absurd claim that Agenda 21 will undermine civil liberties. This non-binding U.N. resolution merely encourages nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas.
Ernst is also on record as having said, “Let’s shut down the EPA. The state knows best how to protect resources.” Her desire to do away with the EPA would be disastrous. The EPA has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and countless billions of dollars in public health and environmental costs.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Both Scott and Southerland are unfriendly towards environmental issues and climate concerns. The very fact that such politicians were vying for office in Florida is rather ironic given that this state will be one of the worst hit by flooding and extreme weather associated with climate change.
Scott was reelected despite his deplorable environmental and climate record. The mayor of Miami was amongst those who did not want to see Scott reelected as his city is directly threatened by sea-level rise. Environmental organizations fought hard to defeat Scott and Southerland.
Scott has championed the rights of polluters and supported resource degradation, he weakened environmental enforcement, cut support for clean water and axed conservation programs. He has also shown an utter lack of leadership his lack of leadership on renewable energy and climate change.
To defeat Scott, NextGen has spent $8.6m on 20 offices and hundreds of staffers and volunteers. The group has also fashioned props to make fun of his climate denial, this includes a wooden ark.
Earlier on, Scott received a lot of negative attention for dismissing climate change by saying "I'm no scientist." Then he claimed he want to work on solving global warming. His tune changed as he read the polls and he rebranded himself in a cynical self serving bid win a second term. It would appear that voters in Florida did not to see through his flagrant pandering.
Southerland did not reach out to the climate vote and he lost his bid to keep his seat in the US House representing the state of Florida. Southerland's dismal record have earned him a spot on represents on the "Dirty Dozen" of anti-environmental lawmakers awarded by the League of Conservation Voters.
Southerland was the lead sponsorship of the so-called Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, which the LCV calls "a radical attack on clean water safeguards."
In addition to Southerland's efforts opposing clean water, he has voted to protect oil subsidies including up to $53 billion in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies operating offshore. He also opposes efforts to curtail carbon pollution from power plants.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Concerns about the Great Lakes were on top of voter priorities. This concern is driven by a number of environmental calamities including oil spills, most notably the rupture of Enbridge Line No. 6 into the Kalamazoo River (the largest inland oil spill in US history) and the 2014 refinery spill on Lake Michigan. It was also about the Koch brothers three-story high pile of petroleum coke that poisoned the air and the Detroit River.
Koch funded Americans for Prosperity aired adds attacking Peters. Land's spokesman called Steyer a "radical liberal" and Land disagrees with Peters on the extent of the effect of human behavior on our climate.
A number of environmental groups have played an important role in making climate change a top tier issue In Michigan. Most notably, Tom Sayer and NextGen spent $3m on TV, radio, and digital ads attacking Land, for being too close to the Kochs.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Pro-fossil fuel initiatives we can expect from Republicans:
- approval of the Keystone XL pipeline
- reject an end to tax breaks for oil and gas companies
- expand federal leases for fracking
- end to the crude oil export ban
- expand coal development
- restrict the administration's ability to regulate greenhouse gases
- kill any hope for a binding global climate treaty
- oppose a non-binding global climate agreement
- end the Production Tax Credit for renewable energy
- curtail other renewable energy incentives
Democrats can still resist Republican's pro-fossil fuel and anti-climate legislation. Republican Senators do not have a super majority of 60 seats, so Democrats can exert some control through a filibuster. Unlimited discussion and debate is permitted in the Senate and no vote can be held on a bill until all debate is closed or 60 Senators vote for cloture.
The President can always veto any bill coming from the Republican controlled Congress. In addition to his veto powers, the only recourse left to the President are his executive actions.
Optimistically, the President may be able to gain some bipartisan support for legislation related to trade agreements, infrastructure or perhaps even tax reform, but he will not be able to pass a bill on climate, the environment or clean energy.
Republican control over the nation's purse strings gives their obstructionism more teeth. However to shrug off the well earned perception that they are the party of "no" and to try to set up a run for the Presidency in 2016, the GOP may put legislation in front of the President that he will have to veto.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
The Senate race in Louisiana between Rep. Bill Cassidy and Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu will determine who heads the ENR Committee in 2015. Landrieu is the current panel chairman, and while she went into the election in the lead, she will have difficulty winning what will likely be a runoff if neither candidate gets 50 percent of the vote.
At the same time as they decide who will hold the gavel on the ENR committee, Louisiana voters will also decide who heads the state's Public Service Commission (PSC). At stake is whether of not the state will heed growing public demand for clean renewable energy. Louisiana is one of only two states that both directly elects its commissioners and gives the PSC direct legislative authority. The person who gets elected will decide the future of rooftop solar in the state and have a major impact on one of the fastest growing solar markets in the US.
The two frontrunners are both Republicans: The incumbent is chairman Eric Skrmetta, whose leadership has been marred by allegations of graft. Since 2009, more than 75 percent ($311,000 of a total of $401,000) of his campaign fundraising has come from companies he is charged to regulate.
Skrmetta's voting record clearly favors existing energy utilities and he has made it hard for renewables to compete. Under Skrmetta, the PSC limits how much electricity homes with rooftop solar systems can sell back to the grid. Using net metering tactics he has succeeded in reducing the competitiveness of solar.
Skrmetta's principle challenger, Forest Bradley-Wright, is considerably more favorable towards solar energy. He believes that solar, "represents a fundamentally American interest; it represents technological innovation, it represents opening new markets that improve peoples' lives."
Out of fear for Bradley-Wright's support for solar, Skrmetta tried to broker a deal with the solar industry in exchange for their support. However, when the deal went public Skrmetta was forced to distance himself from it.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
1. Climate change has emerged as a more important issue than in previous elections. According to the New York Times, climate and energy issues now rank in the top three issues mentioned in electoral ads. Climate change has been a common question raised in debates across the US and politicians in some vulnerable parts of the country are taking heat for ignoring the issue.
2. Environmental groups are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their approach to campaign finance. Rather than just supporting Democrats with a clean voting record, they are investing in some Republican candidates who are favored to win and who may be able to play a role in brokering bipartisan environment, climate and energy legislation.
3. Tom Steyer has emerged as the counter-force to the Koch brothers. He has given $15 million to his NextGen Climate Action Fund and according to Federal Election Commission filings, that brings his publicly disclosed total donations to nearly $56m. Steyer has succeeded in making climate change a top tier issue in the 2014 midterms races in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan and gubernatorial elections in Florida, Pennsylvania and Maine.
4. In some states people will not vote for candidates who deny climate change. According to a poll by the League of Conservation Voters, climate change matters to voters on both sides of the aisle in New Hampshire. Even more importantly, almost half (48 percent) of voters in the state indicated that they are less likely to vote for a candidate who denies climate change.
5. Some of the Republican governors that are about to be elected are climate moderates by GOP standards. One of the best examples is Ohio Governor John Kasich. He has been a moderating force and one of very few Republicans who has stood up to attempts to roll back environmental regulations.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
According to survey results, voters in five swing states indicate that energy is a higher priority issue than environmental protection and climate change. The survey by Hart Research Associates for the League of Conservation Voters, NextGen Climate Action and NRDC Action Fund found that 56 percent had heard about candidates’ positions on energy issues. Energy ranked fourth behind abortion, jobs, the economy and healthcare.
Despite efforts to put clean energy on the map, the 2014 media coverage in swing states is largely a reflection of what we saw in 2012. Media coverage in these states favors the agenda of oil and gas companies and people can be expected to do what the TV tells them to do.
Energy is indeed a part of the voting equation in 2014, right alongside local issues like stray chickens, hunting and snowmobiles.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
During the period between October 20 to 26, Senate campaign TV advertisements were dominated by energy and the environment. There were more TV ads on energy and the environment than ads about Obamacare, immigration, government spending. Of the almost 15,000 ads that aired 55 percent favored Republicans and 45 percent favored Democrats.
The number of such ads suggest that environment and energy ads are creeping into the conversation. "That’s one signal that energy and environmental issues are a part of the conversation, though obviously the economy and jobs is the lead with voters," noted Daniel Weiss, the senior vice president for campaigns with the League of Conservation Voters.
However, the environment, clean energy and the environment appear to be less important that the price of gas, jobs and the state of the economy. Those concerned with jobs and the economy do not seem to factor the devastating costs of climate change. According to peer-reviewed projections by 2100, the costs of inaction on climate change will outweigh the costs of addressing the problem by $8 trillion.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Being a climate legislation obstructionist, is the key to securing massive infusions of cash from the fossil fuel industry. In this electoral cycle it is estimated that 4 billion will be spent most of which will go to GOP candidates.
Some Republican politicians have artlessly flip flopped on the issue, by distancing themselves from their previous acceptance of climate science (two examples are Scott Brown and Chris Christie). Some of the most ruthlessly self serving Republicans even try to make the absurd argument that climate change will be good for their states. This is the public position of Koch brothers puppet, Paul LePage the Governor of Maine.
Other Republicans have adopted strategies which are slightly more subtle. They have gone from outright climate denial to the position that they are not scientifically qualified to comment. For these conservatives, ignorance is the cornerstone of a new and improved form of denial.
The ignorance of climate deniers extends to the most powerful man in the House, Speaker John Boehner. He has echoed the "I am not a scientist," talking point used by many Republicans. "I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change." Boehner said.
Mitch McConnell is also partial to the "I am not a scientist" line. He is also likely to be the next Senate Majority Leader. Other party faithfuls keep climate denial alive by saying they are not scientist. This list includes Florida Governor Rick Scott and Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Ironically, these two non-scientists represent one of the states that will be hardest hit by climate change.
As a political strategy, pleading ignorance is far more politically tenable than stating the facts. However, their cynical manipulation of the facts and the American electorate is unconscionable.
Republicans commonly vote on economic issues even though they are not economists and they have regularly weigh-in on Obamacare even though they are not doctors. It is like saying you have to be a physicist to appreciate the pain of something falling on your head.
The Republicans ignorance strategy is far worse than cynical subterfuge. All who plead ignorance are collectively guilty of dereliction of their legislative duties.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
While some things have changed in 2014, others remain the same. Perhaps the biggest change involves the shift in strategy by a number of environmental groups. In some states, denying climate change is no longer a politically safe strategy. However, in other states, blocking action on climate change is the only way to get elected. One predictable staple of the 2014 midterms involves the oil industry’s support for climate denying Republican candidates.
Koch Brothers
Unsurprisingly, the Koch brothers (Charles and David) continue their anti-climate crusade alongside other fossil fuel funded lobbying groups. They are throwing their money at conservative politicians who oppose climate policies and support projects like the Keystone XL pipeline. The brothers and their network of groups are believed to be spending up to $300m this election cycle. One Koch affiliate by the name of Americans for Prosperity has invested at least $125m in support of the climate denial agenda. On their own, the Koch brothers have funded more than 44,000 commercials this year, going to politicians who oppose clean air, renewable energy jobs and a transition away from harmful fossil fuels.
Tom Steyer
Republicans have the Koch brothers and the Democrats have Tom Steyer. He has thrown his financial weight behind select candidates in an effort to make climate change a major issue in the forthcoming midterm elections. It was recently announced that he had given $15 million to his NextGen Climate Action Fund. According to Federal Election Commission filings, that brings his publicly disclosed total donations to nearly $56m.
Steyer has succeeded in making climate change a top tier issue in the 2014 midterms races in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan and gubernatorial elections in Florida, Pennsylvania and Maine.
Despite Stayer’s strong support for climate action, he is vulnerable to criticisms that his 2.6 billion dollar fortune was amassed at least in part from his investments in coal and other fossil fuels. However, since 2012, he has avoided fossil fuels like the plague.
Raising the profile of climate change
Contrary to previous U.S. elections, climate change is emerging as a more important issue in the forthcoming midterms. According to the New York Times, climate and energy issues now rank in the top three issues mentioned in electoral ads. Climate change has been a common question raised in debates across the U.S. and politicians in some vulnerable parts of the country are taking heat for ignoring the issue.
Despite raising the profile of climate change, the polls show that it is not the hot button issue that will determine the outcome of most races. In states with entrenched fossil fuel interests, efforts to combat climate change are simply being ignored altogether.
Fossil fuel loving Democrats
Some Democrats are well paid by the fossil fuel industry for being climate obstructionists, others say they believe in climate change but they are unlikely to vote for legislation that does anything about it.
There are critical races in current or past energy-producing states where Democratic candidates pander to constituents who have been brainwashed by powerful oil and gas lobbies. The result is that voters have no interest in acting on climate change and politics. In these states, Democrats do not dare to antagonize the fossil fuel industry, as they cannot afford to forgo the significant cash infusions that the fossil fuel lobby provides.
Democrats are sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry in Senate races in Kentucky, Louisiana, Alaska, Arkansas and Georgia. This is also true for House contests (Rep. Anne Kirkpatrick AZ-1, Rep. Jim Costa CA-20). Almost all of West Virginia’s Congressional races include coal loving Democrats who seem to abhor the very mention of carbon regulations.
Democrats are also pro-fossil fuel in a few gubernatorial races. This includes Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a powerful supporter of hydraulic fracturing (aka fracking).
Some optimists hope that Democrats who currently oppose climate legislation may change their stance when legislation is tabled.
Environmental groups support Republicans
While the notion of a green republican may seem like an oxymoron, there are a handful of Republican politicians who have voted in support of climate action in the past. However, for the most part, environmental groups that are supporting Republicans are doing so as part of a wider strategy. At the heart of this strategy is an effort to counteract the vast partisan divide that separates Democrats and Republicans on climate issues. The result is that environmental groups are forming some unlikely alliances with Republicans.
These seemingly bizarre political bedfellows are marriages of convenience rather than partnerships premised on principle. The support of Republicans in the House is necessary if there is to be any hope of getting climate legislation off the ground.
With the aim of forging bipartisan support, environmental groups are endorsing Republicans in the midterm elections. The strategy is a pragmatic shift for green groups, who have more money and clout in this election than ever before.
The League of Conservation Voters, for example, endorsed two Republican politicians in recent months (Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Congressman Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey).
As part of a pragmatic move to endorse favored candidates, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has endorsed Republican Sen. Susan Collins from Maine, even though she is nowhere near as green as her Democrat opponent Shenna Bellows. One of the reasons she secured LCV support is because of the fact that she is a Republican who is capable of brokering bipartisan climate and clean energy deals. This makes her a much needed and sorely lacking commodity in the current slate of legislators.
Environmental Defense Fund are also backing moderate Republicans with good environmental records. In New York’s 19th Congressional District, EDF has endorsed Republican incumbent Rep. Chris Gibson (R) and made a $250,000 donation. This endorsement and campaign contribution comes despite the fact that his opponent, Democrat Sean Eldridge is clearly a far more environmentally friendly candidate. The EDF is also involved in state-level legislative races like the one in Kansas, where they are supporting Republicans who defended the state’s renewable electricity production mandate.
Anti-environment Democrats get support
Not-so-Green Democrats are getting support from environmental groups as the better of evils and as a bulwark against a Republican controlled Senate which could dismantle environmental gains like the Clean Energy Plan.
As a result, Democrats like Michelle Nunn in Georgia and Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado are getting donations from green groups despite their support for fossil fuels. Sen. Kay Hagan (D) of North Carolina has also secured the support of the Sierra Club despite her advocacy on behalf of the Keystone XL.
Democrats snubbed by green groups
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana has received little support from green groups. As Chair of the Senate Energy Committee, Senator Landrieu has pushed for Keystone XL pipeline approval and for pro-oil and gas policies.
The fate of climate legislation will go from unlikely to impossible if the Democrats lose control of the Senate. Even if they manage to retain control by a slim margin, there may not be enough climate friendly Democrats to move forward on climate issues.
The world will come together in Paris next year with the aim of securing a global climate agreement. As the world’s largest economy, U.S. support for this deal is critical. President Obama is on-board, but the 2014 midterms will be a factor that will determine the likelihood of success in 2015.
Source: Global Warming is Real
Related
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
The ignorance displayed in this video would be amusing if it were not representative of the views of a large number of Republicans seeking office in the forthcoming midterms. The scientific evidence behind climate change may be clear but Republicans continue to play politics. Their self serving political opportunism may play well with some constituents but their utter absence or responsible leadership imperils the future for us all.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Polling Data: Climate Change and the US Midterm Elections
In Pew Research’s 2014 Political Typology survey, 61 percent of Americans said there is solid evidence that Earth’s average temperature has been getting warmer over the past few decades. However, 18 percent said the warming mostly because of natural environmental patterns.
A 2013 survey by Stanford University showed that a majority of citizens in every state—including energy-producing ones—agreed that the US should do more to address climate change and limit greenhouse gases from businesses and power plants.
Even though Americans want to see more action on climate change, several studies show they do not perceive it to be a priority issue. An August 2014 poll asked Americans to prioritize global threats, the results show that climate change ranked very low. The survey stated that Americans are far more concerned about the militant group ISIS (67%), Iran’s nuclear program (59%) North Korea’s nuclear program (57%) Russia (53%) and infectious disease (52%). Climate change was considered a global threat by less than half of Americans (48%).
According to an international poll in 2013, the US is among the countries whose people are least concerned about climate change. In a January 2014 poll, global warming was at the bottom of American priorities for President Obama and Congress with only slightly more than one quarter of Americans (28%) saying it was a top priority.
The January poll suggests a decline in American's prioritization of climate change. A November 2013 poll asking Americans about their long range foreign policy goals ranked climate change well behind guarding against terrorism (83%) and jobs (83%). Only 37 percent of Americans identified climate change as a priority.
The difference between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans remains a stark study of contrasts. As revealed in a Pew Poll, about nine-in-ten Solid Liberals (91%) said the Earth is getting warmer, but just two-in-ten conservatives (21%) agreed. A total of 75 percent of conservatives thought we have gone too far to protect the environment while only only 2 percent of liberals shared that view.
A September, CBS News/New York Times Poll found that 63 percent of Democrats think climate change should be given top priority while only 40 percent of Republicans felt the same way. Conversely 51 percent of Republicans thought that economic growth should be given top priority while only 34 percent of Democrats shared that view.
When asked if global warming is having an impact now, 61 percent of Democrats said yes while 26 percent of Republicans agreed. Only 24 percent of Republicans think global warming will pose a serious threat to their way of life in their lifetimes, while 56 percent of Democrats said that it would.
The Pew Research Center/USA Today poll indicated that a total of 68 percent of Democrats think climate change is a "major threat," while only 24 percent of Republicans share that view.
A similar divide also exists between old and young. According a recent poll by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), nearly 80 percent of voters 35 and under nationally said they are more likely to vote for someone who supports climate action. However, young people tend not to vote in midterm elections. Democrats are also less likely to turn out to vote in the midterm elections than their Republican counterparts.
Even though people may support action on climate change it does not always influence their voting decisions. This has created a situation where many politicians can afford to hold ideologically motivated climate positions which are at odds with their constituents’.
These polls have clear implications for climate change in the forthcoming midterms and the legislative agenda in the coming year. A Republican advance will stymie even the most modest efforts to engage climate change.
This midterm election may have repercussions not only for the future of the US but for the globe as a whole. Republican control of the Senate could very well make it difficult for President Obama to sign a global climate agreement in 2015. If the world's largest economy refuses to sign on it will all but dash hopes of keeping global temperature increases below the internationally upon 2 degree Celsius upper threshold limit.
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related
Environmental Alliances in the 2014 Midterms
Midterm 2014: Fossil Fuels Win and Climate Loses
Environment and Climate Win Senate Race in Michigan Midterms
Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa
Mixed Green Results in Florida Midterms
Midterms 2014: Five Good News Stories for the Climate and the Environment
Louisiana Midterms have Serious (Solar) Energy Implications
Midterms 2014: Energy an Issue in Swing States
Midterm 2014: Short Term Economic Concerns Trump Environmental Issues
Midterm 2014: Republican's Climate Ignorance Poised to Win the Day
Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use
Video - Midterms 2014 and Republican Climate Denial
Why Greens are Seeing Red in the 2013 Australian Elections
Kevin Rudd spent 3 years plotting Gillard's downfall he then proceeded to execute her politically as the nation watched. Gillard was the Leader of the Labor Party from 2010 to 2013 and she was the first female to be Prime Minister of Australia.
The Rudd Labor opposition promised to implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS) before the 2007 federal election which Labor won. Rudd, unable to secure support for his scheme in the Senate, dropped it.
In her 2010 election campaign, Gillard pledged to build a "national consensus" for a carbon price by creating a "citizens assembly", to examine "the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions". The assembly was to be selected by an independent authority who would select people from the electoral roll using census data. The plan was never implemented.
After the 2010 Election, Gillard agreed to form a minority government with the Greens and Independents and replaced her "citizens assembly" plan with a climate change panel consisting of Labor, Greens and Independent members of Parliament. The panel ultimately announced backing for a temporary carbon tax, leading up to an Emissions Trading Scheme.
In the first hung parliament result in 70 years, the Gillard Government, with the support of the Australian Greens and some cross bench independents, negotiated the implementation of a carbon tax (the preferred policy of the Australian Greens), by which a fixed-price carbon tax would proceed to a floating-price ETS within a few years under the plans. The government proposed the Clean Energy Bill in February 2011, which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise. The bill was passed by the Lower House in October 2011 and the Upper House in November 2011.
The Greens voted down Rudd’s first emissions trading scheme in 2009 because it “locked in” a low 5 percent emissions reduction target by 2020, and they insisted on leaving open the possibility of a tougher target on the advice of the authority before they agreed to Gillard’s scheme in 2011.
In his concession speech Rudd conceded defeat to Abbott but failed to acknowledge Gillard. The Coalition will have at least 90 seats in the new House of Representatives and Labor may hold more than 50.
Prior to the election Rudd said he was “terminating” the carbon tax in response to Abbott’s anti-carbon tax campaign. Frontbencher Mr Clare, who retained his Sydney seat, said Labor should not give up on its principles, including the need to have a price on carbon.
“I don't believe anyone in Labor is going to walk away from the issue of putting a price on carbon pollution. Because a failure to act on pollution is in fact just making the problem harder for our kids, and that's not the Labor way.”
Mr Bowen backed Labor's ongoing support for a carbon price.
“I don't think the Labor party should walk away from its core beliefs,” said Bill Shorten, the favorite to lead the Labor Party in opposition. “We believe climate change is real, we believe governments around the world should do something about it, we believe we should do something about it, and we believe a market mechanism is the right thing to do.”
The coalition crushed Labor by winning 88 seats to Labor's 57 in the 150-seat parliament. Rather than helping to increase Labor's support, Rudd's coup against Gillard hurt the party and the nation's green hopes. According to Sky News/Newspoll exit poll the two-party preferred vote was at 53-47, compared to 52-48 when the election was called, suggesting Rudd's campaign cost Labor votes.
The Coalition did not win the election, rather Labor lost it. Voters punished Labor for its mutinous disunity. Rudd not only murdered Gillard's political career, he destroyed Australia's best hope for responsible climate leadership.
© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related ArticlesNew Report on Extreme Weather in Australia
Sustainable Australia Report 2013
Australia's National Solar Schools
Clean Energy Week in Sydney Australia
Video: Putting a Price on Carbon in Australia
Luminos and Stella 2 Cars in the World Solar Challenge
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History
Environmental Collaboration Transforming Government
Canada's Hopes for an Environmentally Friendly Federal Leadership Now Rest with Justin Trudeau
The federal Liberals officially named 41 year old Justin Trudeau as their new leader on Sunday April 14, 2013. The ruling Conservatives are telling Canadians that they have to make a choice between the economy and the environment, Trudeau believes this is a false choice.
Justin believes that the Conservative doctrine of forcing Canadians to choose between the economy and the environment is reckless and dangerous.
As he explains in his website, "Instead, it is increasingly obvious that a healthy economy is dependent on a healthy environment, and the two will thrive resiliently if we engage in responsible actions based on long-term thinking."
Justin won the support of about 80 per cent of Liberals who gave him an overwhelming first-ballot victory, 45 years to the month after his father took the same position. Justin is the eldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau.
Elected on October 14th, 2008, as Member of Parliament for Papineau, Justin's three primary policy positions involve youth, diversity and the environment.
Justin was a member of the House’s Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. In his years before politics he worked with various environmental groups dedicated to the protection of our Canadian wilderness, supplementing his activism with graduate work in environmental geography at McGill University.
Justin has a difficult road ahead of him if he is to succeed in taking his party from its current third place standing and returning to its former glory as the country’s so-called “natural governing party.” If he is to be the next Prime Minister he will have to defeat Harper's Conservatives and move ahead of the NDP led by Thomas Mulcair.
Despite these difficulties opinion polls suggest that the new Liberal leader could very well win an election if it were held today.
© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Articles
Canadian Conservative Minister Attacks Climate Scientist
Canada Ruling Conservatives at Odds with US and China on Climate Change
Report Urges Canada's Federal Conservatives to Regulate Oil and Gas Sector to Meet GHG Targets
Canada Withdraws from UN Efforts to Combat Desertification
Canada Pulls out of Kyoto
Canada's Ruling Conservative Government is Trying to Silence American Scientists
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Muzzle Scientists
Canada is an Environmental Pariah at Rio+20
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
Conservative Budget Guts the Environment
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL
Justin believes that the Conservative doctrine of forcing Canadians to choose between the economy and the environment is reckless and dangerous.
As he explains in his website, "Instead, it is increasingly obvious that a healthy economy is dependent on a healthy environment, and the two will thrive resiliently if we engage in responsible actions based on long-term thinking."
Justin won the support of about 80 per cent of Liberals who gave him an overwhelming first-ballot victory, 45 years to the month after his father took the same position. Justin is the eldest son of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau.
Elected on October 14th, 2008, as Member of Parliament for Papineau, Justin's three primary policy positions involve youth, diversity and the environment.
Justin was a member of the House’s Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. In his years before politics he worked with various environmental groups dedicated to the protection of our Canadian wilderness, supplementing his activism with graduate work in environmental geography at McGill University.
Justin has a difficult road ahead of him if he is to succeed in taking his party from its current third place standing and returning to its former glory as the country’s so-called “natural governing party.” If he is to be the next Prime Minister he will have to defeat Harper's Conservatives and move ahead of the NDP led by Thomas Mulcair.
Despite these difficulties opinion polls suggest that the new Liberal leader could very well win an election if it were held today.
© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Articles
Canadian Conservative Minister Attacks Climate Scientist
Canada Ruling Conservatives at Odds with US and China on Climate Change
Report Urges Canada's Federal Conservatives to Regulate Oil and Gas Sector to Meet GHG Targets
Canada Withdraws from UN Efforts to Combat Desertification
Canada Pulls out of Kyoto
Canada's Ruling Conservative Government is Trying to Silence American Scientists
Canada's Ruling Conservatives Muzzle Scientists
Canada is an Environmental Pariah at Rio+20
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects
Conservative Budget Guts the Environment
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL
Green Tuesday's Sustainable Consumerism
This year the event falls on November 27th. The group, Green America, is a leading advocate for this new shopping day. See Green America's Responsible Shopper website for information on companies or their Gift Guide for more ecologically responsible products.
Other Green Tuesday portals include Green Pages Green Gift Guide and GreenDeals.org, which will be feature a week's worth of green product specials. You can find good prices on everything from self-water systems for indoor and outdoor plants and annual memberships for car-sharing or bicycle-sharing clubs.
Jonah Mytro, co-founder of GreenDeals.org, has high hopes for this day devoted to “eco-forward” holiday gifts. “We are hoping Green Tuesday results in something of a paradigm shift,” said Mytro in a press release. “Our goal is to encourage a different way of thinking about holiday shopping — one that’s more deliberate, more purposeful and one that will inspire consumers to shop with the planet in mind when there’s a greener form of a gift you were already planning to purchase.”
"During the holiday season consumers are faced with a lot of shopping decisions," Mytro said. "Green Tuesday is designed to inspire consumers to make thoughtful, purposeful, eco-minded choices. It means really thinking about the money you are spending and buying the right gift for the right person while taking care of the planet at the same time."
© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Articles
Thanksgiving Shopping: From Black Friday to Green Tuesday
How to Make Gift Giving More Green from C2ES
Tips to Make Gift Giving More Green from FatWallet
Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics 2012
Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide November 2011
Thanksgiving Shopping: Consumption and the Earth's Carrying Capacity
All Indications Suggest a Banner Year for Cyber Monday Shopping
Black Friday 2011 Saw a Big Year-Over-Year Spending Increase
A Thanksgiving Infused with Environmental Gratitude
Thanksgiving: Living in Harmony with the Planet
Seven Ways to Make Your Thanksgiving Greener
The Environmental Toll of the Holidays
Thanksgiving for those who Feel Thankless
Patagonia Shows the Way with Responsible Business Leadership
Video: Retail Shopping from a Sustainability Standpoint
Video: Sustainable Shopping
Video: The Story of Stuff
New Methods of Manufacturing and New Patterns of Consumption
Election 2012: Implications for Coal and Natural Gas
As reviewed in the Washington Post, coal's stock valuations have been directly impacted by Obama's reelection. On the day after the election, shares of Peabody Energy fell 9.6 percent, Arch Coal plunged 12.5 percent, Consol Energy dropped 6.1 percent, and Alpha Natural Resources sank 12.2 percent.
Coal plants will be impacted by the EPA's restrictions on soot emissions from utilities which would tighten the annual exposure to fine-particle soot from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to between 12 and 13 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
Within the next few months, the EPA will probably finalize the first carbon standard for new power plants, which will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.
Although the average natural gas plant in the US emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, the EPA is also studying the environmental impact of hydrolic fracking, which will likely result in new federal standards.
© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Posts
Election 2012: A Mandate for Action on Climate Change
The 2012 Election Saw the Rise of Environmentalists as a Political Force
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hopes for Environmental Action in President Obama's Second Term
President Obama's Victory Speech: "The Best is Yet to Come"
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Survival
The State of Government Sustainability Efforts
What is ESG and Why is it Important
How Governments can Show Support for Cleantech
Election 2012: A Mandate for Action on Climate Change
Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp is amongst those environmentalists who say that the election provides a mandate for aggressive action on climate change. After the election Krupp issued a statement on Wednesday November 7 saying:
“Exit polls confirm that for millions of American voters, Hurricane Sandy and climate change were decisive factors in this election. As the historic storm just reminded us, we have no time to waste; we must get serious about climate solutions in order to protect our loved ones and communities from terrible impacts -- extreme weather disasters, droughts, heat waves, and other dangerous consequences of global warming. Especially in the wake of Sandy, which demonstrated that doing nothing about climate change is much costlier than taking action, this issue clearly should be a top priority for our leaders in government.”
The same day Frances Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council echoed these sentiments saying:
"By rejecting Big Oil's candidates, voters sent a message loud and clear that they want more clean energy, less climate denial and an end to the $4bn in taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels."
Predictably, officials from the oil and gas industry have a different interpretation of the results. Despite the decisive defeat of Republican challenger Mitt Romney, they say the election was about the economy. While there is no doubt that the economy is an important issue for Americans, it would be a mistake to interpret the election as an affirmation of business as usual.
© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Posts
Election 2012: Implications for Coal and Natural Gas
The 2012 Election Saw the Rise of Environmentalists as a Political Force
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hopes for Environmental Action in President Obama's Second Term
President Obama's Victory Speech: "The Best is Yet to Come"
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Survival
The State of Government Sustainability Efforts
What is ESG and Why is it Important
How Governments can Show Support for Cleantech
The 2012 US Election Saw the Rise of Environmentalists as a Political Force
As reviewed in the Washington Post, in the election of 2012, the environmental community played a key role in several stated including "New Mexico, Montana, Texas and other states, winning seven of eight targeted Senate races and at least three targeted House races."
A lot of money was spent by a number of different groups but even the fossil fuel industry was forced to concede that environmental groups appear to have invested their money wisely.
“There is evidence that the environmentalists have become a more mature political force,” said Scott H. Segal, who lobbies for utility companies at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani.
“Environmentalist spending was up considerably this cycle, and they seemed to resist the frequent trap of supporting third-party or crank candidates in ways that would have siphoned off votes from mainstream Democrats,” Segal said.
Some of the environmental groups that provided funding and volunteers included the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, Defenders of Wildlife Action Committee, Environment America and Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund.
© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Related Posts
Election 2012: Implications for Coal and Natural Gas
Election 2012: A Mandate for Action on Climate Change
Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review
Hopes for Environmental Action in President Obama's Second Term
President Obama's Victory Speech: "The Best is Yet to Come"
A Vote for Obama is a Vote for Survival
The State of Government Sustainability Efforts
What is ESG and Why is it Important
How Governments can Show Support for Cleantech
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)