Test - voting

Home voting

Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Infographic - Midterms 2014: Issues and Social Media Use

November 05, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Climate Denying Koch Friend Wins Senate Seat in Iowa

November 05, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Republican Joni Ernst has won a seat in the Senate representing Iowa. She defeated her Democratic opponent, Rep. Bruce Braley. Ernst is a Tea Party supporter and a climate change denier and friend of the Koch brothers. She also wants to close the Environmental protection agency while dismissing Agenda 21 as a conspiracy that would undermine civil liberties.

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

November 05, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Florida's Republican Governor Rick Scott beat Democrat Charlie Crist while Steve Southerland lost his bid to keep his seat in the US House of Representatives.

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

November 05, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Climate change and environmental concerns were important issues in the Michigan midterms and they may well have been the deciding factors in the race for the Senate. On Novmeber 4th, Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) trounced the Republican candidate, former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land by 14 percentage points.

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

November 05, 2014 Add Comment Edit

The US midterm results are in and fossil fuels have won big while efforts to combat climate change are dealt a serious blow. With 52 seats, Republicans have won the Senate and they now control both chambers of Congress. This will make passing President Obama's legislative agenda, which was already very difficult, nearly impossible. Here are 10 likely energy and climate consequences of Republicans advances in the 2014 midterms:

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

Anti-climate initiatives we can expect from Republicans

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

November 04, 2014 Add Comment Edit

The oil and gas lobby wields tremendous power in Louisiana, but renewable forms of energy are increasingly popular. The outcome of the election in Louisiana will have a significant impact on the future of solar in the state, it will also decide who Heads the Energy and Natural Resource (ENR) Committee.

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

November 04, 2014 Add Comment Edit

For those who are looking for progress on climate and energy legislation in the US, there is little good news as the GOP appears poised to make advances in the 2014 midterms. If the polls prove to be accurate, Republicans will increase their hold on the House of Representatives and gain control of the Senate. Nonetheless, here are five good news climate stories in this election cycle.

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

November 04, 2014 Add Comment Edit

In the 2014 election cycle Energy is an important issue in swing states. However, do not expect these states to vote for champions of clean renewable energy. Instead swing state voters are likely to throw their support behind candidates who advocate for good old fashioned oil and gas.

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

November 03, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Although climate advocacy groups have worked hard to make environmental issues and clean energy a priority, recent polls suggest it has not worked. Climate change is being trumped by short economic concerns. It would appear that American voters are more concerned about things like the short term price of gas than they are about climate change.

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

November 03, 2014 Add Comment Edit

Climate change may be an irrefutable fact but not for Republicans who brag about their scientific ignorance. Make no mistake about it, this is all part of their denial strategy. Their clever denial strategies are helping them make inroads in the forthcoming midterms. On November 5, we will likely see even more climate deniers take control of the world's most powerful legislature. A number of recent polls suggest that the GOP will take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

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

November 03, 2014 Add Comment Edit

The US midterms are right are around the corner, but an analysis of environmental alliances shows the situation is far more complicated in 2014 than it was in previous election cycles. As the political theater unfolds, the clock is ticking down and we are rapidly running out of time to curb emissions and reign in climate change.

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

November 01, 2014 Add Comment Edit

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

October 28, 2014 Add Comment Edit

According to US polls, Americans acknowledge that climate change is real, however, this does not mean that it is an issue that will sway electoral outcomes. While a solid majority of Americans want to the US to do more to manage climate change, it is not perceived as either one of the top threats facing the country or a priority issue. Consequently it is unlikely to figure prominently as an election issue in the forthcoming midterms.

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

September 09, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Hopes for a government serious about combating climate change in Australia were crushed by Labor party infighting. The election of a right of center coalition led by Tony Abbot spells the end of Australia's hope to play a leading role combating climate change. Kevin Rudd wrestled the leadership from Labor Prime Minister Julia Eileen Gillard after she demonstrated strong green leadership. Rudd ended Gillard's political career in a savage act of overt betrayal that may have cost labor the election and ended Australia's hopes for government leadership on climate change.

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

California's Proposition 39 will Generate Half a Billion a Year for Clean Energy and Efficiency

November 12, 2012 Add Comment Edit

In California 60 percent of voters approved the passage of Proposition 39 which will generate $500 million per year for energy efficiency and clean energy projects in public buildings over the next five years. This includes projects at schools and government buildings such as installing solar panels, and energy efficiency retrofits.

"California voters not only modernized the state’s corporate tax structure by passing Prop 39, they indicated their strong support for renewable energy, including expanding solar energy and encouraging related investment over the next five years,” Carrie Cullen Hitt, vice president for state affairs at The Solar Energy Industries Association.

Although the proposition could raise taxes for some corporation, the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, said it will create up to 40,000 new jobs in California.

It is interesting to note that Proposition 39 had almost no formal opposition. the reason for this appears to be due to the hard work of Tom Steyer, a hedge fund manager who poured almost $30 million into the campaign to pass the measure. He succeeded in thwarting opposition by threatening to publicly identify any corporation that opposed it.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Voters Want More Renewable Energy
The Promise of Renewable Energy in the US
Renewable Energy Is Our Only Hope
President Clinton on What the American Public Needs to Know about Renewable Energy
China and the Growth of Global Wind Power
Renewable Energy in 2012: The Global Economic and Environmental Climate
How the West can Capitalize on the Growth of Chinese Cleantech in 2012
Outlook for the Chinese Solar Industry in 2012
India is the World Leader in Cleantech Investment Growth
The EU Debt Crisis did Not Curb the Growth of Renewables in 2011
UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
UK Wind Energy
Cuts to UK Solar FiTs Could Prove Deadly
Cuts to UK Wind Power ROCs & FiTs
The Implications of the Expiration of US Renewable Energy Subsidies
Obama 2013 Budget Seeks to Make Renewable Tax Credits Permanent
US Wind Energy Market Review and Forecasts for 2012
US Solar Energy Review and 2012 Forecasts
Geothermal Energy Market Review and Forecasts for 2012
British Government to Lead the Green Economy
Market Forces and the UK's Green Deal
UK Government Investments in Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Corporate Sustainability is Driving Green Businesses in the UK
UK Renewable Energy 2011 Overview
Cuts to UK Wind Power ROCs & FiTs
UK Wind Energy
Cuts to UK Solar FiTs Could Prove Deadly
Scottish Wind Energy Can Power Europe
The Growth of London's Green Economy
The EU Debt Crisis did Not Curb the Growth of Renewables in 2011
Sustainability and the European Super Grid

Republicans Need a Serious Policy Review

November 08, 2012 Add Comment Edit

The GOP's election defeat of 2012 lends credence to the belief that Republicans desperately need to change their strategy. The party can no longer win by appealing only to older white males. Republicans did not win the Presidency and they lost ground in the Senate, however they did retain the House. If they want to be the party of the majority they will need to adopt more rational fact based policy positions, this includes the science of climate change.

Republicans are at odds the majority of the American voting public. There is popular support to raise taxes on the wealthly, and maintain spending on social programs. However, the GOP has painted itself into a corner as the Republican House was elected on a no-tax-hike pledge, and includes a larger contingent of small-government advocates than before.

As the fiscal cliff looms, Republicans have already shown that they are not afraid of playing chicken with the American economy to get their way. Americans have seen the face of Republican obstructionism and more of the same does not constitue a viable path to the White House.

You can’t blame the Republican loss on a lack of resources. Republicans clearly had the money and organization capable of winning in 2012. Mitt Romney’s loss along with the loss of several key U.S. Senate races is a clear sign that Republicans need to change.

Even the Conservative mouthpiece known as the Daily Caller concedes that the Republican agenda is to blame for their loss in 2012.

"[I]t is the job of politicians and parties and movements to persuade Americans to buy into their vision. And they clearly aren’t buying what Republicans are selling. It’s time for the GOP to do some serious soul searching."

How can Republicans become a majority party capable of attracting new voters and earning back the White House? To start with they need to enter the modern era and embrace a science based policy platform. This means they will need to broaden their appeal beyond old white men. They may want to start by reforming their antiquated agenda so that women can feel more comfortable with the party. With 71 percent of Hispanics voting for Obama in 2012, the GOP will need to find a way to reach out to this large and growing constituency.

The gender gap clearly hurt Mitt Romney according to exit polls. Obama enjoyed a ten point spread with women, CNN national exit polls showed that 54 percent of women cast their votes for President Obama on November 6, compared to 44 percent for Romney. Romney has a ten point spread with men 53 percent to 45 percent for Obama. With more women voting than men this served the President well in both 2008 and 2012 (women represent 53 percent of the electorate, compared to men’s 47 percent).

Some bizarre statements about rape by Republican Senate candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana, did not help women's perception of the Republican party.

There is evidence to suggest that both women and hispanics are concerned about climate change. Women are more likely to suffer from climate change they are also more likely to want to do something about it. Surveys indicate that 77 percent of Latinos acknowledge the existence of climate change.

Global warming is destined to grow as a political issue. There is a strong body of evidence supporting the existence of anthropogenic warming. It is only a matter of time before the overwhelming majority of Americans see the scientific veracity of climate change. Extreme weather events have served as tangible reminders that are helping an increasing number of Americans to accept climate change.

The Republican war on climate science has got to end. The Republicans cannot continue to thwart the President's environmental agenda. Americans will not accept the GOPs incestuous relationship with the fossil fuel industry and other corporate interests beholden to the old energy economy.

Its not a pretty sight, but the GOP must take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Related Articles
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Accepts the Science of Climate Change (Video)
Obama's and Romney's Energy Advisers: A Study in Contrasts
Hurricane Sandy Underscores Republican's Anti-Science Climate Change Denial (Video)
Romney's Climate Change Ignorance on Display (Video)
Romney Ignores the Causes of Hurricane Sandy as Republicans Shout Down Climate Change Advocate (Video)
Romney's Environmentally Destructive Vision for America
Mitt Romney's Love Affair with Fossil Fuels
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
What Romney's Energy Policy looks Like on the Ground (Video)
Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for our Children
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Climate Change
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan's Unsustainable Voting Record on Energy and the Environment
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Citizens United is Helping Romney to Win the White House and Destroy the Environment
Political "Heroes" and "Villains" on US Air Pollution
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Defend Clean Air and Oppose the TRAIN Act
Republican Assault on the Environment
EDF Campaign Opposing US Anti-Environment Bill
Environmental Implications of the Credit Ceiling Agreement
Chu Video: The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill of her Career
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Ceiling Risks Global Environmental Collapse
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception