Who’s the Greenest of Them All?

Posted on March 10, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Science |

You might be surprised. New Scientist this week has an interesting story about Global Warming and the Presidential Election. It’s behind a subscription wall but I’ll quote a bit below. Contrary to what you might expect (and the fairly partisan rhetoric coming from places like Science Blogs) they say that,

McCain.jpg

“John McCain has a set of climate credentials that arguably eclipse both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton”

What!

A Republican having better credentials than a Democrat? Gasp.

The fact of the matter is that while I think the rhetoric of anti-science Republicans has been overblown there is some truth to it. Where folks have gone astray though is to confuse the policies of George Bush with the policies of all Republicans. This is unfortunate since there are many Republicans (myself included) who see Global Warming as a serious problem.

The danger in making the science issue so partisan is that it (a) alienates potential allies in the Republican party who may have power whether you agree with them or not and (b) politicizes science in the same way that many condemn.

Ideally science should be about what we can know about our world. Politicians of any party ought embrace this knowledge so as to frame policy. We want everyone to be open to science. If you make it a Democratic only issue then you’ve politicized science even more and make partisan Republicans who may be ignorant about science that much more likely to reject science. Hardly an ideal situation.

It’s nice to see that New Scientist hasn’t fallen into this trap. Especially since if, as I expect, a Democrat (probably Obama) wins this fall I’d lay pretty good odds that he’ll put political expediency often ahead of science. Just probably in different places that George Bush has. It’s a dangerous situation since politicians often are quite ignorant of science. (John McCain’s gaffe over autism and vaccines is an example - it’s hardly anti-science just an off the cuff remark made out of ignorance)

Anyway, a few quotes from the New Scientist article.

Among the three leading candidates, you might assume that one of the Democrats - either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, is the most environmentally friendly. Both senators have made big promises to cuts emissions and fund clean energy research.

Republican front runner John McCain has a set of climate credentials that arguably eclipses them both. He has railed against inaction on the issue since long before it was fashionable to do so. Now that he’s the presumptive conservative nominee, however, there are signs that the Arizona senator will backtrack. There is also an independent candidate, Ralph Nader, who supports a carbon tax - a fee charged for every tonne of carbon emitted - rather than a cap-and-trade system. That stance is widely considered politically untenable, and Nader got less than 0.4 per cent of the vote in 2004. So of the three main candidates, who is the greenest?

On the Democratic side, both Clinton and Obama are bolstered by their party’s record. Last December the Democrats pushed through the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring all cars in the US to run for at least 35 miles on every gallon of gasoline by 2020. Several bills are also circulating that call for emissions cuts as deep as 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. If elected president, both candidates say they will work to make one of these bills law.

It goes on.

However, the candidates do have subtle differences in their senate records, with Clinton edging ahead. For instance, last year Obama raised concerns among environmentalists when he co-sponsored a bill that would promote the development of coal-to-liquid fuel technologies - essentially turning coal into a source of diesel fuel. Clinton, on the other hand, introduced the Zero-Emissions Building Act of 2007, which aims to make all new federal buildings carbon-neutral by 2030. As the race for the Democratic nomination goes to the wire, the votes of the science-savvy superdelegates could be vital (see “Superdelegates”).

Of the three then, who is best placed to implement an aggressive policy to curtail global warming? The surprising answer may be McCain.

Clinton and Obama’s big promises could bring other large emitters like China and India into line behind the US. That’s important, especially as world leaders look to a new climate policy after the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. But McCain is the only candidate battle-hardened by years of defending his climate change bills on the Senate floor.

As early as 2000 he refused to toe the party line, calling climate change “a very serious business”. In 2003 he and Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut sponsored the first iteration of the Climate Stewardship Act, which would have limited US emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. It was defeated, but McCain’s revisions kept surfacing in the Senate, complete with more stringent emissions targets.

Last year he reintroduced the bill as the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. It calls for a nationwide cap-and-trade system as well as funding for clean technology that would allow the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 60 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Some of the bills now in Congress are tougher, but McCain’s history of pioneering advocacy for regulations is undeniable.

The conclusion?

In short then, McCain has the greenest credentials; the Democrats the greenest promises. And any will be greener than the current president. “Any of the three candidates would embrace serious climate change legislation,” says Holdren.

I’d add that it often is the case that if you want some controversial law passed it often seems easiest if the supporting President is of the party opposed to it. Think Bill Clinton and welfare reform or George Bush and strengthening the education department. When you get a supporter in the opposite party it’s just too tempting and easy to rally the troops in partisan politics. Think Clinton in his health care reform.

Why? Well the party that agrees with you will already vote for you. It’s the folks in the other party that you have to convince. And often to get controversial laws through congress (whether they ought be controversial or not) you pretty well have to get a significant portion of folks who might normally be disinclined to support it.

While I’ve not exactly had a lot of love for McCain for various reasons his support for getting a handle on Global Warming is a big reason to support him.

Comments

11 Responses to “Who’s the Greenest of Them All?”

How come you hear so much about global warming but never hear about global dimming?

Well this should shift the debate significantly. The Southern Baptist convention urges action on Global Warming. So once again we see that despite the cries of some this isn’t a Republican/Democratic issue.

Susan, PBS actually had a show on global dimming. So it is talked about and has probably kept global warming from being somewhat worse than it is. However Global Warming critics try to make it out to be more than it actually is. This Real Climate post is probably a useful discussion of the issue.

Thanks for pointing out this article. I couldn’t agree more about the role of politics and the environment. I’ve always felt that politics is doing more damage at dividing Americans on important environmental issues than anything else. I believe that most people at heart are, or would be, concerned about environmental issues if politics didn’t get in the way.

Your concern about Obama putting politics ahead of the issue would be more of a concern with McCain, in my opinion, who has a political base that is still very leery of the environment. He’s trying to win over conservatives, not scare them away, so whatever his past record is, he would probably backtrack as the article suggests.

Also, with all the political candidates pretty ignorant on the scientific issues, I would rather rely on the people and organizations to push the issues for the party, rather than an individual working against his political party. While McCain has been innovative and bipartisan in trying to pass his climate bills, he has largely been unsuccessful. His party hasn’t really supported him in his efforts before, so would becoming President really bring their backing on this issue? I admit, it’s possible that he could be a catalyst for bringing the Republican party around to the environment, but I’m doubtful.

Regardless of all this, the best news is that change is coming and the Federal government will hopefully start doing what many states and cities all across the country are already doing. So that is good news.

Clark, not to sound like an deaf echoer of my ScienceBlogs’ “colleagues’” nonsense, but the New Scientist’s article is pretty much complete bull. McCain’s voting record has consistently received the lowest ratings of any of the 3 candidates. For example, according to the league of conservation voters’ scorecard, from the 1999-2000 to the 2005-2006 sessions, he received an average grade of 34.75%, ranging from 6% to 56%. His 2007 grade was a 0%, because he missed every single vote that environmental groups consider important. Every single one!

Clinton’s voting record from 2001 on (excluding 2007) averaged a grade of 90%, with a low of 88%. She scored a 73% in 2007, largely because of missed votes. Obama scored a 96% in 2005-2006 (the highest grade any of the three remaining candidates has received), and a 67% last year, again due to missed votes. So both Obama and Clinton have missed votes, likely due to campaigning, but they’ve managed to attend the majority of them, while McCain missed every one in 2007. Further, the highest grade he’s ever received is lower than the lowest grades received by the two Democrats.

So, while it would be nice to promote McCain as a green candidate, it would require forgetting the facts to do so.

In addition to Baptists, Catholics and Evangelicals are also urging action on Global warming. I actually just posted on this yesterday:
http://greenmormonarchitect.blogspot.com/2008/03/religious-environmentalism.html

Chris, I don’t think I was portraying him as “green” the way some environmentalists perceive him. Anymore than I’d consider him a gun rights candidate. The NRA attacks him with similar statistics there - but I think a more objective view sees him as not nearly as bad as the NRA portrays him. Anyway, my point was just about Global Warming where it’s hard to argue McCain hasn’t been an activist.

Now it’s true McCain has avoided a lot of votes in 2007 although I think that was because of the Republican primaries and pressure from Romney. Although McCain says the reason he hasn’t supported the current iteration of his Global Warming bill he’s been promoting the past years is because Democrats refused to include language promoting nuclear power as a way to deal with American carbon emissions. (Most of our power comes from coal and oil - to lower green house emissions you have to replace that in an effective way that neither wind nor solar really can provide easily)

When one moves to the larger votes that groups like the Sierra Club favor then things get more complex. I consider myself fairly environmental but am troubled by many things promoted by such groups. Just as the NRA sees McCain as anti-gun simply because he favors closing the gun show loophole in background checks and promotes gun locks I think the Sierra Club and others are unfair to him.

But there is no doubt he won’t be as far left as many environmentalists wish.

“Green Mormon Architech”. I don’t think I was suggesting Obama is putting politics ahead of the environment. The environment is one place I think Obama is to be praised, although I don’t think he gives enough consideration to the economy. But let’s be frank. Neither McCain nor Obama are exactly thoughtful on the economy. One will have to see what policy suggestions from advisors they end up listening to. Right now I suspect I’d favor Hilary over either on the economy although I’m really hoping McCain improves there. (And I hate to say that - I really don’t like the Clintons but I’ve constantly come to the conclusion she’s the lesser of many evils)

Anyway, by talking about politicizing science what I worry about is too many people making Democrats the party of science which ends up further marginalizing science in the Republican party. What we need is balance in both parties. Heck keep the Democratic party as the party that puts environmental action above economic or liberty considerations. I don’t mind. But let’s not make it the sole party of concern for the environment.

The way to prevent this further politicization of science is to ensure that environmental activists work with both parties.

As to McCain being able to be successful on these issues if he were President. I think you have to acknowledge that there’s a huge difference between being one Senator among 50 with a President hostile to many of these issues versus McCain being the leader of his party. I think by and large the Democrats will vote for Global Warming action. However if it is a Democratic President probably most Republicans will vote against it. If it is a Republican President then you’ll have many Republicans follow their leader simply because of the way politics works.

And, as I said, you need Republicans promoting Global Warming laws if you want real change to happen.

Thanks for clarifying. I think I see your point better now. I’m definitely in favor of all peoples/parties/religions/etc having a greater environmental conscience. And it would be a great day to have Republicans and Democrats unite on these issues.

It’s an interesting strategy - supporting the candidate who will bring the Republicans to the environmental table…

9 Gerald Smith on March 12th, 2008 6:45 am

One major problem McCain would have as president is that he has made a lot of enemies in his own party. It is one thing to go against the party’s line. It is another thing to excoriate the party members for not falling in line with you. And he’s done it on many occasions.

Bush started out as a president that Republicans generally trusted. However, his bad choices and actions have often put him against his party to where he isn’t as trustworthy as he once was. McCain would be going into office already carrying the burden of distrust of his own party.

As for economics, I agree that Obama and McCain are weak economically. McCain even more than Obama IMO. McCain is leaning on advisors such as Jack Kemp, whose goals have encouraged our nation to be in its current economic struggle. Free trade has not worked as it should, because it has been unilateral. Until Republicans wake up and deal with American problems, rather than always the international business world, we’re not going to get to a place where most Republicans will want to look at global warming.

Our jobs are flooding out to China and India right now. They are major environmental hazards waiting to happen, as their 2.5 billion people industrialize, without any strong environmental protections in place. So, without dealing with “free trade” as it now stands with GATT and WTO, we’ll only be able to do minimal environmental improvements. Meanwhile, worldwide pollutions will grow exponentially over the next 20 years, even if we could get ourselves down to 60% of 1990 levels.

IOW, we’re selling out our economy and our global environment for international “free” trade. You can’t fix one without the other. If we were to insist all exports from China, India, Russia and other newly developing nations had certain standards - environmental, safety, and human rights - we would keep our own economy from bleeding itself to death, while still allowing for truly free trade.

Meanwhile, economics would cause a cap and trade internationally, not just within the USA. Such extra expense only to the USA would justify many companies to outsource to China and India, where they would not have to worry about buying carbon credits, etc. We don’t fix the problem, we just move it offshore where we have less impact on saving the environment.

10 Rich Knapton on March 12th, 2008 11:47 am

Susan M: “How come you hear so much about global warming but never hear about global dimming?”

You just have to know where to look: 2007 cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Rich

I haven’t decided if I want to talk pure politics here yet. I posted this primarily because it was about an article in New Scientist that was a bit surprising to me. Although Chris’ point about McCain’s overall environmental voting record is well made: even if I tend to distrust those “fidelity” tests that both extremes in the political debate tend to engage in. (They tend to repress all nuance in why someone votes as they do)

I will say that I have to disagree with you on free trade quite strongly and that my #1 fear about Obama is that he will be protectionist. Indeed it is free trade that might well end up giving McCain a big break this fall simply due to the unfortunate spiral Clinton and Obama have gone down due to Ohio.

Leave a Reply