(Photo of Cong. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) speaking at Democratic Convention from Flickr and photographer Jeffrey Beall)
Weekly Angst: Over the past 2 years a narrowly divided Senate has stymied all kinds of efforts to curb global warming. Now we have a chance to elect 8 new senators who could turn that around. In 6 of the 8 races that offer a clear choice, the environmental candidate either leads or is neck-and-neck with an anti-environment one. The 7th race looks bad and the 8th appears to be a lost cause. The key races are in New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Oklahoma. But there’s also mention of Minnesota and Maine at the end of this blog.
New Mexico: Cong. Tom Udall (D) has a commanding lead over Cong. Steve Pearce (R). Udall leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by a commanding 17.6 percentage points. Udall, endorsed by a coalition of 5 national environmental groups, is the son of Stewart Udall, who was Interior Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. Udall co-wrote the Udall-Platts renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that passed the House last year but not the Senate. It would have mandated that power plants use 15% renewable energy by 2020. He has a lifetime score of 96% with the League of Conservation Voters and is seen as someone who would be a leader in the Senate. His opponent is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, with a lifetime score of only 1%. He owns millions of dollars worth of Key Energy stock and voted against repeal of oil subsidies, RES and better fuel economy standards for cars. They are vying for the vacancy left by Republican Pete Domenici’s retirement.
Colorado: Tom’s cousin Mark Udall (D) is a 5-term congressman who also has the endorsement of the 5 national groups who see him as another potential leader against global warming in the Senate. Mark leads his opponent by 9.3 points. The son of “Mo” Udall, who served in Congress 30 years and ran for president, Mark had a 95% LCV score in the last Congress and 100% every term before that. He was involved in passing RES and mandating fuel efficiency for cars (CAFE). He’s running against another Dirty Dozen candidate, former Cong. Bob Schaffer (R), who left Congress to work for an oil company. His lifetime LCV score is 5%. He supports drilling in ANWR and opposes more fuel efficient vehicles and incentives for energy conservation. They are competing for the seat held by Sen. Wayne Allard (R).
New Hampshire: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is the third candidate seen as a leader against global warming and supported by the coalition of 5 organizations (LCV, Sierra Club, Environment America, Defense of Wildlife Action Fund and Clean Water Action.) As governor, she made her state a leader in clean energy. N.H. was the first state to pass a law requiring power plants to cut emissions of 4 pollutants and she made state buildings more energy efficient and promoted alternative energy. She is challenging incumbent Sen. John Sununu (R) and leads him by nearly 6 points in the polls. Sununu has voted for drilling in ANWR, opposes a binding international climate change treaty, and helped block votes on fuel economy, clean energy and the repeal of big oil subsidies. His lifetime LCV average is 35%.
North Carolina: State Sen. Kay Hagan (D), endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and Environment America, has a narrow lead of 3.4 over incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R). Hagan has an 85% score from the N.C. Conservation Council and is considered a proven leader for clean, renewable energy. She has supported solar energy and an RES for N.C. and opposed big handouts to oil and gas. Dole, one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, has a lifetime score of just 4%. She has consistently voted for Big Oil and against CAFE standards. She supports incentives for coal and other dirty technologies.
Oregon: This is another state where the incumbent Republican is trailing slightly behind the Dem challenger, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
Merkley has a record of leadership in enacting renewable energy solutions, including an RES of 25% by 2025 and favors cutting GHG by 80% by 2050. Merkley leads by 3.3 points and has strong support from Environment America. Incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith, a 2-term senator, is “an election year environmentalist,” according to Environment America. Generally he has sided with the oil and auto industries and voted against fuel efficiency and curbing global warming, while favoring drilling in ANWR. His lifetime LCV score is 37%.
Alaska: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is challenging 40-year incumbent Ted Steven (R) of bridge-to-nowhere fame and currently on trial for corruption involving gifts and home improvements from an oil man. Begich holds a 2.3 lead in polls and the race is considered a toss-up, despite McCain-Palin's huge lead there. While he has the Alaskan affinity for drilling in ANWR, Begich says Alaska is “ground zero” for global warming and feeling its affects more than anyplace else. He joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Initiative and has replaced streetlights with LEDs, shut down city computers when they’re not in use and harnessed methane from landfills. Stevens, in addition to his other problems, is one of the Dirty Dozen for his environmental policies. He has a 14% lifetime voting record. He consistently votes for tax breaks for oil and has collected $460,000 in gas and oil contributions.
Kentucky: Challenger Bruce Lunsford (D) is putting up a good fight against House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though McConnell leads by 6.5 points. While favoring “clean coal” Lunsford also touts investment in renewable resources, efficiency and hybrid cars. He’s a health company entrepreneur and raises thoroughbreds. McConnell is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen and is considered an “impassable roadblock in the way of clean energy efforts." So it’s more a matter of getting rid of McConnell, who’s position is powerful, than of pushing Lunsford. But 6.5 two weeks out is not encouraging.
Oklahoma: Even more discouraging is Andrew Rice’s (D) challenge against incumbent James Inhofe (R), who won’t even acknowledge global warming exists. Rice trails by 18 points. He is endorsed by the LCV. He favors putting a price on carbon, accelerating the CAFE standards and passing an RES. Inhofe, No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, is ranking member of the Environment Committee (used to be chairman) and has threatened to filibuster every piece of global warming legislation. His lifetime score is 5%. He has accepted nearly $1 million from the oil and gas industry.
Minnesota and Maine: Two other races are worth a quick mention: In Minnesota, challenger Al Franken is running a close race with incumbent Norm Coleman (R), and leads slightly by 2.2 points. Coleman’s environmental record isn’t bad, but Franken who calls for an “Apollo Project” in renewable energy, is endorsed by LCV. Also endorsed by LCV is incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, who is comfortably ahead (15 points) of challenger Tom Allen (D). Collins often crosses over to vote with the Democratic majority on environmental and other issues and has a 100% LCV score the past 2 years.
Take action: So if you want to see good global warming laws passed by the next Congress, think about sending a contribution to one of the candidates in a toss-up race. And if you live in one of those states, get active and help out in the last 2 weeks if you haven’t already. You can help make a difference.
(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, realclearpolitics.com)
In case you missed it, an earlier EarthlingAngst post shows why Obama is better than McCain for the fight against global warming.
And by the way, Environmental Defense has a cool timeline of progress lost on climate change during the Bush Administration.
9 comments:
Oh yeah…
An absolutely useless carbon cap and trade tax in the middle of a recession.
Just what we need!
IDIOTS!
sbvor,
Do you believe in people taking responsibility for their actions?
Bru,
Do I hear a carbon footprint guilt trip coming?
Educate yourself!
sbvor,
Do you believe in people taking responsibility for their actions?
Bru,
I gather from your latest entry that you oppose nuclear power. Why?
Not ONE person in the United States has EVER been injured, much less killed by any sort of nuclear power incident. Even Chernobyl killed only “a few dozen”
Over 40,000 Americans die on our highways EVERY YEAR! Should we shutdown our highway system? By the “standards” of the usual anti-nuke idiots, it sounds like our highway system is FAR too dangerous to allow it to remain open. Eh?
Come on! Even the co-founder of Greenpeace knows nuclear power is the way to go!
You are tilting at wind mills!
Are you so desperate for some alternative moral code to live by that you have to grasp at Eco-Extremism straws? Environmental Extremism is the most dangerous of all religious cults!
sbvor,
I asked you a simple question, and you have avoided answering it.
Your comments about Chernobyl are both misleading and disturbing. First, you are not taking into account predicted cancer deaths as a result of the explosion. The UN's projection was up to 9,000 deaths, but the numbers could be much higher.
Furthermore, the UN reports that over 450,000 recovery operation workers are "at potential risk of late consequences such as cancer and other diseases". Additionally, there were 4,000 thyroid cancer cases among children and adolescents by 2002, most attributable to the Chernobyl explosion. Clearly, the effects of the explosion are still ongoing.
But even if there were not additional hundreds of thousands of people whose health is affected by Chernobyl, I find it disturbing that you would brush off "a few dozen" deaths as trivial. That is a terrible tragedy, and one that must be remembered in any discussion of nuclear power's viability.
It's true I don't support nuclear power, but I see it as a lesser evil than building more coal-fired power plants. Even if nuclear reactor cores are deemed to be safe (which they aren't in all cases), safety guarantees need to be extended to all phases of the nuclear power process -- mining uranium, processing and enriching, transportation, reactors, and especially storage (both at a central storage site and at plant-specific sites) -- before it can be judged safe.
Bru,
1) I’ll see your one time Soviet folly supposedly putting 450,000 at “potential risk” and raise you by “tens of millions” who are “injured or disabled” for certain EVERY YEAR!
You like UN data?
Try this:
“Tens of millions of people are injured or disabled every year [in traffic accidents].”
Again, using your “logic”, the highway system is FAR more dangerous than nuclear power and we should shut it down immediately!
Get over your nanny state mentality! We do NOT live in a risk free world and we never will!
2) Clean coal (absent any CO2 folly) is by FAR our better option.
A) Unlike France, we have abundant coal resources.
B) Aside from nuclear, coal is by FAR our least expensive fuel source for generating electricity.
C) Looking at REAL pollutants, the United States is burning more coal while polluting less (the previous chart is from this most recent EPA report). If you want to do something REAL to help the environment, transfer our clean coal technology to China!
3) Nuclear is a good option. We desperately need to revitalize our capacity to build nuclear plants. BUT, while nuclear fuel is inexpensive, nuclear plants are very expensive to build and, unlike coal plants, require government subsidies (as do solar and wind follies).
That said, until we scientists can correct the utterly false impressions created by blatant propagandists masquerading as so-called “journalists”, I’ll take nuclear over tilting at wind mills any day.
P.S.) Your “personal responsibility” canard is rooted in the UTTERLY FALSE PREMISE that CO2 represents a threat to ANYBODY! EDUCATE YOURSELF!
sbvor,
You still haven't answered my question. Why is it so difficult?
It'd be nice to have a civilized exchange of comments, but I can only assume that at this time you appear incapable of doing so.
Bru,
Okay, here is your answer:
1) Yes, I believe in individuals taking personal responsibility for their actions.
2) As a scientist, who has spent countless thousands of hours reviewing the peer reviewed literature (as well as the alarmist propaganda), I KNOW that there is absolutely, positively, no need what-so-ever for any of us to take the slightest bit of “personal responsibility” for our “Carbon Footprint”.
In FACT, we can all feel GOOD about the very tiny amount of warming created by those CO2 contributions because, on balance, that TINY bit of warming does more GOOD than harm.
One of MANY reasons we will NEVER reach any mythical “tipping point” is that each additional molecule of CO2 contributes exponentially LESS warming effect than the one which preceded it.
Get a life! Or, at the very least, find a meaningful cause. I suggest you help some private charity to use DDT to save up to 1 MILLION human lives per year (or more).
Hey! Even the WHO now admits that DDT is the very best option for preventing malaria. It has already saved HUNDREDS of millions of human lives. And, it can save hundreds of millions more.
If you are more altruistic than dogmatically, ideologically and counter-productively anti-Capitalist, THAT would be a FAR better place to devote your energies.
Click here to learn more about DDT and malaria.
Post a Comment