A president to save the planet?

Colour, gender, age – whichever way it goes, the next US president will be the first. The first commited to tackling climate change. With fresh hope in her heart, Polly Ghazi draws the finer distinctions between the three contenders’ shades of green.

This summer, America’s Democratic and Republican leaders
will anoint their presidential candidates amid showers of recycled paper confetti at their national party conventions. Delegates will be shuttled around in fleets of hybrid cars to halls laid with recycled carpet. Both parties will offset the emissions generated by flying tens of thousands of the party faithful into Denver and Minneapolis.

The eco-emphasis will be fitting. The party conventions will set up the greenest presidential election in US history this November, with both parties’ standard-bearers holding legitimate claims to the mantle of leadership in tackling climate change. After two terms of George W. Bush in the White House, Americans of all hues appear ready for decisive action to shift towards a low-carbon economy and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. And the candidates are responding with ambitious carbon-cutting plans which, until recently, would have spelled political hari-kiri.

“There has been a huge sea change in public attitudes on
the environment in the last couple of years,” says Dan Esty, professor of environmental law and policy at Yale Law School. “Whoever is elected, the next president of the United States will be committed to taking decisive action on climate change. That would have been unimaginable just a short while ago.”

“Whoever is elected, the next president of the US will be committed to taking decisive action on climate change. That would have been unimaginable just a short while ago”

What are the candidates promising? On the Democratic front, even Al Gore could not have hoped for more. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged to reduce US CO2 emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 – in line with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommendations. To get there, both have committed to a
nationwide emissions cap-and-trade system, tougher vehicle mileage standards, and massive federal funding for renewable technologies which they say would create several million “green collar” jobs. Both would sell all emissions permits at commercial auction, requiring polluters to pay out of their pockets if they choose not to upgrade to cleaner equipment.

Specifically, Hillary Clinton proposes a Strategic Energy Fund that would raise $50 billion over ten years by taxing oil companies “excess profits” and cutting their tax breaks, and a powerful National Energy Council to co-ordinate energy policy across government. Obama would plough the revenue from emissions permit auctions into deploying low-carbon technologies, and he has already introduced a Health Care for Hybrids bill in the Senate offering to subsidise carmakers’ employee health care costs in return for their greater investment in delivering fuel-efficient fleets.

Seems like a slam dunk for the eventual Democratic nominee in the ‘who would make best green president' stakes? Not necessarily. John McCain, whose string of victories in the Republican primaries saw him wrap up his party’s nomination in early March, can boast the distinction of being the first Senator to introduce a climate change emissions bill. That was way back in 2003 when a good chunk of Congress still regarded climate change science as a “hoax.” McCain’s environmental voting record in the Senate is much more sporadic than his Democratic rivals, and he has raised the ire of environmentalists in the past by voting to exploit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil. But he has been publicly endorsed as America’s environmental saviour by the popular and eco-trailblazing California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. And the latest version of his Climate Innovation and Stewardship bill would cut emissions by a respectable 65% by 2050, although it would do so in part by expanding nuclear power facilities.

“The reality is that the three candidates’ positions are very close to one another,” says Eileen Claussen, director of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change. “They all believe the US must act and they all favour a cap-and-trade system. Whoever is president will make this a priority very early on in their administration and put their party in Congress on to it. That means that if we don’t get climate change legislation this year, we will certainly get it in 2009.” All three candidates support a global climate agreement, she added, which bodes well for the post Kyoto negotiations, although, cautions Claussen: “I don’t think any of them have given a lot of thought about how to do it.”

“Obama’s political director in Iowa told me the biggest surprise of the campaign trail was the number of questions about global warming"

The new prominence of green issues is found everywhere on the campaign trail. Both Clinton and Obama highlight their job-generating energy plans in every speech and on TV ads. Obama even promotes revenue from the sale of GHG emissions permits as a centrepiece of his plan to bring the US out of recession. “Obama’s political director in Iowa told me the biggest surprise of the campaign trail was the number of questions about global warming,” reports David Sandretti, communications director for the League of Conservation Voters, an independent NGO. “Whether they were in a college town or the farm belt and with old, young, black or white voters, it always came up.”

A call to actionMcCain has to be more careful with his constituency, which includes a sizeable chunk of conservatives who still see climate change mitigation as a liberal fad and economy dampener. On the other hand, polls show growing consensus for action across party lines. An April 2007 survey from Opinion Research Corporation found that 78% of Republicans, 92% of Democrats, and 73% of independents supported “a national energy strategy based on phasing in new technologies and phasing out carbon-based energy sources.” Large majorities also backed a 40mpg federal fuel efficiency standard and taxpayers’ investment in wind and solar technologies.

Both McCain and his eventual Democratic opponent will also be helped in promoting radical energy agendas by the newly co-operative stance of most US big business. The CEOs of Wal-Mart, General Electric, Dupont, Alcoa, Pacific Gas and Electric and dozens of lesser known companies have made clear their desire for federal action to replace the patchwork of state-level cap-and-trade regulations with a federal standard. “The companies we work with want a bill passed by Congress as soon as possible,” says Eileen Claussen, whose organisation co-ordinates the 41-member Business Environment Leadership Council. “We have developed acceptable ranges on emissions caps which we are trying to make more specific so that, as a business group, we can advise Congress and the White House.”

In the end, for environmentally minded citizens, especially among independents who make up about a fifth of American voters, choosing a candidate may come down less to policy than to personality. And to whom they judge to have the best tactical strengths. Which of the three will be most effective at getting a green agenda past the opposition of diehard Republicans in Congress, and the resistance of America’s most polluting industries?

Here again there is no easy answer. McCain can argue that he’s the one best able to bring moderate Republicans on board, and thus create an unstoppable majority for climate legislation in a Congress that is almost certain to remain Democrat-controlled (all House of Representatives seats and a third of the Senate are up for re-election in November). Hillary Clinton points to her White House experience as a valuable road test in how to get things done in Washington. Dan Esty, a declared Obama supporter, points to his candidate’s proven appeal to independent voters and his record of getting bipartisan legislation through the Illinois Senate. “You can’t push legislation of this significance through Congress without getting 60-70% of members behind you and Barack Obama stands head and shoulders above the other candidates in achieving that kind of consensus,” he declares.

Whoever wins the White House, the waiting world can give a sigh of relief that its new incumbent will at last get to grips with one of the greatest threats to global security and prosperity.

The influencers
Party cheerleaders… Both parties have impressive green cheerleaders to line up behind their candidates. Former vice president Al Gore has held back from endorsing either Clinton or Obama, but will go on the stump for the eventual nominee. His new status as Nobel Prize-winner and international eco-saint may help to steer independents (who rank energy and climate policy among their top concerns) to the Democratic fold.

On the Republican side, two highly popular governors with progressive environmental policies, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida, endorsed McCain in January at a high-profile appearance in front of an array of solar panels. Their campaign presence in key states will help muddy the waters as to which party offers more to the green voter.

On the other hand, some Republican leaders and much of their conservative base remain sceptical of the scientific consensus on climate change. None of his primary opponents really went for McCain on his carbon cap plans. If such arch deniers as senator James Imhofe or talk show host Rush Limbaugh decide to use their platforms and megaphones to ‘out’ McCain on the issue with conservative voters already troubled by his liberal stance on immigration, it might help depress Republican turnout. And that could swing the election.

Not Nader again Veteran consumer crusader Ralph Nader’s decision to enter the presidential race as an independent candidate is unlikely to influence many green-minded voters. His best-known environmental campaigns – for clean water and energy efficiency and against nuclear power – are far in the past and his presidential platform centres on the shaky economy, the war in Iraq and claims that both major parties are “too close to big business”. When Nader stood in 2000 (as a Green Party candidate) many felt he could have cost Al Gore victory, but last time out in 2004 (as an independent) he polled only a derisory 0.3% of the national vote.

States…While the White House and Congress have repeatedly failed to pass legislation that would cap US greenhouse gas emissions, America’s state governments have quietly taken action. By February 2008, 23 states were taking part in, or designing, regional emissions cap-and-trade programmes.

This trend has not only enabled the road testing of schemes that could be built on nationwide. It has also laid the groundwork for public (and voter) acceptance of transition to a low-carbon economy.Who is greenest? Where they stand...
Clinton:
…on carbon cutsMandatory cap-and-trade policy with 100% auction of permits to polluters; 80% cut in 1990 US emissions levels by 2050.

…on fuel efficiency40mpg fleet-wide standard by 2020.

…on renewables25% of US energy supply by 2025.

…on nuclear powerOpposes new subsidies; “agnostic” on role in combating climate change.

---

Obama:
…on carbon cutsMandatory cap-and-trade policy with 100% auction of permits; 80% cut in 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

…on fuel efficiency52mpg fleet-wide standard by 2026.

…on renewables25% of US energy supply by 2025.

…on nuclear powerHas said nuclear power expansion is not a good energy option, due to safety and cost issues.

---

McCain:
…on carbon cutsLead author of bill to cut 2004 emissions levels by 65% by 2050; proposes mandatory cap, but does not specify how permits will be allocated.

…on fuel efficiencySupports in principle; no target pledged.

…on renewablesOpposed 10% renewable standard in 2005; no target commitment.

…on nuclear powerFervent supporter; would boost federal subsidies.

---

Sources: League of Conservation Voters; www.grist.org

Polly Ghazi is US correspondent for Green Futures.

23 April 2008

Polly Ghazi

Add new comment