Summing It All Up: The Candidates on Climate

Here are excerpts from a piece just posted on the New York Times today about the candidates and climate change:

Both candidates say that human-caused climate change is real and urgent, and that they would sharply divert from President Bush’s course by proposing legislation requiring sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury.

and

But quick progress could be held hostage to the financial crisis and the prospect of a worldwide recession. The economic turmoil could force the next president to delay legislation that imposes major new costs on struggling businesses or raises energy prices for consumers.

NYT also has a summary page comparing and contrasting the candidates on climate that is worth a look.

This ongoing economy-cleanup is fascinating. It certainly dominates the news cycle. I don't think anybody (including yours truly) really knows if and how it is going to divert attention next year from the issues that people were worrying about before the Dow took that big first plunge just a few weeks ago.

---
Robert J. Kaminski
M.S., Public Policy and Management - 2009
Managing Editor, Heinz School Review

Energy as 1st...2nd, and 3rd priority?

Perhaps I was too hasty in sounding the death knell for all things environmental in the Presidential campaigns (painting a picture with such broad brush strokes so as to include both energy and climate change).

While climate change is certainly still alive and well in our nation's capital (Congress is full of busy bees), I do stand by my assertion that it has been superseded in the campaigns by more pressing, Joe Six-Pack issues.

Climate change certainly did not receive as much attention in the debate last night as in the Vice-Presidential debate. Per CSPAN's transcript crawler, it was mentioned only once by both Sens. McCain and Obama. You can imagine my chagrin, then, when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to rank-order three pressing issues facing the next president (energy, healthcare and entitlement) -- see clip below.

Courtesy of CSPAN, click to play


To add credence to claims of issue prioritization (at least in the rhetorical realm), CSPAN came up with a nice graphical representation of most commonly uttered words in the debate:

Courtesy of CSPAN, click to enlarge


Sen. Obama said "energy" almost as many times as Sen. McCain said "[my] friends", told Tom Brokaw that energy was the #1 priority (Sen. McCain said all three were equally important and can be solved at the same time), so I guess this means we're back in the game --- in as much as the candidates say things to make us happy.

---
Robert J. Kaminski
M.S., Public Policy and Management - 2009
Managing Editor, Heinz School Review

In Response: Did the Economy Kill Climate Change?

In response to the posting on "did the economy kill climate change," I posit that the economy has risen to an important status in the minds of many Americans but has not killed or even slowed the issue. The presidential debate last night shifted more toward economic matters with only one question asked by an audience member on the environment. Other side commentary by the candidates did focus on our "energy independence" and need for alternative fuels.

The reason that I suggest that the economy has not "trumped" climate change follows along a few lines of reasoning. As a former political scientist, public opinion polls always show the "economy" as one of the most important issues being on the minds of many Americans. At both the state and national level - unemployment, taxes, and a whole grouping of other issues that make up the "economy" usually ranks far above any other issue. I do grant the fact that is has risen in importance, but it will always be one of the most important issues.

My second line of reasoning follows along the lines that the environment in general and climate change in particular will always be very important issues that do not garner much attention in opinion polls. As an example, the 1994 congressional elections brought a sweeping change to the politics in Washington. As Republicans in Congress started pushing against and trying to undo the golden era environmental laws of the 1960s, the public cried out against them. Republicans soon learned their lesson that even though public opinion on the environment was a lower ranked issue, they could not start tearing down old protections.

Finally, and most importantly, many agencies in Washington are planning climate change strategies as we speak. Unfortunately, they are limited in their ability to act on any initiatitives because of the current administration, but they are on their seats waiting for January 20th to roll around. These agencies are well aware of the issues and will be taking the initiative when new leadership enters Washington.

Jason R. Bossie
H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management
President, Heinz Environmental Policy Group

Did the economy kill the climate issue?

Specifically, did the slow-down/recession, economic crisis/collapse/crash/meltdown, and the resulting bailout/rescue/restructuring kill climate change and energy as relevant policy issues?

In terms of Presidential campaigning, I am inclined to say "yes."

Gone is the gas tax holiday pandering from the primary season. This preceded the largest run-up in oil prices in history (see charting below) and the largest run-up in energy/climate rhetoric in the Congress as well as on the campaign trail.

However, it seems that events in the finance community from the past month and impending economic doom (see charting below) have distracted Presidential voters and Congressional constituents (not mutually exclusive) from the slow burn (pun intended) of climate change. Recent polling on national problems/priorities has economic issues trumping all others by significant margins.

Nine-month NYMEX crude oil charting (from the Financial Times) overlaid with economic and political events (click to enlarge):


With the election less than a month away, the 110th Congress adjourning soon-thereafter, and equities markets in steep decline, have we heard about all we're going to hear about climate? When President McCain/Obama arrives at the White House in January and Vice President Palin/Biden swears in the 111th Congress, will climate change get a renewed chance or will they still be cleaning up the markets?

---
Robert J. Kaminski
M.S., Public Policy and Management - 2009
Managing Editor, Heinz School Review

How Clean is "Clean Coal"?

I frequently hear the candidates pushing clean coal technology as part of their energy platforms.

The cynic in me has questioning:

1) How clean is this technology really?

2) What is the economic viability of large-scale adoption of this technology?

3)How long will it take before every coal-fired power plant is retro fitted with this technology?

The candidates often group clean coal in the same category as renewable energy. I would be interested in hearing the panelists flush out this idea of clean coal technology and whether or not it should be a priority for the next president.