CBS gets Republicans on the record on global warming

December 11, 2007 – 11:39 am

CBS News has been running an interesting series called "Primary Questions." They ask the candidates a variety of policy and personal questions. Sometimes this format seems closer to what we’d like from a debate in terms of clarifying policy differences. However, it doesn’t always result in the nice contrasting sound-bites that you might otherwise get.

  Giuliani Huckabee McCain Romney Thompson
Human caused yes yes? yes yes maybe 
Cap-and-trade   yes yes    
Nuclear yes   yes  yes  
Must solve globally       yes

Tonight, the candidates are answering the question: "Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?" I have discussed the real-world politics (what real people actually think) and some of the beltway politics of the issue. It is clear in New Hampshire, at least, that Republicans think that global warming is an issue that the government must act on, even if it is one that is a low-priority for primary voters.

In the end,  as I have said, I think that this is an issue that is more important as a credibility issue than a ballot issue. Very few people are going to vote on the specifics of plans on global warming. But people, including Republicans, are increasingly seeing this as an issue that candidates need to have a credible position on to be a credible candidate. Anecdotally, it seems clear to me that this is something that is important to a number of Evangelical and Catholic groups.

I have summarized the responses in a table. I think it is revealing.

The main proposal on the table is cap-and-trade. Greg Mankiw, a Romney economic advisor and a former Bush Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors has a very cogent criticism of cap-and-trade, but calls for carbon taxes instead.  The quotes from the candidates are after the jump. Read More »

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Is red the new green?

October 26, 2007 – 12:48 pm

Monday night, I am going to the book Launch for the latest Newt Gingrich book. A Contract with the Earth. I think this is a big deal. Once Newt takes a position, it becomes part of the mainstream in the GOP. Not in the sense that people will start to agree with you. But instead that it becomes hard for people to belittle you, like my friend Rob Bluey does on global warming. I have argued that our current position on global warming may be politically unsustainable. When business goes green, the churches go green, and Newt goes green, I am beginning to see a movement.

Next week, I will be flying to-and-from Ottawa, Canada. Hopefully, I can read this and have a review up.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Global warming and the GOP

October 12, 2007 – 9:14 am

I woke up this morning, and started checking my email. The first hint was a message from a Polish friend in Brussels. Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize. My friend now thinks that Al Gore has a lock on the primary and general now. I responded that that was an over-reaction. But what is going to happen?

I don’t understand Democratic primary voters well enough to know what would happen in their primary. Basically, everyone would have to fold for him to have a chance, I would assume. But I don’t know.

I also wonder about the GOP primary. Will this create a backlash against the candidates who think that we need to do something about global warming, namely John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback?

On a broader level, I wonder where this issue is going in the national electorate. A bunch of consultants and think-tankers point out that no one really votes on global warming. But we are in a politics of narrative, not a politics of fact. The narrative that global warming denying gives us is that we are out of touch. It is another talking point in a long list that the Democrats have. When 60+% think that we are in a recession and Republican candidates talk about everything being rosy, something seems strange. When our electeds deny global warming, but 80% of NH Republicans say they would raise taxes to address the problem, something seems strange.

Last night I had coffee with my uncle. He is one of the founders of the What Would Jesus Drive movement. Today the National Association for Evangelicals — my uncle is the co-chair of their policy committee –, Bread for the World, the Micah Challenge, and a number of evangelical and mainline groups are meeting in DC to talk about a number of issues, but first on the agenda? Global warming. (Second is "torture" by the way) One of the most important swing votes right now is moderate evangelicals. And this issue (these issues? I might even throw in immigration for a trifecta) is moving on us. We need to start addressing it.

Back to my friends in Europe for a second. In February, I attended, representing the GOP, a conference of young leaders of center-right parties from around the world. All the Europeans said that this issue creeps up on you. That it is not a ballot issue, but a credibility issue. That taking a measured position had become no longer politically viable for them. The Aussies (the Liberal Party), the Canadians (the Conservative Party of Canada) and the Republicans, all said, "no no no…"

Since then the Australian Liberals and the Canadian Conservatives have switched positions, leaving the Republicans the only remaining major center-right party in the world that has not moved on this issue.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (6)

Green-on-green violence

October 11, 2007 – 9:04 am

But what if you are worried about global warming and like furry animals? Too bad, eat yer Kangaroo:

MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.

The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.

Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas from flatulent cattle and sheep.

PETA is not going to be happy….

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (1)

The environment among conservatives?

September 25, 2007 – 8:42 am

Last week, I criticized my friend Robert Bluey’s reading of Michael Gerson’s position on immigration. My criticism was, on a broader level, that the conservative movement has very little capacity to understand conservatives who disagree with it on principal. More specifically, when deeply held beliefs begin to come into conflict with the increasingly interest group driven conservative movement agenda, the conservative movement struggles. This is, of course, where constituencies are gained and lost.

So what will happen with the environment? The Catholic Church is taking a strong position on global warming, H/T Andrew Sullivan:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following.

Will this have any impact on the conservative movement? Will this have any impact on Catholic voters in the US? (In Rob’s case, almost certainly not. But he didn’t care what his church said about immigration either) Is this growing disconnect going to matter?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Carbon tax versus cap-and-trade

August 2, 2007 – 10:37 am

Normally, I don’t go so policy-oriented on people, but I think that there is an important point to be made here. Today Energy and Commerce  Committee Chairman John Dingell wrote:

A carbon tax or fee has been endorsed by President Bush’s former chief economic adviser, Greg Mankiw; Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Gary Becker; the chief executive of the largest U.S. auto-dealer chain, Mike Jackson; and several environmental organizations. From Alan Greenspan to Greenpeace, many recognize its utility. …

I don’t expect to overcome ideological Republican opposition to all forms of taxation, but if CEOs, economists, environmentalists and citizens speak out, we could effect real change. I don’t pretend to speak for my party on this; I’m trying to speak to common sense and experience.

While I don’t want to agree with John Dingell on anything but Greg Mankiw makes an important point:

Economists recognize that a cap-and-trade system is equivalent to a tax on carbon emissions with the tax revenue rebated to existing carbon emitters, such as energy companies. That is,

Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare.

If the public understood this theorem, the carbon tax alternative, with revenues rebated to households through lower payroll or income taxes, would attract a lot more interest.

In many ways, cap-and-trade is a policy-equivalent of sending tariffs to struggling businesses, something Democrats love. In addition, there is something deeply arbitrary about cap-and-trade. Right now, 5 EU member states are suing the EU because the caps are arbitrary:

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia have all started legal action against pollution quotas imposed by the European Commission. The arguments they use are similar to those made by China and other emerging markets: that the strict limits will hurt their economic growth.

It seems to me that if you believe that environmental regulation is necessary, the least market distorting is a carbon tax. Now many (but perhaps not most) conservatives and Republicans will disagree with the if clause in that statement. But, surely legislation is coming on this in the next Congress, especially with a Democrat president. Surely we need a position that makes sense before then? And an idea like replacing a corporate tax with a carbon tax could get some Republican support?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

McCain foregrounds global warming

May 13, 2007 – 8:52 am

This is the sort of thing that the conservative blogosphere won’t understand. John McCain is foregrounding his support for global warming. Today, Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from neighboring Maine, penned a piece for the Portsmouth Herald on global warming, praising McCain.  Check this out:

McCain partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003. Although congressional leadership was not focused on climate change, through sheer force of will, McCain forced a vote on the measure. While it narrowly failed, he reintroduced the legislation in 2005 and again forced it to a vote.

Sens. McCain and Lieberman introduced an even stronger version of the legislation earlier this year. After traveling with McCain to Antarctica and seeing the mounting scientific evidence regarding the seriousness of climate change, I joined as a cosponsor of this important bill. This legislation employs economically sound measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to year 1990 levels by 2020. It would then lower that cap gradually and reduce emissions by 67 percent by 2050.

Now, this was clearly placed here by the McCain campaign. It even addresses his energy and age in the 2nd graf. Several theories. First, this could be done to help attract independents in a state that is quite green. Second, this might actually be a good issue with Republicans. As I have noted before, concern for global warming polls quite high among Republicans in New Hampshire.

This is extraordinary.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Global warming and the GOP

April 1, 2007 – 8:55 am

This post emerges from some a number of sources including some recent polls and articles that I will reference, some discussions with conservatives in other countries, and Rob Bluey’s recent blogger lunch on the topic.

Let me start with a summary of where the GOP candidates are on the issue.

As many know, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are clear proponents of the position that global warming is happening and caused by human activity. Of the second tier candidates, you have Mike Huckabee who is probably to the left of McCain and Giuliani.  Sam Brownback is also on the side of taking action to address global warming.

As usual, Mitt Romney is  straddling the fence of the issue, (list of quotes here) although his recent position suggests that he will be willing to cooperate with people in the party who are opposed to interventions. Although in his recent interview on Kudlow, he responds to a question about taxes and caps by only answering the tax question

And Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are on the record as more skeptical, although I have heard that Thompson is closer to McCain. But I can’t find it.

So, the top tier of candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney) is split, with Thompson being the only real skeptic. And much of the serious 2nd tier is with or to the left of McCain and Giuliani. (more on this in a second)

Now, let me point to two other things. First, the Concord Monitor recently said:

In November and December, the Mellman Group surveyed likely Republican and Democratic voters, 400 of each, for two climate awareness groups: Clear the Air and the New Hampshire-based Clean Air-Cool Planet. Seventy percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats called global warming a serious threat, though smaller majorities in both parties said they believed it was a human byproduct. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans said the United States should take action now to reduce emissions.

As of yesterday, 143 New Hampshire communities had approved language calling on Washington to take action to slow U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Eight towns had rejected it and at least 25 have yet to vote.

The Boston Globe’s Primary Source has more on the poll and the NYT has more on the New Hampshire towns. (a LOT of them are Republican towns)

Now some analysis. First, it is highly unlikely that this is a vote-moving issue for Republican primary voters. If it is really that important to a voter, the voter is probably a Democrat. However, this may be an issue that independents might cross-over on. Second, if anyone does, those votes are probably already going to McCain or Giuliani, so there may not be much incentive for other candidates to take strong positions in favor of some sort of government response.

However, as McCain’s town hall speech above indicates, this issue may have a different sort of traction in Iowa, where talking global warming is a way of talking about ethanol and corn subsidies. The combination of a subsidy hungry Iowa and a green New Hampshire may make a more green position. Furthermore, the (phony?) issue of oil independence gives another pressure and excuse to move to the middle. Also recent statements by the Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals may provide some cover, although the statements by Dobson show that there will be pushback. (incidentally, I still don’t know what it means that the candidates filling the Christian conservative space are with the religious groups but not the conservative groups on this issue. It reminds me of immigration)

Another issue that McCain brought up is nuclear energy. In the UK, the Labour party has used nuclear as a way to square the circle of lower emissions and more energy. However, the presence of Nevada in the early primary calendar, along with a Senate Majority Leader from that state, makes it highly unlikely that the Dems are going to be moving much.

In conclusion, the front runners on the GOP side seem to be open to the idea of government intervention on the issue of global warming. This may move the party to the middle on the issue. At the same time time, the Dems are probably stuck with an anti-nuclear position until some alternative to Yucca Mountain emerges.

Tags: , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (3)