Xblog

Sadly, the link in the ad took me to the homepage for Huckabee’s campaign, rather than to a page talking about his positions on the environment. I did find a link to the newsroom where it he is, <sarcasm> in a manner that in no way is an attempt to hitch on to media coverage about the Nobel Peace Prize </sarcasm>, having a Green Day while campaigning in New Hampshire this weekend. I peaked around on the “Issues” section of his website and noticed nothing on the environment, although there was a section on “Energy Independence”. Now, that doesn’t mean he has poor positions on the environment. It does mean that his campaign doesn’t think his positions on the environment are important, and it appears they are correct.

Huckabee is far from alone though. I checked out all the major contenders for the GOP and the Democrats. I also checked out Ron Paul because it is dangerous to ignore him in the blogosphere. ;-) They all universally have an “Issues” section which provides a quick summary of their candidate’s positions on key issues. Almost none of them had the environment as a top issue. Sure, there was always something about “energy independence”, but that really isn’t the same thing. Arguably, one could significantly improve the US’s “energy independence” by damming up every river in the country, ripping open the earth up in Alaska, pulling out whatever coal remains in the country no matter what shape it is in, and conquering Canada. That won’t get you so much as a Christmas Card from the Sierra Club. I’ll give the Democrat front runners credit for mentioning “global warming”. Hillary gets bonus points for being magnanimous enough to congratulate Al Gore on his Nobel Peace Prize, although she fails to mention the IPCC shared in the kudos.

The one that really stood out was Barack Obama, whose issues page has an entry for energy, and a separate entry for the environment that links to a fairly extensive article on his plans for the environment. It goes beyond talking about climate change to concerns about pollution and conservation (I’m guessing he is pulling for an endorsement from the Sierra Club). A few strikes against him for talking about “global warming” (which I find misleads people about the issue), but as far as I could see his site was the only one that used the term I prefer: “climate change”.

What does this mean? I suspect this means the environment is going to get short shrift in the US for years to come, despite Al Gore’s efforts. You can only go after the candidates so much. The public just isn’t concerned. Obama deserves a lot of credit for having the leadership to push the issue in the face of the public’s indifference.

This one probably ought to be voted down just because it is so insanely long and complex. A general rule of thumb with propositions is that if they are long and complicated, there are undoubtedly going to be some unexpected “gotchas” later on down the line. That said, campaign finance measures are inevitably long and complex, because of all the hijinks that inevitably ensues to get around them, so perhaps proposition 89 proponents can be be given a by on this.

It’s late, and I’m tired, and there is just too much in this one to write about. I could probably spend a few weeks on it (surprisingly, the press has for the most part ignored it). So, I’m going to play it lazy and refer to an article in the LA Times which kind of summarizes my thoughts on the measure.