Environment Not On The Radar In Presidential Race
So, as I reviewed my blog entry on the domestic reception towards Al Gore winning a Nobel Peace Prize, I noticed an AdSense ad for Mike Huckabee and his position on the environment. Huckabee is kind of the guy in the GOP race that doesn’t get a lot of attention, but whenever you hear someone talk about him, they always seem to have nice things to say. So, I figured I should check out what his positions were on the environment.
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.
Way To Go Al
Apple’s home page reflects the attitude I’d expected to see throughout the country upon the news that Al Gore, along with the IPCC, had won the Nobel Peace Prize. In case the page is gone by the time you check out this blog, here’s a link to the image. It reads: “Al has put his heart and soul, and much of his life during the past several years, into alerting and education us all on the climate crisis. We are bursting with pride for Al and this historic recognition of his global contributions.”
One of the preconditions for a country to be great is that it must forgo pettiness and embrace its moments of greatness. So surely, Apple’s home page is a reflection of the broader reaction across the country… right?
Of course not.
Instead of seeing universal national pride, I saw, as Der Spiegel did, that even one of America’s countrymen winning the Noble Peace Prize couldn’t unite the country in universal pride. Instead, political hacks, bloggers (typically conservatives), news services (particularly those owned by Rupert Murdock for some strange reason ;-), spent the day taking a swing at Al Gore, his apparently only recent interest in the environment (hello?, this is the guy whose pro-environment track record was so extensive that he was attacked on it by Bush Sr. during the ‘92 presidential campaign), his movie, the Nobel Peace Prize, the motives of the selection committee, liberalism, the stupidity of the rest of the world, and even Jimmy Carter (for the crime of having won the prize in 2002).
You know what guys? Just like anyone, he has his flaws. His words can easily be picked apart and fault found, just like anyone else’s. Like the work of any advocate, his actions are not always perfectly in harmony with his advocacy. That’s a conversation for another day. Can’t we, for just one day, collectively share pride in the fantastic recognition for the achievements of one of our countrymen? Do you realize how foolish and pathetic you look to the rest of the world?
Come now Al, Tell Us How You Really Feel
Al Gore is up in Canada promoting his film about… global warming. Oddly enough, the conservative government just released a plan on how they are going to address global climate change and totally fail to meet their Kyoto treaty obligations. So, he thought he ought to voice his opinion. I think he doesn’t like it much. ;-)
I gotta say, the weirdest thing for me about visiting Canada was just how different the whole debate about the environment is outside of the US. The facts on the ground are different, the priority is different, the news is different, etc. It is a testament to the power of whoever influences the debate in the US that the story can be so different.
To understand just how different the context is, think about all that Canada has in common with the US: Canada has soldiers deployed overseas largely in response to 9/11 (Canadian forces are in Afghanistan, US is sadly primarily focused on Iraq), concerns about globalization and the impact of that on the economy and the job market, you’ve got debates about diversity and minorities, government scandal, etc.
Despite all this, in Canada the top political issue, and the one that put the current government in jeopardy almost as quickly as they took office, is the environment, with global climate change being the focus of discussion. The debate isn’t whether “it is real” or whether we should do anything about it, the debate is about what is “enough”. Seriously.