Tony Leiserowitz, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication:
..Will candidates for political office benefit or be harmed by talking about and supporting action to reduce global warming?
The short answer is that – at the national level and among ten key swing states – taking a pro-climate stand appears to benefit candidates more than hurt them with registered voters. Of course, the political dynamics in any given district may be an exception to this pattern, but it is important to note that the pattern is similar at both the national and swing-state scales.
A few highlights:
· A majority of all registered voters (55%) say they will consider candidates’ views on global warming when deciding how to vote.
· Among these climate change issue voters, large majorities believe global warming is happening and support action by the U.S. to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.
· Independents lean toward “climate action” and look more like Democrats than Republicans on the issue.
· A pro-climate action position wins votes among Democrats and Independents, and has little negative impact with Republican voters.
· Policies to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and promote renewable energy are favored by a majority of registered voters across party lines.
· These patterns are found nationally and among ten swing states
By mutual agreement, climate will not be discussed by Obama or Romney. This rule was agreed to in 2008 by Obama and McCain (and in 2004 by Bush and Kerry) and it’s still the policy today and will be into the foreseeable future.
Instead of climate, here’s the headline out of Iowa:
OBAMA: ‘WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS A GOOD PORK POLICY!’
http://tinyurl.com/9cwhhzx
Obama will discuss climate. His “volume” is TBD. 🙂
Are they stocking Silos already?
The USDA stopped stocking silos about 15 years ago. It was determined that the market was better at regulating the food supply rather than government warehouses designed to tame market swings.
I’m still trying to sort out the politics on buying up pork, chicken and lamb. To me this is counter-intuitive as a public policy. I’d much rather see the President declare the ethanol fuel mandate null and void until the grain supply returns to normal. Or, even more intelligently, we’d stop wasting corn on fuel for SUVs getting ridiculously low miles per bushel permanently.
I’d add reason #1: it’s the most critical issue that humanity faces!
Economics, not politics, will force the issue. When wind, solar, and geothermal become cheaper – much cheaper – than fossil fuels, fossil fuels go away.
Take Coal for example:
Obama embraces “Clean Coal”:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/06/obama-embraces-clean-coal-in-ohio-radio-ad/
Romney Attacks Obama as waging a “War on Coal” for using the word Clean:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hnaXd8OHtJGYxbiwbfYQbxmwkSHA?docId=CNG.d1448e83ee1487fedd890a513b63af03.211
The truth? Koch funded fracking (oh, that’s why Muller converted) and hot winters have made natural gas so cheap that coal can’t compete.
Oh that is soooo cynical….and to tell the truth,that’s exactly what I have been thinking 🙁
Good News:
Solar, wind and geothermal are moving from green washing window dressing to being actual players.
Bad News:
Now the game gets real. See Peter’s earlier post:
Windbaggers Stoop to New Low. Death Threats to Wind Worker.
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/05/windbaggers-stoop-to-new-low-death-threats-to-wind-worker/
The battle in “The battle of our lives” is no longer figurative.
My nice rail-to-trails bike path rolls by the former Homestead Works in Pittsburgh. My grandfather was a subsistence steelworker. As a 4 yr. old, I ate rationed government cheese during the great Steelworker strike. These guys play for keeps.
NPR’s Fresh Air featured a segment today with Michael Lemonick of Climate Central on his new book, “Global Weirdness”.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/14/158756024/climate-weirdness-throws-ecosystems-out-of-kilter
Here’s a link to the book: http://tinyurl.com/c8nsvy2