James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist and communications consultant based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
Dear Massachusetts voters:
If for some reason you haven't yet decided who should get your vote in today's Senate election, consider this little piece of information about Republican candidate Scott Brown, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
Brown typically skips climate change and global warming when discussing the environment; he sees the emissions debate as an economic one, spokesman Felix Browne said. On his website, under "Energy and Environment,'' Brown supports an array of domestic alternatives to foreign oil - including wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric - but does not mention climate change.
And contrast with Democrat candidate Martha Coakley:
"We should have started yesterday on this problem, and every day we wait we're going to be behind the battle on it,'' said Coakley. "I think it's really important that elected officials and the scientists who know that this is a problem continue to keep it front and center and keep pressure on Congress to make changes.''
Environment
Politics
Comments
So Brown is actually focusing on the solutions rather than blathering on about how some unresponsive political body needs to "do something!"
Well, that makes my vote clear. Oh, wait, I live in California. ;-) Never mind.
See how ideology can muck up your POV? Do you really find Coakley more compelling, or is it just that she's a pure Democrat and Brown is teh evul Repulican?
Posted by: Van Rijn | January 19, 2010 10:58 AM
Refusal to acknowledge a problem means that he doesn't see those options as "solutions" - there's nothing to solve, as he presents it.
In a more general sense, all the clean energy development in the world isn't going to make enough of a difference if it isn't coupled with decarbonization. (Notice how the emphasis is always on foreign oil, instead of alternatives to oil altogether? And how "clean coal" is frequently part of the platform?) However, the only serious reason to decarbonize altogether is climate change (peak oil is reason to get off oil but doesn't present as pressing a case for coal) - and if you don't acknowlege the problem, you aren't capable of addressing a solution.
I say this as a Canadian with no interest in the Mass. vote except insofar as it influences the US' action on climate change. Passing a strong externality-correction bill that places a price on carbon is critical, not just domestically but internationally as well (as Copenhagen made clear, the world's waiting for leadership; as my own nation's leadership is essentially a stick up a neoconservative's oily ass, the best I can hope for is leadership from the US. Unless you want to give that competitive advantage to China).
Posted by: Brian D | January 19, 2010 12:42 PM
The voters of Massachusetts didn't seem to share your concern, James. Looks like a five point loss in the bluest of blue states. Whatever can they be thinking?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | January 19, 2010 9:45 PM
Coakley's loss of a Senate seat that had been held by Democrats since 1952 was largely a referendum on the popularity of the Democrat's national policies including health care reform, the economy and national security.
When the people of Massachusetts, the deepest blue state in the union, reject the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the Democrats should sit up straight and take notice.
I suspect they will think long and hard before pitching a cap and trade bill in the Senate that will have no economic upside for the majority of Americans and will impose massive taxes and restrictions on the US energy economy.
I heard many breathless appeals by the left in reference to Brown's "reckless climate policy". This clearly didn't resonate with the majority of voters in a state that is clearly to the left of every other state in the union.
Good luck selling carbon mitigation to the people of middle America in the midst of the deepest economic downturn since the great depression.
Posted by: Lance | January 20, 2010 7:50 AM
The Independents have spoken. It's a libtard beat down.
Posted by: Mary Joe | January 20, 2010 10:19 AM
The problem is mostly that the democrats thought they couldn't lose the seat, and didn't wake up to the fact that Coakley was in danger until the last minute.
Posted by: dhogaza | January 20, 2010 2:21 PM
Here's a poll showing that support for Obama is tanking.
But check out these specific questions.
The ire seems pointed at TARP and the auto company bailouts rather than cap and trade, health care reform, or stimulus spending ...
There's still strong support for some form of controlling CO2 emissions to limit AGW, up to 70% in some polls. Of course oil and coal interests are spending heavily to ensure that at least 40 senators will oppose anything meaningful...
Posted by: dhogaza | January 20, 2010 2:27 PM
Yeah, people are just all excited about the cap and trade bill. That's why climate change comes in damn near the bottom of every poll that asks people about their priorities.
Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Dec. 3-7, 2009. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
.
"Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now: [see below]?" Options rotated
.
%
The economy
48
Health care
20
The federal budget deficit
16
The war in Afghanistan
10
Climate change
3
Other (vol.)
1
Unsure
2
Oh look climate change came in (barely) ahead of "other" and "unsure".
You really do live in a fantasy world dhogaza.
Posted by: Lance | January 20, 2010 9:05 PM