Global Warming Deniers' Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Election Day 2008 will be remembered for being a lousy day to be a global warming denier.Nowhere was this more apparent than right here in Virginia:

Jim Gilmore: Told the Virginian-Pilot, "We know the climate is changing, but we do not know for sure how much is caused by man and how much is part of a natural cycle change." Lost by 30 points.

Thelma Drake: Told the Virginian-Pilot, "There is tremendous disagreement about whether climate change is caused by human behavior or other natural forces." Despite final pre-election predictions she'd win by six points, Thelma instead lost by 4 points.

Virgil Goode: Told WSLS-TV global warming is "overly hyped" and holds a strong financial stake in Big Oil. Despite final pre-election predictions he'd win by eight points, Virgil is currently losing by 100 votes.

And look just east to Maryland's 1st Congressional district, which Republican Wayne Gilchrest had represented for 16 years before losing his primary to hardcore conservative Andy Harris. The moderate Gilchrest had cruised to re-election in the slightly red district, getting at least 61 percent of the vote in his last seven races.

But general election voters took one look at Harris' 9 percent lifetime voting record from Environment America record and turned their noses up. Democrat Frank Kratovil is currently beating Harris by just over 900 votes.

And look across the country. In the House, longtime clean energy opponents Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) went down, while Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) narrowly survived a surprisingly close race in a deep red district.

In the Senate, Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), who each only found religion on climate action on their electoral deathbeds, lost their re-election bids. On the other hand, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), a more vigorous supporter of clean energy and climate action, has so far been able to cling to a slim lead in his race against Al Franken.

The bottom line? If you expect to hold public office in America today, you better be on board with clean energy. It's about American jobs, it's about lowering energy bills for consumers, and yes, it's about curbing the worst effects of global warming. If you don't buy in, you better hope you're lucky enough to be in a district as conservative as Michele Bachmann's.

But hey, if you want to roll those dice like Andy Harris did, be my guest. Good luck with that recount, Andy! You'll need it.

The Green Miles Analyzes the Presidential Debate on CleanSkies.TV

The Green Miles was on CleanSkies.TV this morning talking about energy issues in last night's presidential debate. To watch, go to CleanSkies.TV, click on "Energy News Center" and click on "10/8/08 - The Morning Report." I'll write up more thoughts on the debate a little later.

Ask The Green Miles: McCain vs. Obama on the Environment

You can subscribe to my videos here.

Obama Shreds McCain's Drill-and-Burn Energy Plans

What position will help John McCain get elected president today? Well that's the one he'll take. And if the political winds shift tomorrow, he'll shift right along with them.

How else to explain his always-changing positions? McCain used to be for climate action; now his advisers are saying he's against it. McCain used to be against the Bush tax cuts, now he's for them. In fact, Crooks and Liars detailed ten McCain flip-flops in June alone.

Since he has no principled positions to run on, John McCain has created a campaign that would make Karl Rove proud, running ads tying Barack Obama to young blond girls, questioning his patriotism, and trying to link him to terrorists.

So is Obama responding by getting down in the dirt? Nope. He's hitting McCain where it hurts -- on substance:



Check out the campaign's new page, Environmentalists for Obama.

Hillary Was For Easing Our Oil Addiction Before She Was Against It

Barack Obama recently appeared on NBC's Meet the Press and Tim Russert grilled him not on global warming, but on what he could do to artificially lower the price of gas to ensure America stays addicted to oil.

That same morning, Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC's This Week. Did George Stephanopoulos ask her about global warming or green jobs? Nope.

But leave it to a stupid voter to bring it up. I'm sure George was furious. "This is what happens when you let the amateurs ask the questions!"

VOTER QUESTION: I have -- Sen. Clinton, I actually make less than $25,000 a year, so talking about gas prices is not academic for me. I really do feel pain at the pump.

However, I do feel pandered to when you talk about suspending the gas tax. I don't think that it's really a reasonable plan, and call me crazy, but I actually listen to economists, because I think that they know what they studied.

You say that you have both a short- and a long-term plan for our energy consumption. However, since the suspension of the gas tax would encourage continued overconsumption, which could possibly cancel out any price savings and also undermine our efforts to curb global warming, and your long-term plan includes trying to, say, curb global warming, don't you feel that these two plans are in conflict?

CLINTON: No. And let me stand up, because I can see you better from this angle.

You know, actually, I'm glad you asked this question, because I want to make it very clear that we're talking about short-term relief and a long-term plan. And I have a very comprehensive, long-term plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, increase the mileage of our automobiles, and to do it in a way that will push us forward as a leader in the world again, which we have not been, on the issue of global warming. And I invite everyone to go to my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, and read about it.

But if you are driving on average in America this summer, you'll save -- according to Department of Energy figures -- about $70. If you are a long-distance commuter, and a lot of people in Indiana and North Carolina are, if you are a truck driver who depends upon your truck for your living, you're going to save a lot more. In fact, truckers will save about $2 billion in fuel costs.

You see, I really believe we've got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I'm on record as taking on the oil companies. And I think having a good debate, like we're having right now in this campaign, helps to lay the groundwork for what we're going to need to do.

See, in the short term, Hillary Clinton will sell out the environment hoping to score a few votes by pandering on the gas tax, willing to recklessly encourage higher consumption (which is what's driven prices to where they are now).

But in the long term, she'll do the right thing. No selling out the environment or pandering then. Really. Trust her.

If you don't know why cutting the gas tax is a horrible idea on every level, read this Tom Friedman column, it explains it much more clearly and wryly than I could.

Russert to Obama: Why Do You Hate Cheap Gas?

From the tone of Tim Russert's question on Meet the Press last week, you'd think Barack Obama was denying food to starving children:

MR. RUSSERT: Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?

The nerve of that Obama! You know what other jerks are against giving taxpayers in Indiana and North Carolina "relief" (a term once limited to hardcore libertarian propaganda, now a common in the media)? Taxpayers in Indiana and North Carolina.

It may have marked a turning point in America's energy policies. While Hillary Clinton and John McCain have tried to pander to voters by offering them cheap gas, it's backfired. Americans are finally saying they don't want short-term cheap gas -- they want solutions that would take long-term pressure off energy prices, like more fuel efficient cars and American-made renewable energy.

Now that the Indiana and North Carolina primaries are behind us, the media has finally recognized this, crediting Barack Obama's willingness to stand up to Hillary Clinton with his resurgence.

How out of touch was the media on this issue? For sports fans, this is roughly equivalent to, while the winners are celebrating on the pitcher's mound, standing up and confidently predicting the World Series champs.

The Green Miles has been way behind on criticism of media coverage of environmental issues this campaign season. So this week, you get a double dose. Tomorrow, I'll take a look at Hillary Clinton's appearance on ABC's This Week.

Another Primary, Another Month of Media Ignoring Climate Change

The Pennsylvania presidential primary has come and gone, and still the media refuses to talk about global warming.

It's especially puzzling because while the media delights in meaningless "gotchas," George Stephanopoulos passed on a prime chance to "get" presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Back in February, McCain was on ABC's This Week and had this exchange with Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about on the issue of climate change? Because you and Sen. [Joe] Lieberman [I-Conn.] have come out for a bill which would have mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

MCCAIN: Gradual reductions, yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they are mandatory.

MCCAIN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you sticking by that?

MCCAIN: What I mean by that is that it's cap-and-trade, that there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. The Europeans are using it now. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain -- look, if we do that, we stimulate green technologies. I have great faith in the American industry. General Electric, the world's largest corporation, has announced they're dedicated to green technologies. This will be profit-making business.

It won't cost the American taxpayer. It will make profits, because we'll move forward with the innovation and ability of American industry to address this issue.

But now McCain has changed his position. He says he'll only support the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act if massive new subsidies for nuclear power are added. If he sticks by that position, he might as well oppose the bill entirely, because if costly nuclear subsidies are added, many Democrats will vote against the legislation.

So McCain is trying to take credit for supporting climate action, but only with amendments that would be fatal to its passage. Sounds like a prime opportunity for a "gotcha," right?

Nope. McCain was on This Week again on April 20th and climate change didn't even come up.

Time magazine has a more comprehensive look at the politics of climate legislation.

GoGreenMan Hosts Summit Meetings with Presidential Candidates

Over at GoGreenMan, Jonathan interviews the presidential candidates and rates them on their environmental views and kindness to children. His two top-rated candidates? John McCain and Barack Obama - one his party's nominee, the other his party's current front runner. If only CNN had analysts with that kind of skill!

What's More Important, Global Warming or Louis Farrakhan's Endorsement?

Yesterday I wrote on Raising Kaine:

Voters don't care about global warming, so the candidates don't talk about it, so it doesn't come up at the debates.

Right? That's what the Conventional Wisdom is in Washington. And of course, the Conventional Wisdom is never wrong.

But what if it actually works the other way around? Let's try the conventional wisdom backwards. The coal industry sponsors the debates, so global warming doesn't come up. The candidates don't get a chance to talk about it, so it's not on the minds of voters.

There have been five presidential debates on CNN this year, all sponsored by the coal industry. Total number of climate questions asked? Zero. And the Sunday morning talk show hosts aren't doing much better. Sounds like the coal industry is getting what it's paid for.

Will tonight's debate on MSNBC be any different? We'll see.

Did Tim Russert and Brian Williams ask about global warming? Or renewable energy? Or anything even vaguely related to the environment?

No, no, and no. But they were busy talking about other critical issues of national importance, like who Louis Farrakhan endorsed.

So it was up to the candidates to sneak in a few planks from their climate action platforms. From Hillary Clinton:

I helped to pass legislation to begin a training program for green collar jobs. I want to see people throughout Ohio being trained to do the work that will put solar panels on roofs, install wind turbines, do geothermal, take advantage of biofuels, and I know that if we had put $5 billion into the stimulus package to really invest in the training and the tax incentives that would have created those jobs as the Democrats wanted, as I originally proposed, we would be on the way to creating those.

You know, take a country like Germany. They made a big bet on solar power. They have a smaller economy and population than ours.

They've created several hundred thousand new jobs, and these are jobs that can't be outsourced. These are jobs that have to be done in Youngstown, in Dayton, in Cincinnati. These are jobs that we can create here with the right combination of tax incentives, training, and a commitment to following through.

And from Barack Obama:

We have to look at energy and the potential for creating green jobs that can not just save on our energy costs but, more importantly, can create jobs in building windmills that will produce manufacturing jobs here in Ohio, can put rural communities back on their feet by working on alternative fuels, making buildings more energy efficient. We can hire young people who are out of work and put them to work in the trade.

But hey, I shouldn't be too hard on the mainstream media. If they did their jobs and properly covered the environment, why would you need to read The Green Miles? So in that case, thank you, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, for refusing to talk about global warming!