| Former Vice President Al Gore may have made global warming a household term, but this year’s tactical mistakes by the green army may have set the cause back just when it seemed to be on the brink of a legislative breakthrough. While pushing for sharp emission reductions, a number of environmental groups failed to adapt their pitch to acknowledge rising energy costs, experts say, leaving voters to believe that saving the planet will mean unaffordable energy prices.
The Senate’s Climate Security Act — sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), John Warner (R-Va.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) — called for quick emission reductions that would have raised energy costs significantly for Americans. A handful of well-advertised studies by the business community painted the legislation as an economic apocalypse.
But Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups were pushing lawmakers to go even further to prevent irreversible environmental damage.
In a year when gasoline soared past $4 per gallon, the green message triggered populist anger and eventually drove away a core group of moderate and conservative Democrats.
When the legislation came to the Senate floor, 10 conservative Democratic senators who voted to debate the bill also vowed to oppose it later — even after it had been sweetened with billions of dollars in last-minute public energy assistance.
The group included Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who said he plans to offer his own legislation next year. He told Politico that environmentalists will be forced to compromise next year and support the development of clean coal, nuclear power and other alternative fuels.
“We need to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on environmental efficiencies as part of that plan,” Webb said. “We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.”
Polls show that the public clearly sees global warming and high energy prices as separate issues, rather than one overall problem. Now more Americans than ever are urging politicians to solve the skyrocketing gas prices before finding a solution to climbing temperatures. And while support for offshore oil drilling has reached a record high, solving global warming is low on the list of voter priorities.
In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, global warming ranked seventh in a list of eight top voter priorities, behind the economy and energy at the top, and also following the war in Iraq, health care, terrorism and illegal immigration. It was ahead of only housing.
“There was not enough emphasis that if we move aggressively toward sustainable energy, we will transform our energy costs,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who said he plans to offer his own global warming bill next year. “We were not as clear as we might have been.”
Still, Democrats who backed the legislation remain supportive of the greens’ agenda.
“I’m not discouraged at all,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.). “The environmental community understands that we have to have a starting point. The next bill should be modified with the greens but also with those in the business community.” Boxer said environmental groups would continue to play a vital role in next year’s debate. “The vast majority of green groups support the targets that are necessary to avoid the most dangerous impact of global warming,” she said.
Greens deny that their policy push overlooked the energy crisis but acknowledge a public perception problem.
“The solution for us next year is connecting gas prices and global warming. We have to show voters that the solution to gas prices and the solution to global warming is the same,” said Greenpeace global warming expert Kate Smolski. “What’s been lost on decision makers is that the cost of inaction will far exceed any costs of dealing with the problem now.”
It’s a balancing act that plenty of others saw coming.
“You cannot have a system that emphasizes pain,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), whose American Solutions group opposed the global warming bill. “It is elitist. You’d have to be so wealthy you don’t notice the cost or so dedicated that the cost is irrelevant.”
A study by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity found that energy costs are disproportionally affecting lower and middle class minority families.
Sierra Club global warming lobbyist Dave Hamilton said the environmental community was partly a victim of timing. Despite efforts to educate the grass roots about the relationship between global warming and energy prices, news of the added energy assistance funding came too late and failed to resonate with key voting blocs.
“The problems with energy prices have really happened in the last few months,” he said. “We somehow failed in making that a priority, and I think we have a huge amount [of work] to do on energy policy.”
Environmentalists say Americans want immediate action on global warming but don’t want to pay for it. A recent study by the Commission to Engage African Americans on Climate Change showed that a large majority of Americans wanted serious government action on climate change but that only 14 percent were willing to pay more than $50 a month to help the cause.
“You cannot drive home environmental legislation without considering the cost on the economy,” said National Association of Manufacturers lobbyist Keith McCoy. “That message was already universally unacceptable.”
Leading policymakers suspect greens will continue to face hurdles if energy costs stay high.
“They’re defeating themselves and hurting all of us on an issue that hurts all of us,” said former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who was instrumental in implementing the Clean Air Act. “The trouble comes when people try to attribute everything to global warming. Then the public gets skeptical about the claims.”
Avi Zenilman contributed to this story. | 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment