Does the Electoral College Deter Presidents from Addressing Global Warming?
By Derek Cressman
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
The
news on global climate change keeps getting worse, yet it has not become major topic for presidential candidates.
Climate scientist Jim Hansen (of the Goddard/NASA Institute for Space Studies) and other climatoligists are telling the world that we have already exceeded the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that could be considered safe:
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
The scientists say that we need to take very serious measures very soon:
Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2 capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.
While Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain all
talk about the need to do something to reduce emissions, none of the proposals they support (such as reducing emissions by 85% by 2050) come close to what Jim Hansen and other scientists are now telling us will be necessary. Even Al Gore didn't spend much time talking about global warming when he was running for president.
One (of many) reasons why presidential candidates aren't talking more about global climate change is that doing so is unlikely to make a difference in their election. The places where public concern about climate change tend to be states that are not likely to be close states in the electoral college contest.
Polls routinely show that Californians, for instance, care deeply about global climate change. However, California has traditionally been a safe blue state that votes Democratic in presidential elections. So, there is no need for Democratic candidates to take a strong stand on global warming in order to carry California, and Republican candidates tend to write the state off.
Whereas, polls in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Michigan show strong concern over issues like NAFTA and jobs, but less concern over global warming. And as it happens, these states are heavily depending upon coal for electricity, and the auto industry for jobs. A 2008 poll by the Cleveland Plain Dealer found just 5% of respondents listing the environment and global warming as a top priority. With the fate of the general election likely resting in the hands of Ohio voters again, we can expect to hear a lot about jobs and not a lot about global warming in this fall's campaign.
Fortunately, there is an effort to change our presidential elections to have the national popular vote determine the winner. This could mean that in the future, things don't have to reach a boiling point before the President of the United States takes a stand on something.
Tags: electoral college, national popular vote, global warming, climate change (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
