CLIMATE OF CHANGE: Despite a near absence from the national political campaigns, climate change has proved a campaign issue in New Hampshire and Washington State governors' races.
Image: Flickr/David Colarusso
In a year when climate change is low on the national political radar, two states are bucking the trend.
In New Hampshire and Washington state, governors' races are incorporating climate change into party platforms and discussing the issue openly.
"We know we have to deal with climate change. I'm a person who believes in science," said Washington Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee, a former congressman, in an October interview with the Washington State Public Affairs Network.
Beyond rhetoric, the results in both state races could determine the fate of proposed ports that would send coal to Asia, changes to state renewable standards and the status of the nation's first operating cap-and-trade program in the Northeast.
The two states also stand out this year because they, along with Montana, are the only races ranked as tossups by political analysis firms like The Cook Political Report.
There are 11 governor's races this year in total, and in the handful of cases like New Hampshire and Washington where the political party could flip, Democrats are defending turf, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor at The Cook Political Report.
Green versus green in Wash.
Washington voters are restless partially because the unemployment rate is higher than the national average and "they've had a Democratic governor for so long," said Duffy.
There, Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire is retiring, setting up a battle between state attorney general Rob Mckenna (R) and Inslee.
If McKenna wins, it would be the first Republican win of the governorship since 1980, noted Duffy.
As is typical for Washington, the race is further to the left than typical Republican-Democrat debates over energy.
Additionally, Inslee is known for the 2007 book "Apollo's Fire," which outlines an aggressive plan to curb greenhouse gases. Among other ideas, the book describes using state pension fund money to boost energy businesses.
Inslee's official energy plan calls for construction of a new biofuels research center and increasing tax credits for renewable energy development.
His green credentials prompted the League of Conservation Voters to make a rare endorsement -- its backing of Inslee was its first stance on a gubernatorial race in 30 years.
McKenna also has received praise from some environmentalists. As attorney general, he led Washington as a co-petitioner in Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA, a 2007 Supreme Court case that determined the agency's power to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
When asked about climate change in a media interview this fall, McKenna said "we should be combating it" and promoted his plan for incentivizing electric cars.
Coal port a burning background issue
Even though both men make similar statements on climate, the differences between the candidates on the issue could be huge, said Ross Macfarlane, a senior adviser at the group Climate Solutions, which is not endorsing either candidate.
Washington is the site of several proposed ports to link coal from Montana and Wyoming to Asia.
The next governor -- via appointments to the state Department of Ecology and directives -- will influence the scope of an environmental reviews of those ports conducted jointly by Washington and the federal government.
The governor could determine whether the upcoming environmental review of Gateway Pacific Terminal in Cherry Point, Wash., for example, considers the effect of global greenhouse gas emissions from shipping coal overseas from the project, and not just local effects such as coal dust from trains, explained Macfarlane.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentCompared to the Republican base, McKenna is a freaking communist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf he were running in Texas, he wouldn't even be able to make the Democratic Party.
Like most polititalk, it's probably just rhetoric, but it's nice to see a Republican who isn't completely in thrall to Exxon-Mobil.
Furthermore, I think that cash incentives are way too soft on Big Business. Let's set up a socialist nation; it'll be a hell of alot better than the capitalist hell in which we now reside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[end political/economic/social/environmental rant]
Unfortunately Inslee's state and its hapless and so very stupid taxpayers are losing their shirt on "green" energy ie environmentally destructive, forest clear cutting, wind and firewood burners in Washington state. These morons voted in a state renewable energy standard (15%) and are losing their shirts on it, while rejecting every attempt at a reasonable mass transit system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately not being a complete idiot Inslee has endorsed nuke power as well.
Wind at a fixed must pay 10 - 12 cents/ kwh normally blows spring and fall and/or at night when it its not needed so has to be dumped on the grid regardless of cost. As a result BC Hydro with its massive network of dams gets paid by Wa state taxpayers to take that power off their hands, stores the power in its dams overnight by running the province on Wa wind power, then selling it back at premium rates daytime peak.
As well Washington dams have to release water all the time to keep proper levels for fish. Unfortunately, this energy free to the taxpayer has to be dumped as well as pride of place belongs to the politically connected Big Oil owned wind farm.
Two years ago for two weeks in the middle of a nasty cold snap in the middle of the peak power winter the Pacific Northwest lost all wind power. Tough when wind is 5% of load - deadly when it is 20%.
The other major source of green energy in the state is filthy deadly polluting worse than coal, GHG spewing, forest wrecking firewood burning - or Bioenergy for the politically correct. This form of not green energy is now universally rejected by Big Green but is accepted by the state due to purchasing of politicians by Big Timber operators.
Solar power of course is worthless in this far northern state, but subsidies are getting some of it build - a 100% waste of taxpayer's money.
Inslee's support of nukes is dependent on it being more economical after the Wppss fiasco, despite the fact that the one plant working - Columbia Generating station - is one of the lowest cost electricity producers in the country. The Pacific Northwest would have been in great shape for the future, if those WPPSS plants had been built. Instead they built coal plants that kill hundreds of citizens ever year from deadly toxic radioactive emissions.
The new zero environmental footprint nuke plants being built at VC Summer are 15% the cost of filthy new wind when backup and 5 times sized wind transmission builds are included.
That should satisfy Inslee.
No mention of work by hundreds here in #wa to get 6 science questions answered in gov race:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedebate.org/wa2012/
One candidate (Inslee) answered but McKenna did not.
Bird:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read your responses to many of others' ignorant posts, and I generally agree with you regarding most of the issues at hand, but please cite proper sources when refuting claims. It would give you more credibility.
Good point. Sometimes, citations are unnecessary, though (I refer you to the ludicrous claims of julianpenrod).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this