Image: Flickr/MTAPhotos
In the end, President Obama won the coveted endorsement of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But it wasn't Obama's visits or entreaties that sealed it. It was Hurricane Sandy's.
Bloomberg endorsed Obama in an op-ed yesterday, arguing that Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events may not be directly caused by climate change, but that the risk that they are requires action by elected officials. Republican nominee Mitt Romney has backed off his previous pledges to act on climate change, Bloomberg said, making Obama the preferred choice.
"This issue is too important," he said. "We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward."
Both candidates have courted Bloomberg, hoping his image as a sensible centrist would bring them credibility with independent voters. In his column, Bloomberg critiqued positions of both candidates, but he concluded that the weight of Sandy -- and what he feared is a growing pattern of extreme weather events -- tipped the scale toward Obama.
Bloomberg pointed to the damage Sandy wrought on New York's subway and its grid, as well as the lives it has taken and business it has derailed. Like Hurricane Irene last year, he said, Sandy required a large-scale evacuation of neighborhoods.
"If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable," he said.
But in an election that has focused almost exclusively on the economy, will the endorsement sway voters?
Bad timing for Romney? Steve Cohen, executive director of the Earth Institute and a sustainability professor at Columbia University, said the timing will work against Romney, who had shown some momentum in the polls. With the election just days away, the public is paying attention to visceral scenes of disaster and images of the president working hand-in-glove with Republicans like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
"[Romney] needed to be the center of attention," Cohen said. "From Obama's perspective, the Bloomberg endorsement could not have been better timed."
Also, given that it is a disaster, the focus is momentarily off of the small-government discussion, Cohen said. To address the crisis, Bloomberg, Christie and other leaders have worked closely with firefighters, police departments and other publicly funded offices.
But Marc Morano, publisher of the climate skeptic blog Climate Depot, accused Bloomberg of betraying those harmed by Sandy.
"Bloomberg is insulting every victim of Sandy by implying the federal government can legislate the behaviour of storms and weather," he said in an email.
A spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Congress' leading critic of climate science, panned Bloomberg's endorsement, saying Obama has failed to advance climate policy and has run the "global warming alarmist" movement into the ground.
"In fact, President Obama hardly even talks about global warming as he runs for reelection. Rather, he has been talking about his new found love of fossil fuels," spokesman Matt Dempsey said by email.
Bloomberg preferred earlier versions of Romney
For his part, Bloomberg said he approves of Obama's record on climate. Obama has helped shut down old coal plants and has advanced fuel-economy regulations, the mayor said.
By comparison, he said, Romney has supported policies to fight climate change in the past, but he has now reversed his path. Bloomberg said he would have considered voting for the 1994 or 2003 versions of Romney.
The endorsement left some in the pundit sphere wondering about Bloomberg's larger strategy. In a treatise of seven tweets, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein said Bloomberg is attempting to snatch climate change from the partisan war.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentWe should be careful of suggesting that a simple carbon tax or cap will begin to reduce the frequency of extreme weather events. With CO2 close to 400 ppmv the Earth will continue to warm and extreme weather will continue to be much more likely. The ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers will continue to melt, the oceans will continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise. Slowing the rate that CO2 goes into the atmosphere will do nothing to change this. We must get close to zero CO2 emissions before natural processes will begin to reduce CO2 concentrations and it will take many decades for that to happen. On the other hand, hearing Republicans attack President Obama for failing to advance climate policy is just diabolical. We all know who in congress stood in opposition to a climate bill. We all know their party and their names. They have made a pack with the devil fossil fuel industry to ensure that atmospheric CO2 will continue its relentless rise right through the 21st century.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe destruction of the I.C.E. will be caused by pollution....not climate theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat - it only took the deaths of 40 or so of his constituents to get a conservative to realize that climate change is a danger worth mitigating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how many Americans need to die before the GOP extracts its collective head from its posterior and starts thinking in terms of long-term national economic sustainability instead of short-term personal profit gain?
Even if mankind emitted zero CO2, that does not mean "natural processes" will reduce its concentration. Your absurd argument was created out of nothing based in reality. The last ice age didn't end because of us. You fell for their argument of who to blame, and repeated it without evidence. Only a fool would be convinced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne storm every 100 years in New York and New Jersey and it is confirmation that global warming is truly a threat. Those who believe that man is warming the climate, look at Saturn, it is warming up also!! There is a very large storm that Bush started. If we have two or three more big storms in this same area then I will be convinced that the sky is falling! Right now it is just a very big bad storm that only occurs every 100 years. I am glad that I do not live in hurricane and tornado country. I feel much safer here in California where we do not have thos storms. :o)<
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReply to M.Tucker and Vapur: Please consider that the sun has some degree of influence on global warming. Carbon Dioxide is not the problem. Heat is. Sun = heat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI usually do not respond to those who deny science and the evidence because the objections are always the same, they have been around for years and they have all been repeatedly debunked. If the objections could be taken seriously the actual debate would take place in meetings of the various scientific institutions involved. To all deniers of the science: 97% of actual climate scientists who publish peer reviewed research are convinced that human activity, burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are driving global warming. The Academies of Science of 19 separate nations agree. This includes the US National Academy and the Royal Society. Other scientific bodies also agree like NASA, NOAA, American Meteorological Society, Geologic Society of America, the US Geological Survey and the American Geophysical Union. Arguments that atmospheric CO2 levels have nothing to do with temperature or the sun is the sole cause of all warming have been so thoroughly discredited that it is laughable that the arguments still show up. The physics and chemistry of our planet is independent of oddball notions and the evidence is there for anyone interested in the truth to see.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yes, if civilization is finally capable of reducing CO2 emissions to close to zero and stops cutting down the forests, natural processes will eventually, over many decades, reduce the levels. Before human interference in the carbon cycle natural processes were responsible for the rise in CO2 and for the decrease. I doubt that will be possible in my lifetime. I expect civilization to continue on as before, pumping ever more GHG into the atmosphere without regard to the consequences.
I fully expect more rediculous objections to show up here and name calling has no influence on my thinking, on the physics of the planet, or the conclusions of thousands of people who have devoted their lives to science and the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin writes:
....Bloomberg is a complete and utter fool.....
As he is thus regarded by the victims of the storm (Not hurricane).
Actually, most of his constituents regard Bloomberg as quite efficient. Also, Sandy was a hurricane, at least until it met up with a winter storm coming across from the Midwest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this