"Ballots will be trickling in for some time," said Ross Macfarlane, an analyst at the nonprofit Climate Solutions.
The results could determine the fate of several proposed ports to link coal from Montana and Wyoming to Asia.
Neither candidate has taken a firm state on the issue, but the next governor will hold sway over the scope of a critical environmental review process conducted jointly with the federal government over the ports, said Macfarlane. The governor could influence whether the review considers how the ports would affect global emissions, along with local effects such as train traffic through communities.
The race also could change the state's renewable policies (ClimateWire, Nov. 5).
New N.C. governor could influence sea-level rise report
In North Carolina, former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory became the state's first Republican governor since 1993 by defeating Democratic candidate Walter Dalton.
Climate change was not an issue in the race but could arise as a topic for McCrory because of coastal policy. North Carolina made national headlines this year after its state Senate considered a bill blocking future projections of sea-level rise in coastal planning decisions.
That bill was later discarded for one that essentially punted the issue for four years, while the state Coastal Resources Commission studies the science behind sea-level rise. Many scientists agree that global sea levels will rise at least 3 feet by 2100 because of warming temperatures.
McCrory could influence the commission's final report on the topic, considering the governor's power over appointing commission members, said Todd Miller, executive director of the North Carolina Coastal Federation.
The commission's final report in conjunction with a science panel will make a big difference on how high, and where, buildings are constructed on the North Carolina coast, Miller said.
McCrory has not spoken out extensively on sea-level rise, and his past record has left environmentalists speculating. As the mayor of Charlotte, he advocated for light rail and smart growth policies.
At the same time, he barred the city's participation in the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement because it did not include nuclear power, according to the group Local Governments for Sustainability, or ICLEI. Since then, he has aligned with tea party supporters by coming out against Agenda 21, a U.N. plan for sustainable development.
"The real question is, which Pat McCrory will show up?" said Molly Higgins, state director at the state Sierra Club.
The main thing that is known about McCrory's energy policy, Higgins said, is that he is a big advocate of offshore drilling and wants to enter a revenue-sharing agreement with other states to get it going. McCrory formerly worked for Duke Energy Corp.
Miller said that offshore drilling, if it ever happens in the state, could play into coastal policy in the sense that McCrory has called for using some revenue from drilling for beach restoration.
Pence to governor's mansion in Ind.
In Indiana, Republicans maintained control of the governor's mansion with the election of Mike Pence, an Indiana congressman.
Even though there was not a change in political party, the election could affect one of the most significant projects in the United States envisioning the capture of carbon dioxide from a coal facility for later storage underground.
The Indiana gasification project is linked to a proposed Midwest-Gulf Coast CO2 pipeline that could provide a financial boost for other stalled "clean" coal initiatives that do not currently have a way to carry captured carbon dioxide to storage spots.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentRenewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) subsidies - a particularly COWARDLY, DECEITFUL, DEVIOUS way to supply MASSIVE Wind & Solar subsidies hidden from public scrutiny, and MONEY-NO-OBJECT. Amazing not one of these slimy politicians will actually check to see whether these Wind & Solar scams actually reduce emissions and what is the carbon abatement cost of these scams. Answer Wind DOES NOT reduce emissions in most cases, and even in the odd case where it does the Carbon Abatement cost is at least 10X higher than other alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of climate change, I enjoy breathing air that is not polluted with fossil fuel exhaust, and swimming in oceans, lakes, and rivers that are not polluted with fossil fuel byproducts. I also like drinking tap water that doesn't have to be distilled or reverse osmosis. And, I like going outside without having to wear a breathing mask. Unfortunaetly, that is not going to be possible 100 years from now due to the large percentage of our population who simply don't care about the future of our planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""Wind DOES NOT reduce emissions in most cases, """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLIE!!! Wind power absolutely reduces CO2 emissions.
"""and even in the odd case where it does the Carbon Abatement cost is at least 10X higher than other alternatives."""
Then use solar.
"""Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) subsidies - a particularly COWARDLY, DECEITFUL, DEVIOUS way to supply MASSIVE Wind & Solar subsidies hidden from public scrutiny, and MONEY-NO-OBJECT. """
Yeah, right. What did they do, pay off the "National Enquirer"?
Wind does not reduce emissions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolland:
tinyurl.com/apoop2v
Ireland:
tinyurl.com/bhyyfr5
Colorado & Texas:
tinyurl.com/5tr9g4h
Ontario:
tinyurl.com/b8twur4
Retired Bell Labs Electrical Engineer's analysis showing Wind does not significantly reduce emissions:
tinyurl.com/bx7ogh2
"...Then use solar..."
Solar is an effective energy source, unlike Wind. And is much more dependable and matches the first half of daily peak demand quite well in sunny areas, like Southern USA. But it is outrageously expensive, and you just can't even run southern sunny areas on energy that costs over 20 cents per kwh minimum, and that is stretching it. You are talking economic collapse and bankruptcy.
I have a very hard time believing your sources. The data that I have seen shows that windpower reduces emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""But it is outrageously expensive,"""
It's not, especially with some of the newer solar cell designs, like solar paint and multilayered solar cells.
"..I have a very hard time believing your sources.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether you believe or not is of ZERO significance. Truth has no connection to your faith.
"..It's not, especially with some of the newer solar cell designs, like solar paint and multilayered solar cells.."
You're kidding right? Those new solar designs of yours haven't made it out of the laboratory, haven't even made it to the point of being outrageously expensive.
First: true. Excellent point. I still don't trust your sources, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond: Meh. Multilayer cells were used on Spirit and Opportunity, and worked better than could have been hoped for. Solar paint should already be on the market, and is designed to be dirt-cheap (not that existing technology is prohibitively expensive for middle-class Americans).