Politico has a piece about the generational gap that's forming among conservatives around climate change. Young, potential Republican voters who have come of age in a world where the global warming is an undeniable, human-caused problem are finding themselves at odds with the old-guard that still sees climate change as a political issue. A refusal to accept scientific consensus on climate change and begin doing something to stop it is becoming more and more politically dangerous for Republicans. The Republican base doesn't seem to care much whether or not their elected officials act on climate change, but younger voters, independents, and swing voters are making it more of a priority that the candidates they elect both acknowledge the reality of climate change and begin working on doing something about it.
Change is underway, as we see with people like John Warner of Virginia, cosponsor of the America's Climate Security Act, and Rep. Bob Inglis, the congressman the Politico piece uses to illustrate the generational divide. There's a lot of skepticism about whether anything will pass through Congress this year, since there's contention about this particular bill on both the left and the right. Either nothing will happen, or Congress will pass something notably week, so a more important question is probably what will happen with voters in '08. The article is skeptical as to whether they'll support the Democrats' ambitious plans, even if they think climate change is a problem:
Politics aside, it is not clear whether the public is ready to stomach the pocketbook costs of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
People want cleaner air, but are they willing to pay 30 percent more for natural gas to heat their home, or higher energy bills overall? Will they drive smaller cars or pay more to gas up their Durango? Probably not.
Putting the conflict between what people "want" and what the science says we need aside, the question that remains for me after reading this is what this means in the presidential race. Some voters may very well think the Dem plans are too expensive or too ambitious, but for the most part, the Republican candidates don't offer any plans on climate and energy. McCain has been somewhat of an environmental champion among Republicans, but he hasn't come out with much in the way of a solid plan for what he'd do as president. Giuliani wants an "intense focus" on energy independence and acknowledges that climate change is a problem, but opposes an emissions cap and doesn't offer anything more than lip service. Romney's been similarly noncommittal on what he'd do, while stressing the need for energy independence. Huckabee layers his discussion of climate change in "creation care" rhetoric and isn't quite sure humans are causing it, but he supports a mandatory, economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Fred Thompson, in his miniscule issues statement on energy security, says "we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring" but we should "take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy," and doesn't begin to outline what those steps might be.
This divide between the public's desire to confront climate change and the general unwillingness in the GOP to do that can only help Democrats. It's not a very complex choice: elect a Democrat and get action on climate change, or elect one of the Republicans and get another 4-8 years of stagnation.
--Kate Sheppard
