Which political party has done more to reduce greenhouse gases?
Published in the Boulder Daily Camera 8/19/12
While our understanding of climate change is still evolving, what we already know should have us plenty worried. Global temperatures have risen over the past 50 years and there are good reasons to think that human activity is at least partly to blame. We must give serious thought about how to reduce mankind's production of greenhouse gases.
I'll bet that if I ask 100 people in Boulder whether Republicans or Democrats have done more to reduce greenhouse gases, nearly all would say "Democrats," and only after they stopped laughing at the absurdity of the question. Democratic rhetoric is full of soaring tributes to global warming and the absolute necessity of doing something about it. Republican rhetoric is full of grim doubt about whether or not human activity has caused global warming and the need to balance any greenhouse gas reductions with other economic considerations. Sure sounds like the Democrats would want to do more, doesn't it?
But, my mom always told me that "actions speak louder than words." The party that deserves the credit should be based upon the policies that they have advocated and implemented, not their words. So, whose policies have done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in America?
Take everybody's favorite solution -- renewable energy from the wind and sun. The most influential legislation supporting renewables are the production tax credits that began in 1992 and continue today. These tax credits have always had strong bipartisan support and legislators from both parties support their extensions today. Not much difference between the parties at all.
And Democrats get no points for talking a big game on conservation through cap-and-trade or carbon tax strategies. For almost two years, Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and they never got it done.
How about changing our fossil fuel mix to use more environmentally-friendly fuels? Natural gas produces roughly half of the greenhouse gases as coal, so everyone agrees that more natural gas is a great idea. Where the parties differ is their willingness to take the steps necessary to scale up production of natural gas which requires three things; 1) fracking, 2) drilling permits, and 3) pipelines to move gas to markets. In Boulder County, we have watched the politics of drilling for natural gas enough to know that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to oppose all three of these. The stock Republican view is that the natural gas revolution in American energy must move forward giving due consideration to avoiding adverse environmental consequences. Compare that to the resolution that was passed by the Boulder County Democratic Party calling for "a ban on hydraulic fracking for natural gas." Following the Democrat's lead, we would stop using more natural gas that, according to The Economist, has already resulted in America becoming one of the few rich nations with declining CO2 emissions. If greenhouse gas reductions are your goal, Republicans score the points for working to make natural gas happen.
How about nuclear power, which produces almost no greenhouse gas emissions? While anything with the word "nuclear" in it sounds scary, the safety and environmental records of current nuclear power technology are excellent. Even the disaster in Japan with a 44-year-old plant hit by a 45-foot tsunami resulted in no identifiable human health effects attributed to the plant (http://nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686). If America adopts the French model and generates 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear energy, the CO2 savings would equal the elimination of all coal-generated electricity or three times the amount of CO2 generated by all cars and trucks in America. Expansion of nuclear power is the quickest and surest road to reducing greenhouse gases today. President Bush's administration initiated a "nuclear renaissance" resulting in plans for 34 new nuclear plants in America. However, in 2008, President Obama and Congress began taking steps to stop this nuclear renaissance in its tracks. Consequently, most of these proposed new plants have been canceled or delayed. If greenhouse gas reduction is important to you, Democratic policies towards nuclear power have been disastrous.
No matter what we do to ameliorate climate change, there will be environmental and economic consequences, so there are no easy answers, just tough choices. What the Democrats have given us over the past decade are lots of great words followed by actions leading to more greenhouse gas emissions. What the Republicans have given us is an ongoing bad attitude and, maybe accidentally, policies that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Funny world sometimes.
Email [email protected].
While our understanding of climate change is still evolving, what we already know should have us plenty worried. Global temperatures have risen over the past 50 years and there are good reasons to think that human activity is at least partly to blame. We must give serious thought about how to reduce mankind's production of greenhouse gases.
I'll bet that if I ask 100 people in Boulder whether Republicans or Democrats have done more to reduce greenhouse gases, nearly all would say "Democrats," and only after they stopped laughing at the absurdity of the question. Democratic rhetoric is full of soaring tributes to global warming and the absolute necessity of doing something about it. Republican rhetoric is full of grim doubt about whether or not human activity has caused global warming and the need to balance any greenhouse gas reductions with other economic considerations. Sure sounds like the Democrats would want to do more, doesn't it?
But, my mom always told me that "actions speak louder than words." The party that deserves the credit should be based upon the policies that they have advocated and implemented, not their words. So, whose policies have done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in America?
Take everybody's favorite solution -- renewable energy from the wind and sun. The most influential legislation supporting renewables are the production tax credits that began in 1992 and continue today. These tax credits have always had strong bipartisan support and legislators from both parties support their extensions today. Not much difference between the parties at all.
And Democrats get no points for talking a big game on conservation through cap-and-trade or carbon tax strategies. For almost two years, Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and they never got it done.
How about changing our fossil fuel mix to use more environmentally-friendly fuels? Natural gas produces roughly half of the greenhouse gases as coal, so everyone agrees that more natural gas is a great idea. Where the parties differ is their willingness to take the steps necessary to scale up production of natural gas which requires three things; 1) fracking, 2) drilling permits, and 3) pipelines to move gas to markets. In Boulder County, we have watched the politics of drilling for natural gas enough to know that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to oppose all three of these. The stock Republican view is that the natural gas revolution in American energy must move forward giving due consideration to avoiding adverse environmental consequences. Compare that to the resolution that was passed by the Boulder County Democratic Party calling for "a ban on hydraulic fracking for natural gas." Following the Democrat's lead, we would stop using more natural gas that, according to The Economist, has already resulted in America becoming one of the few rich nations with declining CO2 emissions. If greenhouse gas reductions are your goal, Republicans score the points for working to make natural gas happen.
How about nuclear power, which produces almost no greenhouse gas emissions? While anything with the word "nuclear" in it sounds scary, the safety and environmental records of current nuclear power technology are excellent. Even the disaster in Japan with a 44-year-old plant hit by a 45-foot tsunami resulted in no identifiable human health effects attributed to the plant (http://nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686). If America adopts the French model and generates 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear energy, the CO2 savings would equal the elimination of all coal-generated electricity or three times the amount of CO2 generated by all cars and trucks in America. Expansion of nuclear power is the quickest and surest road to reducing greenhouse gases today. President Bush's administration initiated a "nuclear renaissance" resulting in plans for 34 new nuclear plants in America. However, in 2008, President Obama and Congress began taking steps to stop this nuclear renaissance in its tracks. Consequently, most of these proposed new plants have been canceled or delayed. If greenhouse gas reduction is important to you, Democratic policies towards nuclear power have been disastrous.
No matter what we do to ameliorate climate change, there will be environmental and economic consequences, so there are no easy answers, just tough choices. What the Democrats have given us over the past decade are lots of great words followed by actions leading to more greenhouse gas emissions. What the Republicans have given us is an ongoing bad attitude and, maybe accidentally, policies that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Funny world sometimes.
Email [email protected].
