What Will Obama's VP Pick Mean for the Environment?

With Senator Barack Obama set to announce his VP nomination by Friday, the speculative field of possible names has been whittled - if only by the press - to a select three: Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia. Two other possible candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, now seem less likely.

In weighing the benefits of each nominee, conversation has largely focused on the various roles this candidate will have to fill: The candidate should be a safe choice, they say, able to help Sen. Obama gain an audience in parts of the south, and to lend him credibility on foreign policy - for many, the largest gap in the senator's resume.

Absent from this conversation has been a weighing the various VP candidates' environmental record. Where there ought to be lively discussion, there is - listen closely now - crickets.

This reflects a larger silence on climate change, in which the media trails far behind Americans' climate concerns. According to a poll out last year by Yale University, 71% of Americans believe global warming is happening. And lest you cry the influence of limousine liberals, a Fox News poll has this number even higher, at 82%.

And yet, according to a study by the League of Conservation Voters, out of 190 interviews and debates, as of February the top five political talk show hosts has asked only 8 questions about climate change. As of January, the words "global warming" or "climate change" were uttered a mere three times in the debates.

In an election whose theme, if not rallying cry, is change, an Obama administration would restore environmental issues to where they should be - as serious debates concerning our national health, the vitality of our ecosystems, and the strength of our economy.

Given the Bush Administration's environmental record - which stands, in my estimation, somewhere between criminal and unconscionable - an Obama administration would mean, in nearly all areas, a complete reversal of environmental policy. Obama, for instance, has already indicated an understanding that our political decisions today will effect our nation, and our families, for generations to come.

In his August energy speech, Obama framed climate by embedding it in a tapestry of mainstream American concerns. "When it comes to our economy," he said, "our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century."

Next year, parties of the UNFCCC will meet at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen to negotiate the international treaty that will succeed the Kyoto Protocol, due to expire in 2012. A strong American commitment at Copenhagen, combined with a national move to regulate carbon, would do much to restore America's geopolitical credibility.

But the question is even simpler than that. Obama asked: "Will we be the generation that leaves our children a planet in decline, or a world that is clean, and safe, and thriving?"

It is a question we should ask of Obama's VP nominee, as soon as he's chosen. While VP's are often offered little more than scrutiny on foreign affairs and economic issues, the scale of climate change will certainly mean VP engagement.

And so, what are the environmental voting records of Obama's top picks? In the absence of direct questions, here's a quick overview of the three candidates' records. (With many thanks to the League of Conservation Voters.)

Sen. Joe Biden, Delaware: According to the League of Conservation Voters, Senator Biden's lifetime voting record is a respectable 84%.

In interviews during his Presidential race, Biden said his top priority was "energy security," which he defined broadly, including climatic changes effecting the world's poor, and national energy policy.

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden passed a resolution directing the Administration to return to international climate negotiations. He has called for raising fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2017,

Most recently, Biden cosponsored the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the most rigorous climate bill. He was one of six senators to express support of the Climate Security Act in the absence of their vote.

Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana: Between 1999 and 2006, Bayh's LCV voting score ranged mostly between 73% and 89%, with one low year at 56%.

Recently, Bayh joined with 10 other senators from key manufacturing and energy-producing states in writing Sen. Boxer a letter informing her of their decision not to vote for the Climate Security Act.

Senator Bayh is a longtime supporter of ethanol-based flex-fuels. He has gone so far as to suggest that NASCAR switch over to ethanol, and would like to devote more farm land to the production of ethanol.

Gov. Tim Kaine, Virginia: The Virginia governor's record is more difficult to easily summarize. While he is on the record as recognizing climate change as "one of the most critical issues of our time," and in lending supporting the Climate Security Act - both good things - there is an article over at Grist regarding the governor's handling of a proposed coal plant raises questions as to the governor's ability to stand up for his environmental convictions.

How do you think the environment should influence Obama's VP selection?

UPDATE: After speaking with a few people today, Kaine has turned out to be the most polarizing. On the one hand, people point to his support for a new coal plant, and his willingness to consider expanded offshore drilling, as a criticism of his environmental creds. But we should note that Kaine's position on offshore drilling is in lockstep with the positions Obama, and Pelosi, have adopted.

More positively, people point to the fact that he created a "Development Cabinet" to help use discretionary capital to reward smart growth policies -- what Kaine calls "balanced growth." The connection between growth, transportation, and climate is a connection most politicians miss entirely. Given his management experience, he might be able to do something about it.

And then there's always Ana Marie Cox who, according to her Twitter feed, is on the short list.

Follow Ben Carmichael on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bhcarmichael

Comments

[AtlantaBill]

"Let me tell you first what I won't do: I won't hand over my energy policy to my vice president and not know necessarily what he's doing,"

Ben,
The above is a quote from Senator Obama's remarks yesterday in NC. If one were to conclude from this quote that Obama definitely was thinking VP in the context of energy, then, who is the person most likely to fit that profile? Seems to add some validity to my prediction from yesterday that Al Gore fits that scenario very. Al Gore's involvement in the global warming thing - which is linked to the energy issue - sure fits into yesterday's quote. By the way I think Gore would be an excellent pick. It provides him with a chance at redemption from 2000, the position of VP (working the energy issues) matches Gore's current passion, and most likely would lead to a victory in FL and OH.

I'm a bit surprised that no one else seems to view this one as I do.

[Ben Carmichael - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment, Bill.

I think you're right in that Al Gore, considered purely for his environmental record, would be the best choice. He has done more than any other modern American politician to advance the cause of climate change. And his recent energy challenge was a milestone not only for the goals it set, but for the fact that a political made them.

And yet, I think he was able to make them because Gore is now a post-political period of his career. He has an investment firm. He has a Nobel Prize, and an Oscar. He's arguably been more effective in regards the climate cause than he was in the Senate, or as VP. And so can we deny him for saying that he doesn't want to be in the White House again?

If his open and repeated expressions of disinterest in the role aren't enough, than there's another sign: he's been granted the Friday night speaking spot at the DNC. In my mind, that's sort of like the consolation prize. They load up those who won't have a spot (the Clintons, Gore) with other prizes, to borrow their legitimacy, and lend them a spotlight glow.

But hey - these are all crystal ball predictions. All I know is this: if Obama loses, I'm growing a beard, and making a movie.

[RI]

You can still hear crickets? Well, not for long if the wrong people get elected.

[Tanytarsini]

The media clearly lacks scientific understanding about the critical challenges facing our country, and our planet, and thus cannot themselves pose challenging questions to the candidates. Obama's VP choice should understand that climate change isn't the only critical environmental issue: 1) need for family planning and empowering women; 2) redouble efforts to protect critical habitats; 3) improve surface and groundwater quality, allowing aquatic environments naturally function without human interference; 4) reduce reliance on unsustainable monoculture agriculture; 5) divorce agriculture from energy policy - biofuels are an environmental disaster; 6) reinvigorate city centers, stop encouraging unsustainable suburban sprawl, and encourage mass transit; 7) restrict/stop the movement of non-native organisms into our native ecosystems; 8) re-invigorate the EPA and its ability to test for environmental harm; and 9) coordinate state and local-based organizations working to protect and restore natural habitats and their ecological functioning. This is not an exhaustive list. All candidates have not faced questioning regarding scientific knowledge. Do they have a basic understanding about why these issues are important? Will the next administration weigh in on issues regarding the promotion of scientific education, instead of being intimidated by zealots wishing to imposed theological ideology upon our society? Will they allow governmental scientists to honestly report their findings, stop intimidating their work via policy apparatchiks , and allow scientists - not theologians, to guide scientific decisions? Obama's VP candidate should be someone who understands the importance of science to our society, and guiding the decision-making process.

[Ben Carmichael - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree with your opening point here: the media does not yet fully understand the spectrum of environmental issues, and so can't ask the kind of informed questions we need to ask our candidates.

Part of the problem is the scope of understanding required. It's not simply about climate science, but about energy, ecosystems, public health and, yes, media. And to complicate matters, the problem is global in cause and consequence. It's not enough to be a local reporter covering local climate issues; they're embedded in a global context.

For journalists, the problem goes even deeper. In reporting on climate change, accurate reporting requires reporters to deviate from journalistic norms. And by that I mean simply that in providing both sides of the issue - climate scientists vs. climate deniers - with equal space, reporters are presenting the illusion of a debate where really there is none. The specific, long-term consequences of climate science are matters of risk; the fundamental science of climate change a mater of established scientific consensus.

And so, yes, by all means, I hope his VP understands the importance of science to our society. All signs suggest the next president will make progress on climate issues, the question is: to what degree?