Also see below:
Clinton, Obama Offer Big Plans on Global Warming •
Go to Original
Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign on Climate
By Juliet Eilperin
The Washington Post
Monday 31 March 2008
Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign
Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and
costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.
The Alliance for Climate Protection's "we" campaign will employ online
organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from "American
Idol" to "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It highlights the
extent to which Americans' growing awareness of global warming has yet to translate
into national policy changes, Gore said in an hour-long phone interview last
week. He said the campaign, which Gore is helping to fund, was undertaken in
large part because of his fear that U.S. lawmakers are unwilling to curb the
human-generated emissions linked to climate change.
"This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are
so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about
enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public's
sense of urgency in addressing this crisis," Gore said. "I've tried
everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the
way the public thinks about it."
Private contributors have already donated or committed half the money needed
to fund the entire campaign, he said. While Gore declined to quantify his contribution
to the effort, he has devoted all his proceeds from the Oscar-winning documentary
"An Inconvenient Truth," the best-selling companion book, his salary
from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers and several
international prizes, such as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which add up to more
than a $2.7 million. Paramount Classics, the documentary's distributor, has
pledged 5 percent of the film's profits to the group, and some of the money
raised through the 2007 Live Earth concerts will help the campaign, along with
Gore's proceeds from an upcoming book on climate change.
While "An Inconvenient Truth" urged viewers to fully inflate their
car tires and to install compact fluorescent light bulbs to combat global warming,
Gore said he is now focused on ensuring that the United States enacts a national
carbon emission cap and ratifies a new global pact on climate change in the
next three years.
"The simple algorithm is this: It's important to change the light bulbs,
but it's much more important to change the laws," he said. "The options
available to civilization worldwide to avert this terribly destructive pattern
are beginning to slip away from us. The path for recovery runs right through
Washington, D.C."
The new effort comes at a time when the three remaining major party presidential
candidates - Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and
Barack Obama (D-Ill.) - have all endorsed federal limits on greenhouse gases,
virtually ensuring that the next occupant of the White House will offer a sharp
break from President Bush's climate policy.
All three have discussed global warming with Gore in phone calls over the course
of the past few months. While McCain backs a more modest plan than that favored
by the Democrats - he supports a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gases from
1990 levels by 2050, compared with Obama and Clinton's vow of an 80 percent
cut during that period - the presumptive Republican nominee emphasized during
a recent stop in Chula Vista, Calif., that he had pushed for a federal cap-and-trade
system before either of his opponents came to the Senate.
"Neither have proposed legislation or played any public role during their
time in the Senate," McCain said, sidestepping the fact that Clinton and
Obama both back climate legislation, up for a Senate vote in June, that he has
yet to endorse.
Gore, who backs a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by mid-century,
said that while he's "encouraged" that the remaining candidates back
mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, they still need to be pushed: "What
happens after the election will depend on whether or not we win enough hearts
and minds in the country as a whole."
And former Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), a board member of the two-year-old
alliance, said the candidates' commitment to a cap-and-trade system does not
negate the fact that the majority of Americans fail to see climate change as
a compelling political issue.
"Most Republicans, along with most Democrats, are focused almost exclusively
on Iraq, the war against terrorism and the economy," Boehlert said. "That
leaves little room for anything else."
In an effort to penetrate Americans' consciousness and change lawmakers' political
calculus, the group aims to enlist 10 million volunteers through a combination
of network and cable commercials, display ads in magazines ranging from People
to Real Simple, and online social networks. By contrast, the civil rights and
antiwar movements in the 1960s each boasted about 5 million activists.
Cathy Zoi, the Alliance for Climate Protection's chief executive, said the
group will focus on individuals known in the advertising world as "influencers"
who talk to a disproportionate number of people in their communities. While
some ads will target inside-the-Beltway policymakers, the bulk of their efforts
will focus on the general public.
"This is modern organizing," Zoi said, adding that the campaign aims
to convince voters that "this is a solvable problem."
In an effort to broaden the campaign's appeal, the alliance has already forged
working partnerships with groups including the Girl Scouts and the United Steelworkers
of America. One of its early ads will feature the unlikely alliance of clergymen
Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton sitting on a couch on Virginia Beach, talking
about their commitment to address climate change.
Its first ad, which is narrated by the actor William H. Macy, highlights American's
collective responses to historical challenges. "We didn't wait for someone
else to storm the beaches of Normandy," Macy intones. "We didn't wait
for someone else to guarantee civil rights." The commercial will run several
times Wednesday on shows such as "Good Morning America," "Today,"
"American Idol," "Larry King Live" and "Anderson Cooper
360."
League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski, whose group is supporting
the effort, said he's optimistic the "we" campaign will succeed in
a way that traditional environmental groups have not. "It heightens both
the urgency and the sense we can get the job done with the broad middle that
will make the difference," Karpinski said, "while having the resources
to communicate in a sophisticated way, in a more expansive fashion than the
community has done before."
Without question, the campaign represents one of the most far-reaching public
advocacy initiatives in recent years. The American Legacy Foundation, an anti-smoking
campaign that arose out of the massive 1998 tobacco settlement, made $100 million
in ad buys its first year, but its funding quickly dwindled and it now spends
$30 million annually. The Ad Council - which runs public service announcements
ranging from the "Just Say No" anti-drug message to the "Smokey
the Bear" commercials - receives an average of $40 million a year in donated
media for the 50 campaigns it operates and only occasionally hits the $100 million
annual mark for its campaigns.
The climate alliance's initiative, however, will not go unchallenged by climate
change skeptics. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a nonprofit funded by
the coal industry and its allies, is spending about $35 million this election
to bolster support for coal-generated electricity. The Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a Washington-based think tank that receives part of its funding from
oil and gas companies, recently spent close to $35,000 to run a television ad
both in the District and in scattered cities throughout the country attacking
Gore, and plans a follow-up campaign. The ad argues that Gore and his allies
in Hollywood use plenty of energy but that "Al Gore wants to cut our energy
use, putting our jobs and our future in jeopardy."
Myron Ebell, who directs energy and global warming policy for CEI, said the
fact that Gore feels compelled to run such an elaborate ad campaign highlights
the extent to which his conservation message has failed to resonate with the
American public. "He's spending a hundred million dollars to convince the
American people to make sacrifices that he and his elite friends are not willing
to make," Ebell said, adding that while many Americans may now blame humans
for causing climate change, "the American people are not there with other
alarmists" when it comes to supporting deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
John Podesta, president of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress,
said the fact that independent groups are already advertising on the issue underscores
how much more politically relevant climate change is in the 2008 election, especially
because Congress is unlikely to send a bill to Bush for signing this year. It
is unclear whether the Senate has 60 votes to pass a cap-and-trade bill this
summer, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has yet to produce a companion
climate bill.
"This will be played out on the candidate level, but also among an array
of parties who have a stake in the outcome," Podesta said. "Without
presidential leadership, you're left with a regional division and a partisan
division [in Congress] that's likely to produce movement, but not the bold kind
of change that's needed. You need a president for that."
--------
Staff researcher Magda Jean-Louis contributed to this report.
Go to Original
Clinton, Obama Offer Big Plans on Global Warming
By Renee Schoof
McClatchy Newspapers
Monday 31 March 2008
Washington - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on the basics of
global warming. Both believe scientists' warnings that it poses a catastrophic
threat. Both demand urgent action, and both think there's still hope of escaping
the worst consequences through technological advances, developing new energy
sources and sharply reducing pollution.
In speeches and papers on their Web sites, the Democratic presidential candidates
spell out what they'd do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the country's
energy supplies more secure. Both embrace the emission reduction goals that
the world's scientists agree must be reached by mid-century to give the planet
a chance to avoid irreversible climate dislocation.
Some economists say it's too tall an order. Obama and Clinton acknowledge that
they're counting on some technologies that don't exist yet. But both say that
their detailed plans, combined with a mighty mobilization akin to the nation's
entry into World War II, will get the country on track to lead the world in
doing what must be done.
While key parts of their plans are similar, each candidate offers some new
ideas.
"We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that
have touched the lives of millions across the planet," Obama said his key
energy speech. "And when that planet is challenged or when it is threatened,
the eyes of the world have always turned to this nation as the 'last, best hope
of Earth.'"
"This is the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation," Clinton
said when she rolled out her energy plan in Iowa. "It is a challenge to
our economy, to our security, to our health and to our planet. And it's time
for America to meet it."
"I think both of them understand that climate change is a real problem,
that it's going to take some serious action to address it," said Manik
Roy, the director of congressional affairs at the nonpartisan Pew Center on
Global Climate Change. At the same time, he said, "They recognize there
are a lot of interests that have to be balanced when making law."
Clinton and Obama - and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John
McCain - say that while the environmental goals are very important, they
want to meet them "in a way that allowed the economy to keep on working,"
Roy said.
The next president will face a leadership test next year, when the world's
countries, including China and India, try to set up a new international system
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company
that advises governments and energy companies, declined to comment on the Democrats'
individual plans, but he said that the task before them is huge and complex.
The U.S. is tightly integrated into global markets. It imports 60 percent of
its oil and is on track to import significantly more natural gas than it is
now, Yergin said.
"The major issue is how we manage our energy security and how we ensure
we have resilience, how we have diversification, the importance of our relations
with our suppliers, while at the same time maintaining this increased commitment
to energy research and development .... For the foreseeable future we're
going to be a significant importer of energy," he said.
Obama's and Clinton's plans look beyond the near term and cover many parts
of an emerging shift how energy is produced and used.
Terry Tamminen, an adviser on energy and environmental policy to California
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, looked at what the presidential candidates
have said they'd do and graded them: She gave Clinton and Obama B's, but McCain
got an F because he hasn't put out a specific plan.
Tamminen said the Democrats might rely too much on ethanol, which is now made
in the United States from corn and doesn't substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Neither candidate rules out nuclear energy, though both warn that problems
of waste storage and security must be worked out. Obama says it's unlikely that
the world can meet climate goals without nuclear power. Clinton opposes new
subsidies for nuclear power but supports more research to improve safety.
Another uncertainty is how they'd handle pressure for new conventional coal
plants, the source of half the nation's electricity and much of its greenhouse
gas emissions. Both want to speed development of a system to capture carbon
dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and store it permanently underground.
But that system is years off. Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported
that "even in the best case, carbon capture and storage is at least two
decades away from meaningful deployment."
Clinton's plan calls for accelerating the development of the storage system
and improving efficiency so that fewer new power plants are needed. She'd require
all new coal plants to be capable of adding carbon capture and storage systems
when they become commercially available.
Obama wants to structure market forces to push coal companies into putting
more effort into developing the storage system by putting a price on carbon
emissions. Until the storage system is available, Obama said, he'd consider
a ban on new traditional coal power plants.
Both want Congress to pass a law establishing a cap and trade system that would
regulate much of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions. Both want the federal
government to sell permits for 100 percent of the nation's emissions. The limit
would decrease every year. Companies that emit less pollution could sell unused
permits to those that emit more.
Clinton said last year that the cap and trade program, plus higher fuel economy
standards and other efficiency programs, would make it possible to reduce U.S.
emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's position paper calls
for the cap and trade system to reduce emissions by that amount.
The Senate will start debate on a cap and trade bill in June.
Both candidates say that it's important to start regulation quickly because
the longer the country waits, the steeper and more difficult the emission cuts
will be. Some of the revenue from the emission-permit auctions would be used
to develop clean energy and help low-income people pay their energy bills.
Clinton supports a "Connie Mac" (Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association)
to make it easier to get loans for energy efficiency in homes.
Obama wants a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard that would require fuel suppliers
to reduce the carbon that their fuel emits by 10 percent by 2020.
Other highlights from the two Democratic candidates' plans:
- Invest $150 billion over 10 years for green energy (both).
- Reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption by 35
percent - or 10 million barrels - by 2030 (Obama). Cut foreign oil
imports by two-thirds of projected levels by 2030 (Clinton).
- Support the development of advanced biofuels, including cellulosic
ethanol and other renewable energy (both).
- Require (Obama) or set a target for (Clinton) 25 percent of
electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story