My latest newspaper column: Push Candidates on Climate

Times Writers Group: Push candidates on climate
By Derek Larson
Saint Cloud (MN) Times

Published: February 06. 2008 12:30AM


As we rush toward the November elections, voters would do well to reflect on three developments in January, all of which underscore the need for voters to press presidential candidates on issues related to climate change.

Only through a considered change of leadership and a well-reasoned approach to the global climate crisis will we reclaim our traditional position as a nation that, at its best, unites people to solve common problems for the good of all the world's citizens.

In the first story, the League of Conservation Voters released an analysis of the major Sunday-morning network political talk shows that tracked questions asked of the presidential candidates during 2007. Of 2,938 questions only six were on global warming. This despite polls showing large majorities of Americans are concerned about the issue and significant time spent by many candidates discussing their climate and energy strategies on the stump.

Second, a range of speakers at the annual Washington conference sponsored by the National Council for Science and the Environment made it clear that the climate situation is much worse than most people think. Indeed, the debate has shifted significantly from "is it happening" to "just how bad will it be?"

Danger zone

Conference participants were dominated by discussion of how close we are to the dividing line between "dangerous" and "catastrophic" disruption of the global climate system. With this shift in emphasis comes a new way of categorizing responses, captured handily in three terms: mitigation, adaptation and suffering.

Mitigation incorporates all the things we might do to avoid making things worse than what's already bound to happen based on past emissions: reducing carbon, becoming more energy efficient, addressing the global imbalance in energy use, and other familiar responses.

Adaptation reflects how we will deal with unavoidable climate disruptions. The amount of human-induced change in the atmosphere already guarantees significant changes to weather patterns, sea levels and precipitation regimes worldwide. Many of these will be serious enough to require major changes in patterns of human life, economics, settlement and agriculture.

Suffering is a dependent variable: The more we invest in mitigation and adaptation, the less people will suffer.

The third development was the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where politicians and capitalist heavyweights talked about the global economy.

One of the more interesting events at Davos was a discussion about the confluence of poverty and climate change during which rock musician and anti-poverty activist Bono observed that the growing global climate disruption may be the first calamity in human history to be predicted in advance. He noted that many significant global reforms in 20th century came in the wake of major calamities: the League of Nations after World War I, the United Nations after World War II and the plodding but steady trend toward globalization after the Cold War.

What to expect

The challenges of global climate change exceed all of these in scope and impact, but we have the distinct advantage of knowing, at least to some extent, what to expect in advance. As Bono rightly pointed out, this offers the opportunity to reduce the scale of suffering for many millions if we plan now to avoid changes that will otherwise produce the critical famines, refugee crises and possibly even wars of the 21st century.

Near the end of Bono's discussion moderator Thomas Friedman of The New York Times noted wryly that "It is far more important to change leaders than light bulbs." That is where we come in. Most of the remaining presidential candidates — including McCain, Obama and Clinton — have taken responsible positions on climate change and would likely reverse the foot-dragging that has characterized the Bush administration's approach if elected.

It is our responsibility as Americans and members of the world community to push the candidates on this issue, to demand a Marshall Plan or Apollo project on climate. We should do the same with candidates at all levels of government.

While we cannot recapture the years lost to the denial of overwhelming scientific evidence, we can help our country regain its moral authority and do what it does best: rally the world to develop solutions for a problem far beyond the ability of any single nation to solve on its own.

Super Turnout Tuesday in Minnesota, Obama Wins

Turnout far exceeded any predictions for Minnesota's caucuses. Many precincts are reporting 10-20 times the turnout as 2004. At my caucus site in St. Cloud party officials sent out for more ballots-- twice. In my precinct the vast majority of voters had not attended a caucus before; those of us who had were listed on pre-printed rosters while newcomers signed in on blank sheets at a 3-to-1 rate. They had to send out for more blank sheets as well. It was great to see so many people from our neighborhood turn out, including many college students and other young people who were first time participants.

The turnout news was great. So was the fact that Obama won by a very large margin. At least Minnesota Democrats recognize Hillary Clinton as a moderate, corporate Democrat with negatives so high she stands no chance of winning the general election. Hopefully exit polling will tell us if Obama won because he's been successful at reaching voters, or because people were voting against Hillary.

As I type Fox News is reporting a 68-32 Obama victory with 55% of precincts reporting.