As a matter of common sense, global warming shouldn’t be a political issue at all. Climate change represents a catastrophic threat to humanity, and the likely disasters won’t discriminate on the basis of political party.
And yet, this week, the WaPo ran a front-page story under the headline: “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats.” Apparently, the idea is, after seven years of inaction and ignorance from the Bush administration, nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates are offering bold proposals to combat global warming. The article suggests the public may not go for costly solutions.
In contrast to 2000 and 2004, when Gore and John F. Kerry played down their environmental records, these Democratic candidates have already begun advertising on climate change. As of mid-October, energy and global warming issues were second only to Iraq in terms of ad topics. Friends of the Earth, which endorsed Edwards for his aggressive climate change policy, also began running radio ads in New Hampshire on his behalf.
Democrats have promised to ease the pain by taking the money that would come from putting a price on carbon, whether through a tax or auctioning off pollution credits, and investing it in technological research, job training, tax credits for consumers who buy cleaner vehicles and subsidies for those hit hardest by rising electric bills. […]
Democrats’ boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. “They will come at this hard,” said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary.
At first blush, the frame itself seems misguided. We’re all facing a dangerous crisis, and all of the leading Dems are showing real leadership by unveiling bold policy solutions. This, of course, is a bad thing, the WaPo’s piece suggests, because Americans aren’t actually interested in solutions, unless they’re painless.
As it turns out, the Post’s spin has the broader dynamic backwards.
The Politico notes a new study conducted by Environmental Defense, a group that supports limits on greenhouse gases, commissioned Republican pollster Whit Ayres who surveyed voters in the 49 most competitive House races. Ayres found that voters, particularly independents, prefer bold initiatives on the issue, and look askance at politicians who don’t.
Ayres seemed most surprised that independents and, to a lesser extent, Republicans wanted the U.S. to act even if China and India, two big polluters with rapidly growing economies, did not.
The swing district independent voters said they were much more likely to support a candidate who votes to cut carbon emissions.
Republican voters were surprisingly supportive of efforts to combat global warming but also made it clear they were much less likely to hold members of Congress accountable if they failed to act anytime soon.
Ayres found that Republicans broke into three groups: those who don’t believe global warming is real at all (about a quarter of the party); a large group who believes the challenge is real but is hesitant to embrace bold action, and a small-but-growing faction within the party that wants “specific, market-based solutions now.”
Greg Sargent added:
Yet despite the fact that lots of Republicans have reached this conclusion, somehow The Washington Post was only able to discover that this is a risky issue for Democrats. This illustrates once again that the default setting for many in the political media is still that Dems are always vulnerable; Dems are always at risk of getting too far ahead of public opinion; and Dems are always at risk of provoking a backlash from the same public that strongly agrees with them.
Stay tuned.