Speculation began immediately thereafter that Crist might make a great running mate for McCain, given his popularity in Florida, and his potential ability to swing the crucial electoral state toward McCain during the general election.

One reason why Crist is popular is because there is a public perception that he really cares about environmental issues, much more so than the typical governor or politician (Republican or Democrat). As Crist might become McCain’s running mate, it seems worthy of investigation as to whether or not the Governor’s green credibility is rightly deserved– especially after Crist’s reversal Tuesday on his position as to lifting the U.S. ban on drilling offshore for oil. Now he says we should do it.

Here are some of the environmental highlights from Charlie Crist’s first 2 years as governor of Florida:

• In July of last year, Crist hosted a Climate Change conference in Miami. The conference served as a national platform for Crist to sign executive orders pledging the state of Florida to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, among many other initiatives to combat global warming. It places Florida among the most “green” southern states, at least in government philosophy and legislation. The conference included notable guests such as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Theodore Roosevelt IV (a relative of the famous conservation-minded president).

• Right after the conference, Crist returned to Florida’s capital city of Tallahassee and showed off some improvements that he made to the Governor’s Mansion. A $70,000 hydrogen fuel cell now powers the house, and solar panels help heat the pool and circulate water. The Governor’s staff estimates that the eventual reduction in carbon emissions will be approximately 20%. The hydrogen cell, however, won’t pay for itself in cost savings until sometime around 2031. The solar panels have already paid back their cost financially in energy savings (they only cost $3500).

• Crist said several weeks ago that he would veto a bill that would allow developers to destroy sea grass, a crucial keystone species in Florida’s ocean waters, under the condition that developers would replant elsewhere. Environmental groups cheered this decision.

• Crist came out early in his term and said that he supports restoration of Florida’s famous and important Everglades Ecosystem. Just last week, he and John McCain toured a part of the Everglades. McCain’s blogging daughter discouragingly confused the Everglades Safari Park for being Everglades National Park (in fairness, the Everglades is a huge area, and the distinction might be lost among most Americans as to which part is in the national park. Full disclosure: I used to work for Everglades National Park). The tour group traveled via airboats. They are rarely used in Everglades National Park because they, among other reasons, are thought by some to destroy sea grass. McCain also took some heat from reporters and also Barack Obama for having voted against a bill last year in the U.S. Senate to fund Everglades restoration. He claimed that he would have supported a bill for restoration if it had not included spending elements unrelated to the Everglades. Crist supported the bill, which eventually passed in Congress with a 2/3 majority. This majority was necessary to override a veto from President Bush. Nonetheless, when asked, Crist said that he believed McCain’s word when McCain said that he really did want to protect the Everglades. McCain also said that he does not support a federal catastrophe relief fund, angering Floridians who know well about the damage that hurricanes can create.

• Finally, John McCain recently has stirred up controversy and negative press by releasing an energy plan that would allow for the moratorium on drilling offshore for oil to be lifted (today President Bush said something like, “Great idea! Let’s start now!”) McCain and Bush’s reasoning is that this will allow Americans some relief at the gas pump, and less reliance on foreign oil. McCain at the time of his 2000 campaign for President had a different opinion and supported a ban. Governor Crist, trying to help defend his future potential running mate, has also reversed his own opinion on the matter. He used to oppose drilling offshore. Some people believe that drilling offshore might pollute Florida’s beaches, which are extremely important to the state’s tourism industry and economy.

So, what do these things tell us about Governor Crist’s level of credibility as a green advocate? My personal assessment is that so far he has shown himself through words and actions to be a true friend to the environment. However, the reversal of his position toward offshore drilling combined with his shrugging off of McCain’s negative vote toward the restoration of the Everglades reak of political opportunism. Such compromising of principle for political gain is disconcerting. Plus, drilling offshore for oil is an idea that I believe is a very bad one, and also utterly lacking in creativity as a method for lessening the burden of the energy crisis.

My guess is that ultimately McCain will chose Crist as his running mate. Florida’s Governor has proven himself a loyal soldier, and the McCain campaign will probably find Crist’s advantages as a wingman too hard to resist. Given Crist’s environmental record so far, this choice might be something to cheer. If McCain and Crist are to win the White House, perhaps they can outfit it with some new solar panels. I’d support my taxpayer dollars going to that. I’m not sure about heating the pool though– that seems a little bit extravagant (and who needs to heat a pool in Florida anyway?)

Read More about McCain’s Plan to Drill for Oil Offshore:

• McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling: What Else Would He Say in Houston?
• Oil: Our National Dog and Pony Show

Photo Credit: fredthompson on Flickr under a Creative Commons license

Despite the fact that he supported a moratorium on offshore drilling during his previous run for the White House and he has opposed drilling in Florida, North Carolina, Oregon and elsewhere, McCain will call for the elimination of that moratorium today in Houston.

McCain’s prepared remarks will be be well-received in Houston, arguably the oil capital of America. My point is this: When McCain is in Portland, Oregon he speaks at a Vestas Wind Energy facility and touts the benefits of renewable energy (but offers little policy support to back it up); when McCain is in Houston he calls for a gas tax holiday and lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

In short, the part of me that hears Sen. McCain speak about addressing climate change and developing “alternate energy sources” doesn’t jive with the part of me that reads his voting record on this stuff. And apparently, I’m not the only one.

“The easiest point to make about John McCain’s current support for offshore drilling is that it is a flip-flop. When McCain ran for president in 1999, he supported the current moratorium on offshore drilling, slated to last until 2012.” (Mother Jones)

“McCain’s reversal on off-shore drilling is a blatant pitch for donations at today’s Houston fundraising events.” (David Donnely of Campaign Money Watch)

“Although McCain says that he supports renewable energy, he has set so specific targets. John McCain’s website makes no mention of solar, wind, renewable energy, or even public transportation under the section on climate change and has no section on energy.” (Sarah Lozanova of Red, Green, & Blue)

Considering the mission of this blog, I would be remiss to not include a snippet from a conservative pundit and backer of the McCain plan (especially considering how much time I spent trying to find one!):

“In fact, the economic slowdown, including the spike in gasoline prices, gives Republicans chance to attack Democrats as elitists, as “let-them-drive-bicycles”-type snobs; as polar-bear loving Greens who would rather worry about glaciers on the North Pole than about jobs for Middle Americans in North Carolina or North Dakota.” (James Pinkerton of The Fox Forum)

Related Posts:

“Help Set the Environmental Agenda for the 44th President”

“Obama Ad Rejects Gas-Tax Break”

“McCain and Obama Differ on Energy”

“McCain’s Plan to Combat Climate Change”

Photos:

1. cmakin via flickr under a Creative Commons license

2. John McCain for President Website

I just stumbled across this video of the well-known author, activist, and environmental scholar Bill McKibben explaining that, while he has been actively supporting Barrack Obama as part of “environmentalists for Obama,” he thinks the most important task at hand is to elect a Democrat to the White House.

McKibben is a champion of the environmental movement and he made it clear that policy action on climate change will require broad-based and sustained political support for it. (Running time 4 mins.)

The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.

See Also:

“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”

“Video: Obama on Climate and Energy”

“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

The federal excise tax on gasoline was first implemented in 1932, although the states began taxing fuel in 1919. It is estimated that suspending this tax, as proposed by Clinto and McCain, would result in a loss of revenue of nine billion dollars for the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for interstate maintenance. McCain says he would shift revenue from other sources, and Clinton proposes enacting windfall-profits tax on big oil companies to make up for the loss. Both candidates are making Obama look like the bad guy for not wanting to save consumers 18 cents per gallon, but would this temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline really be the catalyst to change our current oil dependency and the harm it causes to the environment?

Apparently, Obama trusts the oil companies as much as I do. Last week, he stated:

You don’t know that the oil companies are going to pass on the savings to the consumers or whether they’re just gonna, you’re just gonna see an increase in prices, by the same amount that the gas tax goes down. And it would deplete the highway trust fund that we need for rebuilding our roads and our bridges.

I agree with Obama that this is just a “short-term quick fix”, and I can’t help that it is just a ploy to get votes by the two other candidates. I do, however, appreciate that Clinton wishes to tax the record profits big oil companies are scamming out of the American public, a move Senator McCain admitently opposes. In truth, the amount saved by consumers through the removal of such a tax over the summer months is only about $30, so what’s the big deal.

What is the big deal? How about improving gas mileage in all vehicles, providing incentives for car companies to vamp up production of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids now (and I’m not talking about some joke of an SUV hybrid that gets 30 MPG), stop farm subsidies for not growing food and put it into biofuel productions, etc. A “gas tax holiday” will not solve the problem of peak oil. It is not a long term solution, and of course, our bozo of a president proposes the same old policies to help big oil rape the American public of their hard earned income. Somehow, I don’t think saving $30 over the summer will help when oil reaches $200 a barrel.

Image: Judiciary Report

Related posts on big oil companies and politics:

• The Big Oil Company Scam

• Mean Joe Green #5: “Big Oil and The Loggers” Continue to Play to a Sellout Crowd

• Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy

Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has been leading a compaign to instill “creation care” as a religious imperative. He attended the forum and this was his exchange with Barack Obama:

REV. CIZIK: How do you relate your faith to science generally and science policy, and let’s take an issue like climate and flesh that out, or take stem cells, something like that. Just give us a little more indication of how you think.

OBAMA: Well, first of all…

CIZIK: Is that fair enough?

OBAMA: It is fair enough. And you guys have done some terrific work on this. So I want to congratulate you on that.

OBAMA: And should it be part of God’s plan to have me in the White House, I look forward to our collaboration. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: So, look, the — one of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven’t been and this is one of those times where we’ve got to take the warning seriously.

I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier. By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won. And…(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And has done terrific work since. But I think that we are seeing enough warning signs for us to take this seriously. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing this planet from our children and our grandchildren.

And so we’ve got this obligation to them, which means that we’ve got to make some uncomfortable choices. And where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because it’s going to be hard to deal with.

We have to find resources in ourselves that allow us to make those sacrifices where we say, you know what? We’re not going to leave it to the next generation. We’re not going to wait.

OBAMA: We are going to put in place a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere. And we know that that requires us to make adjustments in terms of how we use energy. We’ve got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives.

And having faith, believing that this planet and this world extends beyond us, it’s not just here for us, but it’s here for, you know, more generations to come. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. And that’s why, as president, I hope to be able to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.

Eboo Patel, a Muslim who leads an organization called the Interfaith Youth Core addressed Senator Clinton with the following:

PATEL: Americans of all faiths and no faith at all genuinely believe in compassion and want to apply that in addressing global poverty and climate change. Can we do that without changing our standard of living?

CLINTON: Well, I believe there is so much we can do that we’re not doing that would not change our standard of living as an imposition from the outside, but which would inspire us to take action that would impact how we live.

And I don’t think we would notice it demonstrably undermining our standard of living, but it would give us the opportunity to set an example and to be a model.

When I think about the simple steps any one of us can take — you know, turning off lights when one leaves a room, unplugging appliances, changing to compact florescent bulbs — you know, my husband and I have done that — I don’t think it’s impacted our standard of living, but we feel like we’re making a small contribution to limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, you know, being more mindful of our purchases.

I hope that, as president, I can model that and lead that effort so that people don’t feel so threatened by the changes we’re talking about when it comes to dealing with global warming.

In preparation for the pope’s visit, I was reading that the Vatican is the first carbon-neutral state in the world now. Well, that shows leadership. And I don’t think it has impacted the work or the living. You know, Ambassador Flynn, who was our ambassador to the Vatican, might know. But it was a great statement.

And we can do more.

CLINTON: And I think that, with leadership, people will find ways to take those first steps. And then we can take even more.

Now there’s so much that I have to do as president with the cap and trade system, with moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, but I’m going to look for ways that will cushion the costs on middle class and working and poor people. Because I don’t believe that they should have to bear more than what they are bearing right now as we make this transition. And I believe we can accomplish that.

The forum brought out few contrasts between Obama and Clinton, but it was interesting to watch the candidates jump through the hoops of religious voters. It’s also refreshing to see leaders asking new questions and requiring different “moral values” from candidates in this election.

• “Exxon Mobil made $11 billion last quarter; last quarter! And we’re melting the polar ice caps in the bargain. It’s a bad deal all around - unless you’re ExxonMobil”
• “There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between good environmental policy and good economic policy.”

I’m not sure what it is about these ads that have captured the nation’s imagination; John McCain has his own version of it, and, of course, it inspired scores of parodies on YouTube and among late-night talk show comedians.

Still, I wonder if the candidates will get around to making one of these ads about the environment.

It’d be really easy to do, actually. All you need is a ringing phone…and no one to answer it.

That’s because the environment has somehow become a non-issue during this campaign season. All three candidates have fairly progressive views when it comes to addressing climate change, and they all tout the benefits of weening ourselves off foreign oil, so we’ve basically been told by the media that there’s nothing more to discuss on the topic.

The only problem is that voters WANT to discuss it.

According to a recent Gallup poll:

Americans continue to say (by a seven percentage-point margin, 49% to 42%) protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth.

In all fairness, the story goes on to say that the gap between those favoring the environment over the economy is closing rapidly. Of course, some of us happen to think that the two are not mutually exclusive, but that’s a topic for another day.

With that much support for environmental issues, you would think that the media would respond. Quite the contrary. Check out this depressing content analysis conducted by the League of Conservation Voters:

Total for 5 Top Political Reporters* updated 2/18/2008

Number of Interviews & Debates: 190
Number of Questions: 3,201
Questions That Mention Global Warming: 8
Global Warming Related Questions: 29

*(CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s Tim Russert, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Bob Schieffer, and FOX News’s Chris Wallace)

As a graduate student in journalism, I’m inclined to say that this is a classic case of The Agenda-Setting Theory, which basically states that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about (we can end with prepositions in journalism…)

Can that really be the case? Is the media a monolithic beast with a well-planned agenda? Yes and no. There may not be a singular voice dictating what subjects get covered, but there clearly is a follow-the-mob mentality when it comes to chasing stories.

So while the mainstream media is busy focusing on the sermons of a Chicago preacher who isn’t even running for president, or whether some secret society of superdelegates will ultimately influence the nomination, we’re missing valuable opportunities to discuss the differences in the candidates’ environmental platforms. How exactly will they create “green” jobs? How will they interact with the rest of the world on climate change protocols? What sort of incentives will they offer for sustainable construction, renewable energy, hybrid cars?

How we get the mainstream media back on point is, of course, the $64,000 question. It starts with confronting outlets directly with this lack of environment-related campaign coverage. Emails to talking heads, newspapers, TV stations, radio hosts…believe me, if all it took was an email campaign to keep “Jericho” on the air, they’ll definitely listen to us.

But keep in mind that the media is rarely proactive, it’s mostly reactive, so in many ways this is as much a problem caused by the candidates as it is by the media. If we really want to improve coverage, we must demand that our candidates address the issue more frequently and with more depth. The more they address it, the more media will have to cover it.

Yes, the three candidates have fairly similar views on the major environmental themes, but there are distinct differences. We, as voters, deserve to have easy access to those differences.

Besides, I’ll be damned if the best discussion over climate change this election comes from an animated snow man during the YouTube debate.

illustration courtesy of Roberto Rizzato

Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Well, the dirty little secret is that without NAFTA America would no longer have a special deal with Canadian oil, which currently makes up roughly eight percent of annual U.S. oil consumption.

So — as sad as it is — breaking off the deal is itself a deal-breaker for both Democratic candidates, and, of course, for John McCain too. And, once again, our dependence on oil has led us into unsound policy.

Still, at least the Democratic candidates insist they will call for a restructuring of NAFTA—for both labor and environmental reasons.

We need to hold them to that promise.

It might provide a great opportunity to emphasize green practices. That means getting all three nations on board to create stricter—and enforceable—regulations; it means setting up a carbon-credit program between the three countries to help offset emissions of greenhouse gases; it means requiring all three nations to invest a substantial amount toward the development of renewable energy sources.

In other words use NAFTA to help put the three countries on the cutting-edge of the green movement. Make something positive out of a negative.

It looks like we’ll be stuck with NAFTA for the near future and that’s certainly bad news the way the agreement is currently structured. Any treaty that prolongs the short-sighted need to maintain our current levels of oil consumption, while neglecting to use the best alternative resources at the disposal of all three nations, is not just drinking our milkshake — it’s throwing it down the drain!

You get my point.

Flag artwork courtesy of illegalillegals

As Barack Obama chalked up another primary victory Tuesday in Mississippi, Hillary Rodham Clinton challenged rival Barack Obama on his record on energy policy. Campaigning in Pennsylvania and speaking in the state capitol, Clinton accused Obama of being all talk and no walk, by suggesting that he voted for the 2005 Cheney-crafted Energy Policy Act. A bill that Clinton claims is lining the pockets of big oil as the cost of gas nears $4 per gallon.

From the AP:

“Today my opponent is here in Pennsylvania talking about energy policy,” Clinton said. “That’s great, except in 2005 when we had a chance to say no to Dick Cheney and his energy bill, my opponent said yes and voted for it.”

“When it counted, I said no, he said yes,” said Clinton, adding that the measure was stuffed with “tax subsidies and giveaways” for oil companies and slowed the development of renewable energy.

“I gotta tell you, there’s a big difference between talk and action, but if you’re gonna talk, you ought to mean what you say so people can count on it,” Clinton quipped.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied that the Illinois senator voted for the energy bill in 2005 because it raised taxes on oil companies and boosted investment in alternative energy sources.

Photo Credit: Joe Crimmings Photography

Associated Press

Washington Post