The Mark UP

Tag Archives: michigan

Michiganders for Clean Energy

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

Senator Carl Levin has announced he will not seek reelection in 2014 and already the succession speculation has begun. Michigan has a deep field of leaders to draw from to run for Levin’s seat. Yet whoever steps forward will have to chart their course carefully. Michigan is solidly purple, having voted for Democrats in six of the last ten presidential races, but electing a Republican governor and a Republican legislature.

How can potential Michigan candidates appeal to the broadest range of voters? By calling for clean energy and climate action.

This approach worked across the nation in the 2012 election cycle.  Energy was a central issue in races from the top to the bottom of the ticket. Given the choice between candidates who promoted clean energy and those who held polluter-friendly positions on fossil fuels, voters overwhelmingly chose clean energy champions. And that includes Independent voters. Every major swing state went for President Obama, and states from Montana to Maine to Virginia swept clean energy candidates into office up and down the ticket.

This same approach can work in Michigan in 2014. Voters will have experienced two more years of extreme weather events pummeling their communities. But they will also have seen more wind farms and solar panels become ordinary parts of everyday life, and they will know more people with jobs designing and building fuel efficient cars.

Support for clean energy and climate action will only grow. Here’s why smart Michigan candidates should tap into that support.

Voters of All Stripes Support Clean Energy

Some GOP lawmakers still believe fossil fuels are our only viable energy source, but most voters have left those outdated views behind. They want American to develop clean energy. Last fall, polluting industries and their allies spent millions in Michigan races. Yet despite all the dirty money, undecided voters said they would side with a candidate who “supports EPA standards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution” over one who does not by a wide margin (56 percent versus 20 percent). Undecided voters also said they preferred congressional candidates who, like Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, support “standards to reduce toxic mercury pollution from power plants” over those who oppose them (62 percent versus 18 percent.) Curbing subsidies for oil companies, increasing fuel economy standards, and boosting clean energy drew similar support.

Some may say clean energy suffered a setback in Michigan last fall when voters failed to pass a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to include policies to promote renewable energy. However, election night polling showed that voters were rejecting an attempt to alter the constitution. They strongly supported action from their elected officials to create renewable energy policies in Lansing, not in the constitution.

Now Governor Snyder is holding hearings all over the state to discuss the future of energy policy in Michigan. We are engaged and working with our partners to ensure support for clean energy job creation and energy efficiency are part of the plan moving forward.

Clean Energy Is Another Way to Talk about Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs

Michigan is ranked eighth in the country for the number of clean energy and clean transportation jobs in the state, according to a report released earlier this month by Environmental Entrepreneurs. The state is on track to add even more: companies and communities have announced 19 new projects that will generate nearly 4,000 additional jobs in Michigan. All together, the state’s renewable energy sector has attracted $1.79 billion in investments through 2012.

Meanwhile, Michigan added 34,100 auto manufacturing jobs last September for a gain of 32.7 percent since the trough in June 2009. A recent report published by NRDC and their partners found that a considerable amount of this growth is driven by new clean car standards that will be double fuel economy for cars by 2025—and save drivers $80 billion a year at the pump in the process.

Many Michiganders have benefited from clean energy jobs; many more could in the future. The state requires 10 percent of all electricity come from wind and solar power. Nearby Iowa, in contrast, is already getting 23 percent of its electricity from renewables. If Michigan created stronger clean energy standards and incentives, the state would get more home-grown jobs. And voters would reward candidates who helped deliver those jobs.

Climate Denial Is the New Black Helicopter

A generation ago, candidates sounded out of touch if they tried to convince voters the United Nations was sending black helicopters to take over America. Today, when candidates mention sun spots as a cause of climate change the extremist alarm bells start going off in the minds of voters. In fact, a majority now say that climate change is happening and we should do something to address it. While it may not be the top issue for every voter, most feel uncomfortable with candidates who blatantly reject science and chart out extreme positions…  

This is no different in Michigan. Michiganders had their fling with extremism and now they are paying a price. Republican Representative Justin Amash’s own party found his positions so far afield that they kicked him off the budget committee—leaving his district without a voice in this critical arena. Now there are rumblings Amash may run to replace Levin. His opponents simply have to ask him what he is going to do to protect the Great Lakes from climate change or where he stands on government efforts to reduce global warming pollution, and voters will see the extremism shine through.

Clean Energy: Good Policy and Good Politics

As we wait and see who jumps into this race, one thing is for sure. Michigan is poised to be a leader in the clean energy economy and Michiganders deserve a U.S. Senator who represents those values. If we learned anything from the 2012 election cycle, it’s that candidates can run and win on investing in clean energy, protecting the environment and conserving our natural resources. The best part is these aren’t just good policies, they are good politics too.

Post-election Lessons from MI and OH: Fuel Efficiency Matters

Posted by: Roland Hwang -

This blog is re-posted from the NRDC Switchboard.

When it comes to understanding the outcomes in Michigan and Ohio, pundits have pointed to the auto rescue loans and clean energy playing decisive roles. Clean energy won big with voters, decisively choosing many candidates who campaigned on clean, renewable sources of energy, starting with President Obama. However, what is less discussed is the direct role played by the Obama Administration’s new carbon pollution and fuel efficiency standards that will achieve the equivalent of 54.5 mpg by 2025.

Not only do polls show that raising fuel-efficiency standards is highly popular with voters, including in Michigan and Ohio, but auto workers could also clearly see by 2012 that investments in fuel efficiency were helping to preserve and create jobs.

While Romney promised to overturn the Obama Administration’s latest round of carbon pollution and fuel efficiency standards and had even said that he would roll back existing standards that would have cars reaching an average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, President Obama touted the standards in numerous speeches and in the second debate.

Clean Energy and Fuel Efficiency Highly Popular with MI and OH Voters

As noted above, clean energy won big, with voters decisively choosing many candidates who campaigned on clean, renewable sources of energy.  Romney’s opposition of the standards certainly fed into the narrative that he was the candidate of fossil fuels and not clean energy.

But voters rejected this “drill-centric” vision, despite the oil, gas, and coal companies spending more than $270 million in campaign ads in just the last two months.  A new survey of voters by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in key battleground states confirms that these energy attacks failed to resonate with voters, including voters in Midwestern states where the energy attacks were most heavily focused. The survey, released on November 7th, found:

“President Obama and Democrats retain more credibility on energy than Republicans. Voters believe Obama will do a better job on energy than Romney by a 7 point margin, 51-44 percent. And they think Democrats will do a better job on this issue than Republicans by a 50 – 43 percent margin. These advantages are significant and represent larger advantages for Obama and Democrats than they receive on either the economy or taxes.”

Fuel efficiency standards themselves are highly popular with Michigan and Ohio voters. According to poll conducted last September for the NRDC Action Fund, “undecided” voters were more likely to vote for the Presidential candidate that supported higher fuel efficiency standards by a 2-1 margin in Michigan and a 3-1 margin in Ohio.  ”Likely” voters in those states also were more likely to vote for the Presidential candidate that supported higher fuel efficiency standards by a 2-1 margin in both states.

Auto companies and their workers in Michigan and Ohio understood how a Romney Administration’s attempt to overturn the standards threatened to create chaos for their investment plans. These plans are based on long-term stability of the hard fought fuel-efficiency standard agreements.

Creating this stability and certainty- including California’s agreement to be part of the national program- was so important that in a speech to the Detroit Economic Forum, Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson praised the Obama administration’s 54.5 mpg proposal as a “win for American manufacturers”. According to the Detroit News:

Akerson said the uncertainty about future requirements had been “one of the major risks coming into 2011.” Under the deal, automakers won’t face separate regulations from California and other states.

Fuel-Efficiency Standards a Powerful Boost to Auto Jobs

The standards also gave a huge boost to the auto industry by accelerating investments in the latest fuel-efficient technologies and vehicles, stimulating sales and jobs. By the time of the elections, auto workers in the Midwest could clearly see the positive role of fuel efficiency in preserving and creating jobs.

Fuel efficiency had two well-understood impacts on jobs.

First, major investments in fuel efficiency are directly creating jobs. There are already 150,000 jobs in 43 states and 500 facilities that are dependent on building fuel efficient components and vehicles. As clearly documented in NRDC’s recent study Driving Growth, Michigan and Ohio are especially benefiting, with hundreds of millions of dollars of investment flowing into Michigan and Ohio and thousands of workers being hired.

In Ohio, for example, there are numerous examples of fuel efficiency-related investments and jobs:

·         In Lordstown, GM has three shifts building the fuel efficient, compact Chevy Cruze which gets up to 40 mpg.

·         In Cleveland, Ford created a third shift to build the award winning, highly popular Ecoboost engines.

·         In Toledo, Chrysler invested $500 million and hired 1,100 new workers to build the next generation, more fuel efficient Jeep models, and GM is investing in building advanced transmissions to squeeze more miles from each gallon.

·         In the Marysville area, Honda is investing in fuel efficient, continuously variable transmissions to help make its new Accord achieve 36 mpg, now a necessity in the highly competitive midsize car market.

Second, higher fuel efficiency is not only directly boosting investments and jobs, but also boosting sales by stimulating pent-up demand for new cars.  According to Automotive News:  “The changeover to high-mpg models, in all segments is the key market driver this year. Dealers say it has been the release valve on pent-up demand as fuel prices soared.” A May 2012 Consumer Reports survey showed that fuel efficiency is what new auto buyers are looking for, and by far their number one concern.

Auto Industry and Workers Clearly Better Off Since 2009

As a result, the U.S. auto industry is clearly back on its feet with sales and jobs on the rise, and fuel economy hitting historic highs.

 

Based on official data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. auto sector added 231,600 jobs as of September 2012 since the auto industry employment low point in June 2009. Employment in auto manufacturing (motor vehicle assembly plus motor vehicle parts manufacturing) has increased by 152,300, for a 24.4% gain since the trough. (see DrivingGrowth.org for latest job statistics).

The jobs impacts of the overall recovery can clearly be seen in a Michigan and Ohio, where job growth since 2009 has been substantially driven by new auto jobs.

In September, Michigan added 34,100 auto manufacturing jobs for gain of 32.7% since the trough in June 2009.  The state’s September 2012 unemployment rate dropped by 4.8 percentage points to 9.3%, nearly three times faster than the national average.

Ohio’s auto sector also saw robust growth, with 10,500 jobs added for a gain of 16.1% since the trough of June 2009. The unemployment rate in Ohio has also dropped much faster than the national rate, by 3.6 percentage points to below the national average to 7.0%.

In sum, the elections demonstrated not only the importance of clean energy and the auto bailouts but also, quite simply, that fuel efficiency matters.  With oil prices almost certain to remain high and volatile, and with growing public awareness of the need to tackle climate change, it’s a good bet that attacking clean energy and fuel efficiency standards will continue to be bad politics.

 

Tags: , , ,  

Win-Win-Win

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

I like to win.

I don’t think that makes me very different from most people.  But, it’s not often that I get to declare a win-win-win though. Which is why today’s announcement in Michigan is so exciting!

Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs collected more than 500,000 signatures to ensure a proposal will be on the November 6, 2012 ballot which will require that 25 percent of Michigan’s energy come from renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2025.

Win #1-Job Creation

Currently, Michigan imports its energy from other states and countries. This means jobs and billions of dollars being sent outside of the state. This ballot proposal will help Michigan build a clean energy industry within the state, allowing residents to stop exporting their money and jobs. The proposal would also establish incentives to hire Michigan workers.

Win #2-Reduced Energy Prices

Studies by independent economists predict that it would only cost the average Michigan household an average of $1.25 a month, but in the long run could reduce their energy bills. Think about the possibilities of expanding Michigan’s clean energy production without increasing energy prices. The proposal would also limit consumer rate increases related to the generation or purchase of renewable energy to no more than 1 per cent per year.

Win #3-Public Health

Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass are clean energy sources which will reduce pollution and further protect the health of all Michigan families. This proposal will give Michigan cleaner and healthier air and water. It will protect the Great Lakes, reduce asthma and lung disease and ultimately save lives.

Scores of Michigan businesses, organizations, individuals and public officials are supporting the ballot proposal and the NRDC Action Fund is proud to stand with them today as we march towards a win for all of Michigan this November.

Tags: , ,  

Voting Against Children is Bad for Lawmakers’ Political Health

Posted by: Pete Altman -

Turns out dirty air isn’t just bad for kids’ health – its bad for members of Congress who vote for it.

New polling conducted by Hart Research finds:

In a policy climate that is heavily focused on jobs and economic issues . . .  pollution and clean air standards—especially when framed around public health impacts—are an important and electorally relevant issue for voters in this critical target audience.

The findings are based on an intensive polling program commissioned by the NRDC Action Fund and focusing on three members of Congress, two of whom voted to block clean air standards and one of whom voted to strengthen them.

Following their votes to block the cleanup of toxic pollution from incinerators and industrial boilers (HR 2250), the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter and the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad criticizing Representative Tim Walberg (MI-07) and Environment Ohio ran an ad criticizing Representative Steve Stivers (OH-15).

Environment Ohio also praised Representative Betty Sutton (OH-13) in a TV ad, for her vote to clean up the toxic pollution from these sources.

NRDC Action Fund commissioned Hart Research to poll moderate ticket-splitting voters in each of their districts before and after the ads ran, to find out what effect knowledge of their member’s votes on air pollution would have on how they see them.

In other words, how members of Congress vote on air pollution and health motivates most swing voters; voting against clean air can politically hurt politicians, while voting for it can help them.

A quick recap of the findings:

In Tim Walberg’s district (MI-07):

  • Swing voter support for Tim Walberg dropped by 9 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls; while the percent of undecided voters increased by 14 points during the same period, landing at 48% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 57% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 33% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Walberg’s favorability among swing voters took a hit as well, his unfavorability going up 6 points from before to after the ad. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 42% viewed Walberg negatively.

In Steve Stivers’ district (OH-15):

  • Swing voter support for Steve Stivers dropped by a stunning 15 points between the pre-ad and post-ad polls, cutting his advantage over an unnamed opponent from a twenty point lead to a five point lead. At the same time, the percent of undecided voters increased by 15 points during the same period, landing at 53% undecided after the ad.
  • Most swing voters – 53% say that knowing their Representative had voted to weaken clean air standards would cause them to feel less favorable toward the Rep – and 27% say this would make them feel much less favorable.
  • Swing voters’ negative feelings toward Stivers went up by 6 points between pre- and post-ad polls. Of those voters who definitely recalled the ad, 28% viewed Stivers negatively.

In Betty Sutton’s district (OH-13), ads praising the member for standing up for clean air clearly had a positive impact:

  • Betty Sutton’s net advantage over an unnamed opponent increased by 5 points.
  • 53% of swing  voters say that knowing their Representative had voted to protect clean air standards would cause them to feel more favorable toward the Rep.
  • Positive feelings about Betty Sutton went up as well, going from 28% positive pre-ad to 34% positive post-ad.

The campaign wonks out there will want to dig in to the memo, so I’ll let it get the rest across. But the bottom line message is pretty clear: a vote against clean air can cost members swing votes back home.

This post was updated 11/15/11.

Michigan children suffer the consequences of air pollution

Posted by: Matt Howes -

According to a striking new study from University of Michigan researchers, air pollution near Michigan public schools may jeopardize children’s health and academic success.

It’s surprising that Michigan and 23 other states do not require the environmental quality of areas under consideration for new schools to be evaluated (and they do not prohibit the placement of new industrial facilities and highways near existing schools). This means that school officials often have to site new schools where property values are low, such as near “polluting industrial facilities, major highways, and other potentially hazardous sites.”  The result: More than 63% of Michigan public schools were located in the more polluted parts of their districts.

The study’s authors found that schools located in areas with the highest pollution levels “had the lowest attendance rates (a potential indicator of poor health) and the highest proportions of students failing to meet the state’s educational testing standards.”  It shouldn’t come as any surprise that when you expose children to toxic chemicals, some of which are believed to impair mental development, there will be consequences.
Read More »

Tags: , , ,