The Mark UP

Tag Archives: voters

Voters Chose Leaders Who Will Confront Climate Change

Posted by: Peter Lehner -

This blog is re-posted from the NRDC Switchboard.

This election was a resounding victory for climate action. Americans were presented with the clearest choice yet on global warming, and they chose the presidential candidate who confronted the climate threat, not the one who turned it into a punch line. Voters made the same choice in Congressional races across the country. They overwhelmingly favored leaders who called for more clean energy and other climate solutions. 

Let’s be clear here. The issue of climate change appeared throughout this election.  President Obama talked about it on the campaign trail, in his convention speech, and in his victory speech. And every time he discussed clean energy efficiency, he was addressing climate change, because the way we power our economy will decide the fate of our climate.

Energy played a central role in this year’s campaigns. Candidates mentioned it frequently on the stump and it was among the top three topics discussed in ads. President Obama took these opportunities to talk about energy efficiency, renewable power, clean cars, and other low-carbon solutions that will defuse climate change and lead our country forward. Governor Romney simply offered more oil and gas drilling and coal-fired power.

Voters chose the clean energy future over the dirty past.

That makes big polluters the biggest losers of this election. Oil, gas, and coal companies and their allies spent more than $270 million on campaign ads in just the last two months and yet they have almost nothing to show for it. Most of the polluters’ preferred candidates lost up and down the ticket. Karl Rove and his Super PACs spent an additional $300 million pushing a pro-polluter, anti-safeguard agenda, but the majority of his candidates failed to win.

As President Obama said on Tuesday night, “Today is the clearest proof yet that, against the odds, ordinary Americans can overcome powerful interests.” Voters stood up to some of the wealthiest, most polluting industries in the world, and they won. The issue of clean energy has been decided: Americans want more of it and they favor leaders who will deliver it.

This support for clean energy and climate action reaches across the country. Just look at last night’s electoral map. President Obama won every truly swing state (pending Florida), and clean energy supporters won Senate races in Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Florida. Clean energy is not just popular on the coast, but in the Midwest and the Rockies, the North and the South.

Many of these places have already felt the sting of climate change, and residents want to protect their communities from even more intense drought, wildfires, storms, or other extreme weather events.

When climate change begins to make its presence know, people mobilize. The destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy—a taste of things to come—prompted Mayor Michael Bloomberg to endorse President Obama based on his climate leadership and inspired Governor Chris Christie to praise the president’s response to the crisis. Extreme storms like Sandy don’t distinguish between Republican and Democratic victims. Everyone is in harm’s way and everyone can band together.

Now is the time for America to come together and fight climate change. Poll after poll has shown the strong bipartisan support for clean energy solutions. Last month, Hart Research Associates found that nine out of 10 Americans say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the president and Congress, and that includes 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Independents. And two thirds of Americans want to extend tax incentives for clean energy. 

The broad backing of clean energy—in the polls and in Tuesday’s results—gives our elected officials the freedom to lead on climate change. Congress should extend clean energy incentives, but even if gridlock continues, President Obama has the authority to clean up our air right now.

He has already used that authority to cut carbon pollution from cars in half—a move that will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump—and propose the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. Now he must use that same authority to clean up existing power plants. The American people just gave him permission, and indeed the mandate, to move forward. 

The tide is turning. Voters just rejected the most well funded attempt to hand over our government to polluters and their allies. Voters took the country’s future back into their own hands, rather than letting polluters run the country. They—we—put faith in clean energy and climate champions instead. Now it is time for our leaders to act on that resolve.

 

 

 

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.

What Election Day 2011 Means for the Environment

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

This week’s election offered something America desperately needs right now: hope. I know there weren’t many marquee names on the ballot and I know the presidential primary season is getting more attention. But if you look closely at Tuesday’s results, you see a few clear lessons that we should all take to heart.

People Overwhelming Rejected Overreach
Voters almost unanimously rejected overreach by members of the Tea Party. In Maine, voters rejected the Tea Party members’ attempts to end same-day voter registration; in conservative Mississippi, voters rejected attempts by these radicals to define “personhood” in such a way as to prevent many forms contraception; and in Ohio, voters overwhelmingly rejected the Tea Party’s weakening of collective bargaining for teachers, cops, firefighters, and other public employees. The defeat of these initiatives indicate a mounting public rejection of the radical Tea Party agenda. Although environmental initiatives were not on the ballot this week, clean energy and public health safeguards have been top targets of the extremists and we should redouble our efforts in light of this weeks’ tide turn. Tea Party champs who have kept the current Congress in a constant and chaotic unproductive state should take note that the public is growing tired of the antics.

The Presidential Race is Still Up for Grabs
Every race in recent memory has been an expression of a frustrated electorate. Tuesday night’s results confirmed the trend. Although some would say that this is just reflective of the country’s anti-incumbent mood, I don’t think it is that clear. Many incumbents won on Tuesday while many extreme ideas were overturned. Outrage is seemingly being applied deliberately. Therefore, those who have already written their “day after election 2012” stories about President Obama’s defeat should keep watching. It is going to be a long trudge between now and Election Day and it is anyone’s game.

And most importantly,

Dogged Persistence and Old-Fashioned Pavement-Pounding Get Results
Look at Ohio. Last March, Governor Kasich spearheaded a law limiting the bargaining rights of 350,000 public workers. Public employees were pegged as some kind of fat cats whose benefits were the cause of the state’s fiscal trouble (rather than the global economic crisis).

Van Jones recently told a group of NRDC staffers, “When I was kid, we didn’t have ‘public employees.’ We had police officers who kept us safe. We had teachers who taught us how to do math. We had emergency responders who never abandoned us in a crisis.” In Ohio, though, Tea Party rhetoric beat down these folks.

But they didn’t stay down. They put a measure to repeal the law on the ballot. Then they canvassed, rallied, and got out the vote. And once they brought their case directly to Ohio citizens, they prevailed. On Tuesday Ohioans voted to repeal the bill 62 percent to 38 percent.

You may not agree with their position on bargaining, but you have to admire their perseverance. Here was a group cast aside by the Tea Party, the state legislature, and the financial downturn. But they rebounded, they brought their fight directly to the people, and they won.

It’s a lesson I already knew, but I appreciate the reminder. NRDC had a similar success last year. After the U.S. Congress failed to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, pundits claimed climate action was dead in the water. Yet when Texas oil interests tried to use a ballot initiative (Prop 23) to block California’s groundbreaking Global Warming Solutions Act, we demonstrated just how much voters care about the issue.

NRDC and our able allies mobilized public health advocates, concerned parents, clean energy executives, green collar workers, national security hawks, Latino community leaders, and others to come out and defend their right to a cleaner, more sustainable future.

Californians defeated Prop 23 by a ratio of 2 to 1. More people voted on Prop 23 than on anything else on the ballot, including the gubernatorial and Senate races. Even counties that backed Republican candidates shot down Prop 23. This was the first time climate solutions were put to a public referendum, and voters sent a resounding message to political leaders.

The lesson I took from that success is the same one I see in Tuesday’s result: you win by showing up and doing it again and again. We won’t get a national climate bill passed in one session. We won’t get California’s law off the ground in one year. But if we keep at it, we will prevail.

And so the environmental community is going to keep showing up until we secure cleaner, smarter solutions for America. We are going to keep defending the health standards from Tea Party attack. We are going to keep promoting smart clean energy solutions.

And we are going to reveal our strength. When I looked at photos of 12,000 people standing in a ring around the White House in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline last Sunday, I saw one giant backbone.

I think President Obama saw it too as evidenced by him sending the State Department back to the drawing board on the Keystone XL pipeline today. I know some folks have given up hope for him, but the book on Obama hasn’t been written yet. His decision to delay stronger smog standards was a huge disappointment, but his clean car standards will slash our oil dependence and cut vehicle carbon pollution in half. His EPA just announced it will set carbon limits on new power plants for the first time ever. And on top of all this, he still has several opportunities to make the right choices.

I still have hope in the President. And I still have faith in the political system. Tuesday’s election results confirmed once again that, as Woody Allen famously said, showing up is 80 percent of success.

That gives me tremendous hope. It shows me that even with a Congress paralyzed by dysfunction and a political system distorted by big money, ordinary citizens can affect change.

Tuesday’s election showed us: This is what engagement looks like. This is what you can achieve when you show up and work an issue until you carry it over the finish line. This is how you win.

Tags: , , ,