The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid: Find Out Where She Stands on Climate
There's a cliche among those who are discouraged by the political climate that "there's no difference between the candidates." Now that Hillary Clinton has made her official, anticipated-for-years announcement that she will be running for president in 2016, making her the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination, it's time to look at where she stands on environmental issues versus where the Republican field of millions—OK, dozens—stands.
The GOP field has two official candidates so far—senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas. Florida Sen. Mario Rubio is expected to announce today. Numerous other hopefuls, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, are making moves, such as visits to key primary states like New Hampshire, that show they'd like to be in the race as well.
The only other clear likely candidate in the Democratic field is immediate past Gov. of Maryland Martin O'Malley, who is campaigning vigorously but has not announced his candidacy.
You're going to hear grumbling from some environmentalists about Hillary's lack of perfection. One particular sticking point is her failure to say where she stands on approving the Keystone XL pipeline. She told an audience in Winnipeg in January, "You won’t get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I’m not going to express an opinion. It is in our process and that’s where it belongs."
When she spoke to at the League of Conservation Voters' (LCV) annual dinner in December, much of the media coverage again centered on her failure to say anything about the Keystone XL pipeline. The Washington Post ran a piece saying "Her refusal to take a stand on Keystone has disappointed some of the loudest—and richest—environmental activists who view the project as a test of a candidate’s environmental bona fides."
But what about everything else? Taking a look at the full range of Hillary's positions on the environmental issues and comparing them with the positions and votes of the Republican field, it's clear that a climate voter—and the planet—can't afford the luxury of claiming they're all the same. Virtually every entrant into the GOP field is a climate denier to a great or lesser degree.
"The science of climate change is unforgiving no matter what the deniers may say," said Hillary at the LCV dinner. "Sea levels are raising, ice caps are melting, storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc, 13 of the top 14 warmest years in recorded history have happened since 2000, and this past summer scientists found levels of carbon diode in our atmosphere not seen in hundreds of thousands of years."
That's not a statement you're likely to hear from any of the GOP candidates. Take only the two announced candidates as examples. Cruz is a full-throated supporter of unlimited, unregulated fossil fuel exploration and extraction or, as he put it "remove the barriers to every form of energy." He has said there is no global warming and trotted out the debunked theory that there was "global cooling" in the ’70s. "The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing,” he said. Rand Paul has said that the science behind climate change is "not conclusive" and that anyone who ties extreme weather events to climate change is an "ignoramus."
Speaking at the LCV dinner, Hillary praised the group's advocacy for the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, adding, "Years later, you pushed for and rallied behind President Obama's use of the Clean Air Act to set the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants which are driving the most dangerous effects of climate change. The unprecedented action President Obama has taken must be protected at all costs."
Most of the GOP field has vowed to eliminate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or severely cripple it, and to roll back or repeal virtual every environmental protection regulation of the last four and a half decades from the Clean Water Act of 1972 to President Obama's Clean Power Plant rule of last year to cut carbon emissions and phase out dirty coal-fired plants.
In her presentation to LCV, Hillary acknowledged both the difficulty and importance of acting on climate change.
"The political challenges are also unforgiving," she said. "There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious response required to effectively combat climate change is going to be a tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries including our own are grappling with slow growth and stretched budgets. Our economy still runs primarily on fossil fuels and trying to change that will require strong leadership and intense cooperation. In many places we are beginning to move past the old false choice between protecting our environment and growing our economy and instead finally committing to do both. American’s ability to lead the world on climate change hinges on what we do here at home. No other country will fall in line just because we tell them to. They have to see us doing it."
She was interrupted by applause once during her approximately 20-minute speech. That was when she addressed the issue of natural gas development and, by inference, fracking.
She said, "I know many of us have serious concerns about the risks associated with the rapidly expanding production of natural gas which is transforming our domestic energy landscape. Methane leaks and the production and transportation of natural gas pose a particularly troubling threat. So it is crucial that we put in place smart regulations and enforce them including deciding not to drill when the risk to local communities, landscape and ecosystems are just too high."
But she added, "If we’re smart about this and put in place the right safeguards, yes, natural gas can play an important bridge role in the transition to a cleaner energy economy,” a statement likely not received too warmly by many of those who had just applauded her, but one that recognizes that natural gas is no long-term answer.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
But whether environmentalists agree with her on that issue or not, the overall difference between Hillary and her potential competitors is stark. She has an 82 percent lifetime score from LCV for her votes when she was in the U.S. Senate. (Many of the votes that kept her score from being higher were favoring offshore oil drilling). Paul and Rubio have a lifetime scores of 9 percent; Cruz checks in at 11 percent. All three have scores of zero for last year's session.
The only Republican who's expressed interest in running who isn't an all-star on the climate denial team is South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the longest of long shots. He acknowledged late last year that climate denial could be a problem for his party in the presidential race.
“I think there will be a political problem for the Republican Party going into 2016 if we don’t define what we are for on the environment,” said Graham. “I don’t know what the environmental policy of the Republican Party is.”
The real problem is that the rest of the candidate field, as well as Graham's GOP colleagues in Congress, are making it only too clear.
"The Sierra Club is pleased to welcome Hillary Clinton into the 2016 Presidential field," said Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune. “With the implementation of the Clean Power Plan and critical climate negotiations in Paris on the horizon, climate action will be a major theme in the 2016 election. This election, Secretary Clinton has the opportunity to build on her strong environmental record, bring real leadership to the climate fight and lay out her plan to grow the American clean energy economy."
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Julia Conley
Climate campaigners on Friday expressed hope that policymakers who are stalling on taking decisive climate action would reconsider their stance in light of new warnings from an unlikely source: two economists at J.P. Morgan Chase.
Tensions are continuing to rise in Canada over a controversial pipeline project as protesters enter their 12th day blockading railways, demonstrating on streets and highways, and paralyzing the nation's rail system
Colorado River Has Lost 1.5 Billion Tons of Water to the Climate Crisis, 'Severe Water Shortages' May Follow
California is headed toward drought conditions as February, typically the state's wettest month, passes without a drop of rain. The lack of rainfall could lead to early fire conditions. With no rain predicted for the next week, it looks as if this month will be only the second time in 170 years that San Francisco has not had a drop of rain in February, according to The Weather Channel.
The last time San Francisco did not record a drop of rain in February was in 1864 as the Civil War raged.
"This hasn't happened in 150 years or more," said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability to The Guardian. "There have even been a couple [of] wildfires – which is definitely not something you typically hear about in the middle of winter."
While the Pacific Northwest has flooded from heavy rains, the southern part of the West Coast has seen one storm after another pass by. Last week, the U.S. Drought Monitor said more Californians are in drought conditions than at any time during 2019, as The Weather Channel reported.
The dry winter has included areas that have seen devastating fires recently, including Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties. If the dry conditions continue, those areas will once again have dangerously high fire conditions, according to The Mercury News.
"Given what we've seen so far this year and the forecast for the next few weeks, I do think it's pretty likely we'll end up in some degree of drought by this summer," said Swain, as The Mercury News reported.
Another alarming sign of an impending drought is the decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. The National Weather Service posted to Twitter a side-by-side comparison of snowpack from February 2019 and from this year, illustrating the puny snowpack this year. The snow accumulated in the Sierra Nevadas provides water to roughly 30 percent of the state, according to NBC Los Angeles.
Right now, the snowpack is at 53 percent of its normal volume after two warm and dry months to start the year. It is a remarkable decline, considering that the snowpack started 2020 at 90 percent of its historical average, as The Guardian reported.
"Those numbers are going to continue to go down," said Swain. "I would guess that the 1 March number is going to be less than 50 percent."
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center forecast that the drier-than-average conditions may last through April.
NOAA said Northern California will continue deeper into drought through the end of April, citing that the "persistent high pressure over the North Pacific Ocean is expected to continue, diverting storm systems to the north and south and away from California and parts of the Southwest," as The Weather Channel reported.
As the climate crisis escalates and the world continues to heat up, California should expect to see water drawn out of its ecosystem, making the state warmer and drier. Increased heat will lead to further loss of snow, both as less falls and as more of it melts quickly, according to The Guardian.
"We aren't going to necessarily see less rain, it's just that that rain goes less far. That's a future where the flood risk extends, with bigger wetter storms in a warming world," said Swain, as The Guardian reported.
The Guardian noted that while California's reservoirs are currently near capacity, the more immediate impact of the warm, dry winter will be how it raises the fire danger as trees and grasslands dry out.
"The plants and the forests don't benefit from the water storage reservoirs," said Swain, as The Mercury News reported. "If conditions remain very dry heading into summer, the landscape and vegetation is definitely going to feel it this year. From a wildfire perspective, the dry years do tend to be the bad fire years, especially in Northern California."
- Is California heading for another drought? - Los Angeles Times ›
- CA wildfire season: Will rain, snow weather forecast end risk? | The ... ›
- California Fires Now Rage All Year as Drought Creates Tinderbox ... ›
- California weather stays dry as rain and snow come up short | The ... ›
- California Emerged From Drought and Is Still Catching Fire - The ... ›