November 6, 2006

Pre-election Watch: Environment

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 10:19AM

• Comment Now
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

As we all await the results of Tuesday's elections with anxious anticipation, it's hard not to concentrate solely on the House and Senate races, the Big Deal this Nov. 7. For me it could be the first time America strikes any sort of partisan parity in our representative bodies since I've been of voting age, and it could be the first time my post-election hangover is anything but morose.

But beyond the Big Deal elections, there are some smaller decisions posed to voters around the country this year, decisions that will have much larger effects for how we live our lives. A slew of environmental ballot initiatives, as well as some state and local campaigns, are asking voters to weigh in on global climate change, alternative energy, and land use this year. This election could mark the first time that environmental issues are pivotal in the nation's polling places, with any luck signaling the beginning of an era where local politics and politicians can no longer afford to ignore the realities of climate change.

The most-talked about ballot initiatives are where else but California. Say what you will about their still-humorous-three-years-later governor, but California is leading the country in cleaning up the environment. This year, voters are asked to make three major decisions that will guide the state's environmental policies. If approved, Proposition 84: The Clean Water, Parks, and Coastal Protection Bond, will put $5.4 billion to protecting water quality and natural resources in the state. Currently, funding for programs like these has fallen to less than 1 percent of the state's budget. The funding would support infrastructure to protect water sources, maintain parks and bodies of water -- including the coastline. The proposition is supported by a number of big green groups -- including the National Resource Defense Council.

Proposition 87: The Clean Alternative Energy Act, is another California ballot initiative that's been getting a lot of attention this year. The act seeks to raise at least $4 billion to promote clean fuels, clean-fuel vehicles, and a better infrastructure to make those things possible. It also aims to reduce the state's annual oil needs by 4 billion gallons for now, and up to 10 billion gallons annually over the next 10 years. The money to fund this program would come from levying fees on oil drilled in California -- the only state that does not already collect this sort of fee from oil companies. Hailed as the most forward-thinking ballot initiative to address global warming, the measure would give California a leg or two up in the race to halt global climate change. Of course, opposition to the bill has been well-funded by the oil industry. Chevron alone donated $13.1 million to the cause, and oil companies accounted for most of the $35 million raised to discourage voters from approving the initiative. Not to be outdone, green-tinged Hollywood luminaries have broken out their pocketbooks in favor of the initiative -- laying down $21.8 million, $16.5 million of which came from producer Stephen Bing.

Voters there also get to decide this year whether they want to keep Arnie in office, or move forward with Phil Angelides, the state treasurer and this year's Democratic candidate. The big enviro groups are standing behind Angelides (and for a cheesy video demonstrating this, check here), but on the whole voters in the eco-sympathetic state seem to be leaning in favor of the incumbent, thanks in no small part to his role in the state's recent passage of a landmark bill that aims to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020-- about 25 percent, in total.

Washington State is also voting this year on whether to require the state's larger utilities to increase the amount of renewable resources like wind and solar in their supply systems to 15 percent by 2020. If I 937: The Clean Energy Initiative, utilities would be required to explore low-cost, energy-conserving options for their customers. This part of the initiative is key, as voters aren't going to approve any energy initiative without the understanding that it's going to be a benefit to them as a consumer as well -- no matter how forward-thinking it is on trying to stop global warming.

Another contentious issue this year in both California and Washington, as well as Arizona and Idaho, are the so-called "takings initiatives." A reaction to the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain in Kelo v City of New London, or at least portending to be, these initiatives would require the state and local governments to pay property owners if any changes in laws, rules, or regulations diminishes the value of their property in any way. The terminology and specifics are different in each state, but the fear with all of them is that states could end up having to pay property owners in order to protect wetlands, farmlands, air and water regulations, or other laws enacted for the public (and environmental) good.

The drive to pass these ballot initiatives is led by New York real estate investor Howard Rich -- yes, the New York on the other side of the country -- who has pledged more than 88 percent of the money in support of these initiatives personally or through his various affiliations. For insight into the ideological and economic interests behind this election season's hungriest wolf in sheep's clothing, the Center for Public Integrity has a great Takings Initiatives Accountability Project underway.

The environment in general seems to have emerged as a major factor this year, almost unexpectedly but, well, it's about time. The League of Conservation Voters even put together this playlist of all the television ads that refer to the environment this year -- 138 in total.

A few of the more important places where environmental concerns might play a key role:

In Montana, there's incumbent Republican Conrad Burns and challenger Jon Tester, a race that has been the focus of plenty of attention at the election draws neigh. Burns is a particularly loathsome candidate for environmentalists thanks to his outspoken denial of climate change and a paltry 4 percent lifetime score - on a 100-point scale - from the League of Conservation Voters. Tester, on the other hand, stood at the front of the initiative last year to pass a law in state legislature requiring Montana to get 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2015. He's a former school teacher, an organic farmer, and his television ad series includes several shots of him testifying to the need for renewable energy while standing in the middle of a wind farm - dressed in Carhartts, no less, keeping Big Sky staters from writing him off as any sort of hippie. Check out this particularly spectacular ad:

In Washington State, Senate candidate Maria Cantwell has had some great environmental ads as well, including one on taking care of the Puget Sound and another on investing in renewable energy. Heralded as an enviro champion in her own rite, it's also not hard for her to look extra-green next to Republican challenger Mike McGavrick whose campaign has been quite flagrantly funded by Big Oil -- even if he did return some of it.

And in Pennsylvania, another particularly odious Senate member for enviros, Rick Santorum, is up against Democratic challenger Bob Casey, the state's treasurer. Though Santorum does have this wonderfully ridiculous TV ad that mentions his commitment to open space, Casey's unquestionably won the approval of, well, everyone who's glad he's not Rick Santorum.