|
Palin’s position on the causes of climate change hasn’t mattered much. Yet, if you look at what she's done, her record is fairly impressive.  By Stefan Milkowski
Since Sarah Palin’s nomination as the Republican candidate, the governor’s record on climate change has rightly been a subject of much interest. It reflects her level of respect for science, and it suggests how she might approach an issue that many Americans, including John McCain, consider critically important. So what is Palin’s record on climate change? It depends on whether you consider what she’s said or what she’s done. Based on what she’s said, Palin hardly sounds like a woman on a mission, although her willingness to acknowledge a human role seems to have grown.
Late last year, Palin told me in an interview that she saw the changes happening but wasn’t an “Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity.” A few days ago, Palin told CBS’s Katie Couric she wasn’t going to “solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate,” acknowledging that humans are at least playing some role. Palin’s comment was spot on – there are natural factors – even if her wording was doubtful enough to appeal to skeptics. Intentionally or not, Palin was probably saying what her audience wanted to hear. Many – if not most – Alaskans still doubt that humans are the driving force behind changes in climate, even if Alaska is experiencing those changes faster and more dramatically than other places, and many strongly resist the idea. (While a wildly popular leader might be just the one to bring a skeptical state around, a strong statement from Palin would likely be tough politically.) Americans as a whole seem closer to acknowledging a human role in climate change, and McCain himself does not question the science. But so far, Palin’s position on the causes of climate change hasn’t mattered a whole lot. If you look at what Palin has done, her record is fairly impressive. The most tangible thing might be the money for communities threatened by coastal erosion, a phenomenon linked to shrinking sea ice. A sub-group of Palin’s sub-Cabinet on climate change identified immediate funding needs earlier this year – roughly $10 million for six communities – which Palin added to her budget request. In addition to those funds, Palin got $1.1 million for a “climate change impact mitigation program” that will provide small grants to communities at risk. On top of that, lawmakers and Palin agreed to spend more than $700 million over the next several years on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs – a huge amount of money for the two things widely considered the best way to reduce emissions. Now Palin’s sub-Cabinet, without much public attention, is working with two separate contractors to identify the most critical adaptation needs and the most cost-effective mitigation measures. ICF International is helping the state identify adaptation measures, and the Center for Climate Strategies is helping with mitigation measures. Dozens of citizen stakeholders are involved in the process, and specialized groups are meeting constantly. The state is also participating as an observer in a regional initiative by western states and provinces to reduce emissions, although Palin’s interest seems to be as much to protect Alaska from getting blindsided by regional or federal cap-and-trade legislation as to reduce Alaska’s impact on the climate. The work Palin has done so far – without much public discussion or acknowledgment of human influence on the climate – is impressive. And it’s ongoing. Environmentalists criticize Palin for her slow progress and lack of vision, for being all talk and no do when it comes to climate change. But somewhat ironically, what Palin has done is more than what she has said, even if her motivation is unclear. Palin is largely following the lead of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, who proved it was possible to address both adaptation and mitigation without directly acknowledging a human influence on the climate. Eroding coastlines require attention regardless of who’s to blame, for instance, and it makes sense to get off polluting fossil fuels if only to reduce the cost of energy. Consider Palin’s comment to Couric: “[It] kind of doesn’t matter at this point, as we debate what caused it. The point is: it’s real; we need to do something about it.” This approach may work for now. As long as the given response is blatantly needed – like addressing coastal erosion – or economically advantageous – like getting off fossil fuels – Palin seems willing to support it. But ultimately – and likely soon – Palin will face decisions that aren’t no-brainers, in which sacrifice is involved, and in which a given action only makes sense if one believes humans are causing the planet to warm.
And it’s by her handling of those questions that she should be judged. Stefan Milkowskii is a freelance writer living in Fairbanks. He covered business and state politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner from late 2005 through this summer. Contact him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
