Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Election '06: A Huge Victory for Green Causes

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted November 11, 2006.


From the defeat of the Rep. Richard Pombo, the most anti-environmental politician in Washington, to the election of greener candidates, election '06 was a great one for enviros.
Advertisement

Fist-pumping, chest-thumping, and hallelujahs abounded yesterday at a press conference of top environmental strategists responding to the results of the Tuesday elections, which ushered in a Democratic Congress after 12 years of near-total GOP control.

Jon Tester, one of the greener senators-to-be. Jon Tester, one of the greener senators-to-be. "Let me be clear: The environment won last night!" Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall exclaimed. "Voters elected a greener U.S. House, a greener U.S. Senate, greener U.S. governors, and they gave a green light to a new energy future."

Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said, "This is the first election I can remember in U.S. history that has put such a specific focus on a top-priority environmental issue, which this year has been a clean-energy future."

There's no question that the environment played a central role in some high-profile victories. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- one of the few Republicans with anything to smile about on Tuesday -- got a boost from signing into law the nation's first mandatory caps on greenhouse-gas emissions -- and then coasted to victory over Democratic challenger Phil Angelides. "There's certainly a case to be made that he owes his win to climate change," said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA.

Another Californian with decidedly less star power, Jerry McNerney (D), also has the environment to thank for his stunning victory over House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R), who for 14 years represented the Golden State's 11th Congressional District and rose to become one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. A no-name wind-energy engineer, McNerney made clean energy his signature issue and painted himself a zealous eco-warrior against the backdrop of Pombo's relentless efforts to drill in sensitive natural areas, butcher the Endangered Species Act, and open millions of acres of public lands to development. McNerney was helped mightily along the way by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, which together poured more than $1.2 million into the race.

The new Democratic senator-elect from Montana, Jon Tester, beat out environmental foe Conrad Burns (R) with a similarly enthusiastic environmental platform. An organic-farmer-turned-state-senator, Tester centered much of his TV advertising on his plans to make Montana a stronghold of the new energy economy. As president of the Montana state Senate, he pushed through a 2005 law requiring utilities in his state to derive 15 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2015.

This same message also cropped up during the campaign of Missouri's new Democratic senator-elect, Claire McCaskill, who ousted Republican Jim Talent, an avid proponent of oil extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And it was a theme in the gubernatorial races of Bill Ritter (D) in Colorado, who beat out his drilling-happy Republican opponent Bob Beauprez, and Ted Strickland (D) in Ohio, who walloped Republican Ken Blackwell with a campaign that included a promise to spend roughly $250 million on next-gen alternative-energy projects.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: green, elections

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ec
Posted by: jmp3954 on Nov 11, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting to note that the Green candidate in the Virginia Senate race, Glenda Gail Parker, pulled about 1% of the vote. That doesn't sound like much, but given the extremely narrow margin between Allen and Webb - about 1/3 of a percent - she could have easily cost the Democrats the race and with it control of the Senate. No doubt there are other races around the country where Green canditates were potential or actual spoilers. Since they have almost no chance of actually winning anything except some local offices in college towns and other "progressive" enclaves, and a few scattered state legislative seats, the Greens should give it up and support the Democrats, even though individual candidates may not be perfect in all respects. The alternative is far worse - a continuation of the past 6 years. Remember - if Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, W would not be President today. The Greens, and other leftist parties, can never be anything but spoilers in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» greenmail is good Posted by: edith
» RE: ec Posted by: srjenkins
» Elitism and contempt Posted by: nickptar
» Close, but no banana Posted by: HeroesAll
» Cross-endorsing Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» So pessimistic... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: ec Posted by: DaBear
most important
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 11, 2006 2:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the environment is the most important issue relating to human survival in decency, this is good news. The best thing environmentalists can do politically now would be to push the impeachment of the Bushies for they are the criminals pushing the second most important issue relating to human survival in decency: wars & war crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the statewide Green Party candidates in CA polled well over 100,000
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 11, 2006 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're getting there.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Preferential voting, dude Posted by: HeroesAll
Jon Tester supports biofuels and my friend in MT asked him about hemp.
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 11, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And yes, Jon Tester is ready to work with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP and help save America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Green my butt
Posted by: mat38 on Nov 11, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried to register as a Green in Massachusetts and I was told that there is no longer a Green Party because they couldn't get enough votes in the last election so they were not an official party. I was pissed because it just goes to show how free we really are. We are free to participate in the two party system - and that's why we get Kerry (alot of Baystaters can't stand him) and Bush instead of real choices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Green my butt Posted by: JCR
» RE: Green my butt Posted by: mat38
» Don't lose hope! Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Don't lose hope! Posted by: mat38
In Republican downstate Illinois ...
Posted by: Michael Robin on Nov 11, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... where the ruling Chicago-machine Democrats are as crooked a a hog's penis, how does someone vote against the neocons? Vote GREEN.

In Mclean County, where the vote typically runs 70% Republican, 30% Democratic, this time it was 55% Republican, 30% Democratic, and 15% Green. In small farming towns, it was more like 20% Green. Amazing!

In Illinois we are typically offered two crappy options that don't reflect the majority opinions -- with either Dem or Repub, I find myself voting for someone with whom I DISAGREE 70%. The firmly-held conventional wisdom is that a vote for any other than the Dem or Repub candidates is just throwing your vote away. Here, many people felt so strongly UNrepresented by either "major party candidate" that they were compelled to vote for ANYONE ELSE. Statewide, the Green Party drew almost 10%.

This election SHOULD be taken as a rejection of Republican Party positions. It WAS. It SHOULD NOT be taken as an endorsement of Democratic Party positions. It was NOT.

Had the people of Illinois been offered a 3rd party option that they recognized -- I believe that 3rd Party candidate would have won.

BOTH Parties are out of touch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Even in Suburban Cook County Posted by: Theodore
jmp3954
Posted by: jmp3954 on Nov 11, 2006 10:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To be expected from people who think Nancy Pelosi is far too centrist.

There is no viable constituency for a genuinely leftist political party in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon Dioxide Against the Poor.
Posted by: gnovak55 on Nov 12, 2006 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't it be marvelous to know that carbon dioxide doesn't have the slightest ability to cause global warming? Not if you need another excuse to shove the lower classes out of the economy. Corrupters always look for human causes of problems as a basis for promoting population control and a war against the lower classes. So they contrived an explanation for global warming based on carbon dioxide. Real scientists knew it wasn't credible, but the propagandists had a large machine in place, in the media, bureaucracies and organizations, for promoting their corruption. They easily convinced the public that carbon dioxide is the cause, and now real scientists dare not speak out, or they will lose their jobs or grants.

The real cause of global warming is oceans heating, probably due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core. The best evidence is that ice ages have been cycling at exactly 100,000 year intervals. Nothing in the environment would cycle in such a precise manner. The oceans heat up in exactly the same way at the beginning of every ice age.

There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. It is true that carbon dioxide will absorb infrared radiation slightly better than nitrogen and oxygen, but it cannot add significant heat to the atmosphere, because it does everything it does in about ten meters of distance, and then its energy is converted to heat which is transferred to the nitrogen and oxygen. Convection (wind currents) mix everything in such a short amount of space removing any significance of increased carbon dioxide. Propagandists do not account for convection nor the instantaneous conversion of radiant energy into heat, which prevents it from recycling significantly. The logic of propagandists goes no farther than the misrepresented fact that carbon dioxide absorbs radiant energy better than nitrogen and oxygen.

www.nov55.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» precisely ... about? Posted by: Michael Robin
Downwind from the corporate dung heap
Posted by: apple pie on Nov 12, 2006 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes! It's great that Plombo is gone, he was a nightmare, but I fear that we have gone a bit too far with our luxurious lifestyle here in America, with all the energy we demand, all the water we waste, all the land we destroy from paving the wetlands over in Lousiana or California to levelling mountains in Appalachia. But that is only the damage we can see, smell, or otherwise notice. What we should be concerned with are the less noticeable indicators of planetary stress.

What we don't see is the massive extinction of species taking place now around the globe, the constant rape of the oceans that will lead to fish stock collapse, the ever increasing amount of synthetic hormones that is invading our dwindling water supplies and changing how life adapts to that pharma-stew, and yes, of course, that which will eventually affect us all, climate change.

I am sorry but the Democrats are too controlled by the corporate interests that would continue this bio-dive so they both can make more profit and we can buy more shallow video game players, and SUVs, and all the other garbage shoved at us, for any American politician to show any true life-affirming leadership when it comes to the environment.

If people are serious about survival we need to break the chains of corporate slavery quickly and irrevocably.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Real Environmentalism is Dead. Posted by: gnovak55
Trust Pelosi for energy independence....hmmm
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 12, 2006 8:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Soon-to-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has named energy independence as one of her top priorities for the 110th Congress, along with repealing subsidies for oil companies and pushing energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

Kinda like her top priority of not investigating criminal misconduct, criminal acts and enterprises, war crimes or other offenses committed by the executive branch. This same Dim that is committed to looking the other way is supposed to deliver energy independence? Hmm, just what voting record or other empirical data could possibly support such an assumption? The authors of the piece clearly don't know.

I'll trust a Dim with my energy independence the day they stop voting AGAINST ecological common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New extremists in power
Posted by: ng1944 on Nov 14, 2006 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where common sense dissapered.
Now envirofashists will dictate policy,
and next elections right wingers will come back to power

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]