By
Peter Dykstra in Environmental Health News
I
don't like political pundits. I really, really don't like them. So it is with
mixed feelings that I give you my punditry on the Democratic Convention.
Climate
and environment arrived, and stuck around, at this convention like none before.
Virtually every major figure in the party, from Hillary and Bill Clinton and
Tim Kaine to the Obamas, Vice President Joe Biden, California Gov. Jerry Brown,
runner-up Bernie Sanders and
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker – at least tipped their hats to the issues we cover
here.
Conspicuously
absent was Al Gore, who skipped his
second consecutive convention, missing out on seeing so many of his
peers validating his Inconvenient Truths.
By
contrast, the GOP speaker roster barely touched on the issues – not even to
complain about the climate "hoax" or to compare the EPA to the Third
Reich.
The
self-hating pundit within me thinks this suggests that the Dems will go long,
and coast-to-coast, on climate and environment issues.
The
Republicans, who are beginning to grasp that anti-science tactics and climate
denial are a big liability, may only campaign on these issues where fierce
local controversies exist: The fate of coal in Appalachia; public lands and
endangered species in many Western states; oil and gas in oil and gas-producing
states; water rights in California's Central Valley.
Elsewhere,
they just might not talk about any of it a whole lot.
While many tipped their hat, only three Dem speakers focused solely on the environment, and none of them quite made the prime time, high-viewership part of the program.
The
Mayor of Flint Michigan, Karen Weaver, talked about the drinking water crisis
in her city. The actress Sigourney Weaver introduced and narrated a compelling
short film on climate change from director James Cameron. But the only
scheduled speaker with specific environmental credentials was Gene Karpinski of
the League of Conservation Voters.
LCV
has always described itself as a non-partisan group, but the partisan divide on
the environment is so strong that not only have they endorsed Hillary Clinton,
they did so eight months ago, before it was clear that either Clinton or Trump
would be their party's nominees.
For
her service in the Senate, LCV gave Clinton an 82 percent lifetime
score, far lower than Sanders at 95 percent.
The Democratic
platform calls for environmental constraints on trade deals
like the Trans Pacific Partnership, but doesn't oppose such deals outright like
both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
Possibly
thanks to Bernie, it backs away from the Obama Administration's "all of
the above" energy policy with goals and targets to pretty much phase out
fossil fuels, get 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy in a decade,
and cutting out most greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.
Bernie
Sanders supporters pushed hard for a ban on fracking—that didn't happen—but the
Dems issued their strongest call yet for limits to fracking. Probably no
coincidence that anti-fracking filmmaker Josh Fox was on the platform
committee.
There's
even a bit of common ground between the Democratic Party and ExxonMobil: They
both want a carbon tax.
Here
are a few more intriguing new wrinkles from the Democrats: They want to
decriminalize and regulate marijuana nationwide—that actually might have a big
environmental impact given the huge energy and environment footprint that
illegal pot farms leave.
In
the wake of the wake of the Flint tragedy, the party uses strong language to
condemn environmental racism in inner cities, Indian lands, farm communities
and elsewhere.
Environment
touches the Democratic platform everywhere.
It
is a component in goals on infrastructure, clean energy jobs, science and tech
education, NASA, fixing the financial system AND the campaign finance system
and corporate concentration, fair trade, racial gaps in income and opportunity,
immigration, agriculture, native Americans, public health, keeping a lid on
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and constraining illegal wildlife
trafficking.
One
of the few issues where both party platforms agreed was on rebuilding our
electric grid.
Unfortunately,
one other issue where the Dems and GOP are in sync is their mutual obsession
with attacks on each other.
In
Cleveland, Republican speakers seemed to spend far more time attacking Hillary
Clinton than discussing the goals of their own guy.
The
Democratic platform derails itself from discussing its own goals and values at
a frantic pace. In 51 pages of platform text, Donald Trump is mentioned 32
times.
Finally,
a word about convention media. I didn't watch every last minute of coverage – I
couldn't possibly bear to – but away from the podium speeches,
I
didn't hear more than a few words of mention of science, climate, or
environment from any of the entourage of TV pundits. That's an inevitable
outcome when the campaign analysis comes almost entirely from people whose
careers are entirely invested in the political system, or, as I like to call
it, the Bullshit-Industrial Complex (BIC).
CNN
spent a great deal of time with 8 simultaneous panelists, flanking the network
anchors on both sides as if it were a re-enactment of The Last Bullshit Supper.
I half expected Anderson Cooper, arms outstretched, to say "Before the
next commercial break, one of you will betray me." But even with a
Category 8 pundit typhoon, there was no room for mention of these weighty and
critical issues.
And
about those ads: The American Petroleum Institute was a marquee sponsor for
many convention broadcasts. It ought to raise the question of whether
broadcasters should hold themselves to the same standard as the candidates they
report on and disclose who's paying the bills for their political
broadcasts.
It
ought to, but I'd be stunned if it did.
Peter
Dykstra is the weekend editor of Environmental Health News and The Daily
Climate, independent news sites that cover environmental health, climate
change, and energy policy. . For questions or feedback about this piece,
contact Brian Bienkowski at bbienkowski@ehn.org.
