Fox and The Wall Street Journal Don't Get It: Americans Want Action on Global Warming and Clean Energy

(I'm reposting this from Josh Nelson's spot-on piece up at The Seminal:

Fox and The Wall Street Journal Don't Get It: Americans Want Action on Global Warming and Clean Energy

Despite what the Wall Street Journal would have you believe, the election on Tuesday did not indicate opposition to action on global warming and clean energy. In fact, we are now seeing more and more evidence that the opposite is true.

A poll was just released with some extremely encouraging data on voters’ opinions on global warming and clean energy.  It was commissioned by The National Wildlife Federation and conducted by Zogby.

Here are some of the findings, which show that support for combating global warming and investing in the green economy have gained tremendous support, especially among a few key demographics:

78 percent of voters agree that investing in clean energy is important to revitalizing America’s economy.  Let that sink in for a second.  If we can get 60% of the United States Senate to agree on this we’ll be in good shape.

57 percent of voters said it was important to back candidates who support reducing global warming pollution.

60 percent agreed that elected officials should make combating global warming a high priority.

The results also showed increasing demand for climate action among some key demographic groups:

Independents: 57 percent felt it was important to vote for candidates who support reducing global warming pollution, up from 49 percent in 2006.

Minorities: An incredible 85 percent of African-Americans called it important to vote for climate candidates, a huge increase from 59 percent in 2006.

Among Hispanic voters, 70 percent agreed a candidate’s climate stance was important, up from 62 percent in 2006.

Young voters: 53 percent strongly agreed that elected officials should make combating global warming a high priority, a major jump from 38 percent in 2006.

NWF’s President and CEO Larry Schweiger offered the following summary of the findings:

“This election was powered by a voting public that wants dramatic and meaningful change, especially when it comes to action to advance a clean energy economy,” continued Schweiger. “President-elect Obama and the new Congress have the public support they need to move an ambitious clean energy agenda that measures up to the science of global warming and the full economic potential of our economy.”

So how did The Wall Street Journal and Fox get it so wrong?  Short answer: intentionally.

Not So Green: Voters Nix Most Environmental State Ballot Measures

Not Easy Being Green

Several of the initiatives the WSJ examined were opposed by environmentalists. I fail to see how this qualifies as voters nixing environmental measures. They also conveniently forgot to mention all of the environmentally friendly initiatives approved by voters on Tuesday. For the record, here are eight:

CA Proposition 1A:  Would partially fund a high-speed train linking Southern California with the Bay Area and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley.

CA Proposition 2: Would prohibit the confinement of livestock in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, or extend their wings and limbs.

FL Amendment 4:  Would institute a property-tax exemption for property placed under permanent conservation protection.

Minnesota Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage, and Natural Areas Amendment: Would raise the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent in order to increase state funding for natural resource protection and cultural heritage programs.

MO Proposition 3: Would require 15 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2021, and would require that utilities raise consumer rates no more than 1 percent per year to pay for the renewable energy.

Ohio Issue 2:  Would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation.

Ohio Issue 3:  Would create a constitutional amendment to protect property rights and rights to the reasonable use of water.

Washington Prop. 1:  Would provide $18 billion to support mass-transit services and expand light rail into several communities south of Seattle.

It also wouldn’t be hard to make the case that the defeat of California Propositions 7 and 10 were victories for environmentalists as well.

Read the rest of Josh's piece here.

He's certainly right about the CA props -- those were thinly veiled measures meant to aid the energy corporations and T Boone Pickens in particular. Kudos to Californians for not falling for them.