POLITICS JUNE 5, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

Andrew Rice is an unlikely candidate to represent Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate. A 35-year-old Democrat elected to the state senate in 2006, he favors abortion rights and civil unions, despite running in one of the most socially conservative states in the country. He is up against two-and-a-third-term Republican incumbent James Inhofe, in a state with a 44-year history of voting for Republican presidents, and where no Democratic opponent has climbed above 41 percent since 1990. Inhofe’s campaign has already out-raised Rice by more than two to one.
So, why does a recent poll show that, upon hearing of Rice and his campaign platform, Oklahomans favor him over Inhofe by 43-41 percent? Rice is one of a number of Democratic candidates who are using the environment as a wedge issue, making gains in staunchly Republican districts by capitalizing on the growing practical and moral concerns about climate changes in rural communities across the country. Green issues are shaping up to be a key ingredient in the Democrats’ strategy to turn disaffection with President George W. Bush’s GOP into expansive down-ticket victories this November.
Rice has put environmental issues at the heart of his campaign. On the trail, he emphasizes his efforts in the Oklahoma legislature to convert the state’s vehicle fleet to clean-burning fuel and to require public schools to reduce their energy consumption. Rice is hoping his larger agenda of alternative fuel initiatives, which include better harnessing the state’s vast natural gas resources, will appeal to a wide range of voters. “There is a segment of Oklahoma’s population that is willing to swing to the other side for the first time in 20 years,” Rice says.
Rice could not have found a better foe in Inhofe, who is most famous for blocking environmental reforms and for saying that “global warming is the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state.” While serving on the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe distributed a list of “over 400 prominent scientists”questioning “the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.” (Many of the experts turned out to be television weathermen, economists, or people associated with fossil fuel industries.)
While there are other reasons for Inhofe's drop in popularity--particularly his mishandling of the state’s devastating ice storm last year--environmental issues have surprisingly risen to the top of many Oklahoma voters’ agendas. According to a TVPoll survey taken in February, 86 percent of likely Oklahoma voters believe that the state and federal government must take a strong hand in tackling environmental issues--and so they’re taking a second look at the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on environmental issues. In the same poll, almost two-thirds of likely voters disagreed with Inhofe’s position on climate change, and a higher percentage believed that the Democratic Party was better positioned to handle environmental issues than the GOP.
Practical concerns about the environment are particularly salient in states like Oklahoma, where 17.1 percent of the population is involved in the agriculture industry. Environmentally focused politicians “are striking a responsive chord in the agricultural community, where the unusually extreme weather patterns are eroding farm incomes,” says David Fleischaker, Oklahoma’s Secretary of Energy. “Particularly in the western part of the state, which is predominantly hard-core Republican.”
While stumping, Rice meets Oklahomans who have become card-carrying members of both the NRA and the Sierra Club--the natural landscape, of course, is of particular concern for Oklahoma's 251,000 hunters. A recent report delivered to Congress last month by eight of the nation's leading hunting and fishing organizations illustrated the seriousness with which this crucial rural constituency views climate change. “These people are out in the natural environment and they are seeing a lot of changes in the ecosystem, and they’re concerned,” Rice says. “[Global warming] is not the ‘tree hugger’ issue that it was seen as 10 to 15 years ago.”
An increasing environmentalism within the evangelical movement is also helping Democrats like Rice win in conservative states that have large religious communities. In 2000, self-described evangelicals represented 41.4 percent of Oklahoma’s total population, and according to another TVPoll survey, over 63 percent of avid churchgoers in Oklahoma believe that humans are affecting climate change (in contrast to Inhofe’s opinion) and over 62 percent think the government should take steps toward energy independence. Rice has won support from social conservatives like Bob Waldrop, president of the Oklahoma Food Cooperative. Waldrop, a devout Catholic opposed to abortion, told me, “I will vote for Andrew [Rice] because I think that his positions are more in sync with what I believe. If [Inhofe] were really pro-life, he would not be opposed to things that stop greenhouse gases.”
To be sure, Midwestern voters aren’t all fleeing the Republican Party. Issue like abortion and same-sex marriages--not to mention national security and the war in Iraq--remain a higher priority for conservative voters than environmentalism. In February, when Oklahomans were polled about their priorities in the upcoming presidential race, 31 percent said their top concern was the economy; 24 percent said it was the war in Iraq.
Still, mounting concern over the environment has become a significant factor in pushing previously unfriendly districts and states into play for Democrats. The longest-serving Republican senator in Montana’s history, Conrad Burns, lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Jon Tester, an organic farmer whose campaign focused on plans to shift his state’s energy economy down a newer, greener path. Fourteen-year California GOP representative Richard Pombo, a loud proponent of drilling in vulnerable natural land, was beaten in 2006 by Jerry McNerney, a Democratic wind engineer who ran on a platform of clean energy and was backed by environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife. Similar dynamics have helped propel Democrats to victory in states including Missouri, Ohio, and Colorado. After the Democratic sweep in ’06, president of the League of Conservation Voters, Gene Karpinski, declared, "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."
“Climate change is not an issue that breaks down along the old ideological lines of the past,” says Matthew Miller, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has already assisted the Rice campaign with strategy and polling, and will be hosting a joint fund-raising event with Rice this month in Oklahoma. “There are very few candidates on the Democratic side who don’t have an energy agenda. The public now expects to hear about it.” Meanwhile, Inhofe's message about the environment remains mired in an outdated conservative agenda. "I am convinced that future climate historians will look back at 2007 as the year the global warming fears began crumbling," he said recently from the Senate floor. By refusing to recognize the consensus about the human impact on the environment, it’s more likely that, come November, the only thing crumbling will be Republican numbers in Congress.
Marisa Mazria-Katz is a writer based in New York whose work has appeared in The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and Forbes.
36 comments
I can say without reservation that this is the most depressing article I have every read on this web site. A fake non-issue is now swaying elections. What's next, the presidential race being decided by the flag burning amendment? Like Mugatu says at the end of _Zoolander_: I feel like I've been taking crazy pills.
- Frank Lee
June 5, 2008 at 12:28am
"With the country in the grips of near-hysteria over soaring gasoline prices, Congress begins debate Monday on landmark climate legislation that critics say will substantially increase energy costs - and not produce any of the intended environmental benefits. "It seems unlikely that as American families face harsh economic times that any Senator would dare stand on the Senate floor and vote in favor of significantly increasing the price of gas at the pump and cost millions of American jobs - all for no environmental gain," says Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a long time climate change skeptic, who still favors a full and open debate." --Kenneth Stiier, CNBC News, 30 May 2008 Climate change sceptics, such as Nigel Lawson, are wrong when they question the science. But they will find a ready audience for their claim that the economics of limiting it are anyway unaffordable. The conditions are in place for climate change to slip behind jobs, growth and the cost of petrol as a priority. Cutting emissions will not win back Labour's lost voters in Crewe. But it must be done. This is the moment for courage. There are reasons to fear it may be lacking. --The Guardian, 26 May 2008
- Brad Arnold
June 5, 2008 at 2:34am
Inhofe is undoubtedly the least intelligent member of the Senate. It's about time the folks of Oklahoma recognized him for the embarrassment that he is, and replaced him. His position on climate change is a genuine threat to our way of life, to economic prosperity, and to human health on this planet.
- Sensible Centrist
June 5, 2008 at 9:43am
"A fake non-issue is now swaying elections" I hate to break it to you, but minor issues sway elections all the time. God, guns and gays come to mind. Also, the one you mention - the flag burning amendment. Whether they are "fake, non-issue[s]" is debatable, but they are certainly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Of course, climate change is neither fake nor a non-issue. It is, to use the words of the John McCain, the "existential threat" of our time. And I also agree that James Inhofe is quite possibly the biggest moron to ever hold elective office.
- csmiller
June 5, 2008 at 10:54am
Sensible centrists do not use hyperbolic, over the top rhetoric on warming or any other issue. "A threat to our way of life"? Oh, please.
- butchie b
June 5, 2008 at 11:14am
All available data bases (to the best of my knowledge) show that for at least 10 years, the earth's temperature has decreased as part of a repeating climate cycle for the last few thousands of years. There is no global warming as CO2 has increased. For a serous scientist (I am one) comments like those of "Sensible Centrist" are Kafkaesque. I am sure Sensible Centrist is one, and yet he believes (like most Americans, I suspect) scientific nonsense that is not supported by all current data. It gives me the willies, truly.
- David Becker, Ph.D.
June 5, 2008 at 12:22pm
"Sensible centrists do not use hyperbolic, over the top rhetoric on warming or any other issue. "A threat to our way of life"? Oh, please." So when hundreds of climate scientists the world over say it, they're just being hyperbolic and over the top, are they? "Oh, please", indeed. You deniers are a real hoot sometimes, you know that?
-
June 5, 2008 at 12:34pm
David Becker self-describes himself as a "serious scientist" and posts a Ph.D behind his name to impress us. Give me a break. Throwing out a snippet of an unverifiable factoid ("All available data bases...") doesn't negate the consensus of legitimate scientific opinion. BTW, a quick Google search for 'David Becker Ph.D' doesn't turn up anyone associated with climate research. Who are you? What's your area of expertise?
- Marc
June 5, 2008 at 2:10pm
David Becker self-describes himself as a "serious scientist" and posts a Ph.D behind his name to impress us. Give me a break. Throwing out a snippet of an unverifiable factoid ("All available data bases...") doesn't negate the consensus of legitimate scientific opinion. BTW, a quick Google search for 'David Becker Ph.D' doesn't turn up anyone associated with climate research. Who are you? What's your area of expertise?
- Marc
June 5, 2008 at 2:11pm
This article has made my day! I don't live in Okla but I surely want Inhofe replaced. He's a disgrace not only to his state but to the whole country with his lying opposition to MMGW.
- cvjoe fin
June 5, 2008 at 2:13pm
David Becker, Climate is a very jumpy phenomenon, so you find out which was it's going by looking at long-term trends, not by a few years at a time - particularly not when you start from a temporary peak, like 1998. The other way to approach it is to look at systems that respond to the time-integrated effect: If you look at glacial extent and mass, polar sea ice, etc., it becomes very clear that the cold stuff is on the way out, despite the ups & downs of climate jitteriness. No, I'm afraid global warming is real.
- Neal J. King
June 5, 2008 at 2:30pm
I love it when the Republicans are caught in their skein of lies. First they insisted that climate change was not occurring at all, then (in June, 2002) admitted that it was, but asserted was not the result of human activity. Now, apparently, they are running the lie out, admitting that it is happening _and_ that it is the result of human activity, but that "the economics of limiting it are anyway unaffordable. The conditions are in place for climate change to slip behind jobs, growth and the cost of petrol as a priority." That it, poor little Republicans, play defense! Deny what everyone knows is true! While you are at it, claim that you had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and that we need to "stay the course"!
- GPW
June 5, 2008 at 2:59pm
I am very appreciative of the civil tone of Neal J. King. As I read a variety of sites that show global temperatures, the current temperature variations we are now experiencing are part of a recurring cycle that has occurred for at least 10,000 years. The following sites are two I found with a very short goggle search that graphically illustrate these cycles. If Mr. King (or anyone else) is aware of contrary evidence, please pass it along. Data means everything in science and the data I am aware of contradicts the idea of global warming caused by anthropogenic CO2. http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/ba/ba337/ba337fig1.gif http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
- David Becker, Ph.D.
June 5, 2008 at 3:06pm
If GW is real then you have to ask yourself, WHY then can't we get anyone from the GW believers to debate the issue out in the open?? I'm more willing to believe those with NOTHING TO HIDE! GW is the biggest scam in the history of the world, and MSNBC is in the center of it!
- Alicia
June 5, 2008 at 3:26pm
I love it when the Republicans are caught in their skein of lies. First they insisted that climate change was not occurring at all, then (in June, 2002) admitted that it was, but asserted was not the result of human activity. Now, apparently, they are running the lie out, admitting that it is happening _and_ that it is the result of human activity, but that "the economics of limiting it are anyway unaffordable. The conditions are in place for climate change to slip behind jobs, growth and the cost of petrol as a priority." That it, poor little Republicans, play defense! Deny what everyone knows is true! While you are at it, claim that you had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and that we need to "stay the course"!
- GPW
June 5, 2008 at 3:47pm
Let's hear what David Becker PhD thinks of Senator Inhofe's credentials?
-
June 5, 2008 at 4:13pm
The only David Becker PhD that pops up in a google search is a professor of psychology. Anyway, Mr. King's response answers Becker's claim. I've read that current climate models actually predict that average temperatures will drop over the next decade before jumping back up. So enjoy your skiing in the next ten years. Having gone to Alaska and seen its marvelous glaciers you can actually see global warming taking place (as it has been since the end of the last ice-age). Looking at the glaciers they are receeding at an even faster pace now. To boot, the Spruce bark beetle has ravaged the trees in southern Alaska, probably a result of warming that allows them to survive in what otherwise would be foreboding temperatures. The outbreak of the pest generally happens 1 in 100 years but this time it has been much more devastating. Just some anecdotal evidence.
- Zach
June 5, 2008 at 5:08pm
I didn't say it wasn't real. But there's a long way between real and "a threat to our way of life." Oh, and to human health on this planet. Yes, measured terms, those. A threat to our way of life are those enviro policies that will do great harm to the US economy while doing little or nothing to fix the problem. Oh, and when China and India start to play, give me a call.
- butchie b
June 5, 2008 at 5:25pm
Mr. Becker's comment was unclear as to whether his data bases said that things have been cooling in the last 10 years or in the last several thousand years, but in either case, I wonder what data bases he has been using. The data bases I've seen say that we have set records in many of the last 10 years for highest world temperatures. Also, as has been noted above, factors such as glacial covering, polar ice caps, decrease in permafrost, movement of animal and plant populations up mountains and north into previously unused territory have all shown that there is a long term warming. It is very difficult to believe that people of normal intelligence who deny the fact of global warming are sincere. It makes much more sense that they have a vested economic interest in continuing the present production of greenhouse gases.
- dkm
June 5, 2008 at 5:40pm
Inhofe can just float his Ark down the river "denial," when the floods start comming!
- Becky
June 5, 2008 at 5:52pm
Fighting Global Warming requires raising taxes and creating scarcity. I can't believe your telling me with a straight face that raising taxes and creating scarcity will win the long run as a strategy. It's almost like saying if Democrats put Tax & Spend on top of their campaign lit it would expand votes...
- cthulhu2008
June 5, 2008 at 6:31pm
Anyone with a science PhD should understand the related concepts of outliers and averaging data points in order to properly determine trends. "Doctor" Becker is either a liar or an idiot, or quite possibly both.
- Kevin W. Parker
June 5, 2008 at 11:31pm
Yeah like some 35 year old kid is going to beat out Inhofe, hahaha, in Oklahoma no less. Sen. Inhofe is one of the rare Senators who has actually looked at the Science, and knows that Global Warming is nothing but a hoax and had the balls to actually say so. What you did not know that its all a hoax? Did you know that this May was the coldest May in 20 years? The Global Warming Scam is up. The Natural theorists won out on the Science, and it will soon be so overwhelmingly obvious that no even the greenie propaganda machine will be able to deny reality as the thermometer is going to continue to fall, at least through the Summer and might extend into the fall. If Solar Cycle 24 does not kick off in full force soon, we might also expect another bitterly cold winter. I don't really care though, I even kinda hope that you Stalinist greenies get your way. The sooner the backlash against this crap starts the better.
- Johnnyb
June 6, 2008 at 3:51am
Neal King's fear of global warming may be true - but man's contribution to this warming is miniscule. Carbon dioxide is less that 4% of total green house gases, man's contribution to the total CO2 is around 3% and elimination of all of man made CO2 would reduce total green house gases approx. .12%. This is why the senate proposed cap and trade bill is so ludicrous - it will do nothing to decrease global warming but will increase all energy prices and unemployment.
- Jim McKinzey
June 6, 2008 at 10:48am
The possibility of James Inhofe getting booted out of the U.S. Senate gives me faith in humanity. Perhaps when the U.S. -- which is 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the energy; and disposes of 40% of the trash; and owns 33% of the cars in the world but contributes HALF the pollution from cars (even China gets better auto mileage) -- perhaps we will wake up out of our stupor soon. $150/barrel oil and natural gas prices over $12/MMBtu should help. How stupid we've been -- pandering to the fossil fuel industry, and destroying the planet. I live in Colorado, where we're watching our forests get eaten up by bark beetles (foresters say all the lodgepole pines will be gone in 5 years) and we're looking at no more skiing by perhaps 2030? 2035? and then what will we do for drinking water? How sad.
- Nancy LaPlaca
June 9, 2008 at 1:14am
My Goodness. Readers of a "respected" Liberal Journal resorting to personal attacks,,,Stupid, Ignorant. where is the tolerance for diversity of opinion that is redolent of the "left" Apparently, GIGO has not yet become familiar to some of your readers. Like they say on "Law and Order" and in real life,,,you can get a Grand Jury to indict a Cabbage. This is the Priority of the Paradigm. Notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary,,,Global Warming remains a fact. 'nuff said.
- Robert Granville Lee
June 9, 2008 at 8:33am
OK Dems let's look @ YOUR Congress---the great wonderful do nothings who want to punish good Americans....look @gas prices and the housing market and What about all that wonderful pork that they can't live without Approval Ratings in the toilet...Elitists pandering to their Left wing fundraisers...,Global warming mis informationi.e. Polar bear populations are booming ,according to the latest Naval survey the Ice cap has grown back THICKER than before and beyond the previous melting point and those wonderful eco-saving light bulbs-FULL of poisonous Mercurial Gas(enough mercury in one to contaminate 6000 gal of water)and let's not forget one of the earth's largest producers of green house gases--COWS---in the 70's it was THE NEW ICE AGE now it's THE NEW AND COMING FLOODS--oh Al just stretched the truth by 19' and 10"--the scientist he got his information actually stated the oceans would rise about 2 in. in the next 20 yrs.Can You believe ENGLAND saw through the sham why not the good old USA--oh and as usual in Libville it's do as I say not do as I do--22,000 square feet and 30,000 dollar utilty bills-give me a break!
- Danny
June 9, 2008 at 11:24am
I looked up the 400 prominent scientists that the article describes as generally TV weatherpeople and shills for the oil companies (my translation). http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report links to a Senate report that lists some of them. I don't know about the whole 400 but some of these people look impressive enough they could open debate by themselves. I would remind people that 30 years ago the data indicating a coming Ice Age was, according to a Newsweek article of 1975, coming in so fast scientists were having trouble keeping up with it. Yes we did lose a large chunk of Antarctic ice in Fwebruary I think but the Antarctic winter of 2006 was unusually cold, not warm. Anyway, what's with the name calling? Global warming or the lack thereof may well be obvious to you but the people you are replying to are not you. And the ones reading these exchanges aren't you either. You cannot order someone to believe. The only way to convince someone is to take them from where they are to where you are and that is done with reason and good sources.
- lemonfemale
June 9, 2008 at 12:02pm
The Republicans need to hit back with a platform to end America's dependence on foreign oil. We have the technology. all we need is the will. It's a perfect way to combine environemntalism and national security. Kick-Oil.org has such a platform. Join us at http://kick-oil.org
- kick-oil.org
June 20, 2008 at 1:57pm
I agree with Frank, we are in the most troubling times of our lives and I feel that we need to cut the head of the beast off. That means a movement that puts a two term limit on Congress. These power hungry animals are sucking the life out of this country one day at a time and I am afraid we are almost to the last day. We need to start now and get them out!
- John
June 21, 2008 at 8:18pm
Arks don't float without water!
- John
June 21, 2008 at 8:32pm
Arks don't float without water!
- John
June 21, 2008 at 8:32pm
Yes you are right, a fact that it's not real!
- John
June 21, 2008 at 8:34pm
***his position on climate change is a genuine threat to our way of life*** He! How's things in Nashville, Al?
- Byron in Wahroonga
August 24, 2008 at 8:57am
***perhaps when the U.S. -- which is 5% of the world's population but consumes 25% of the energy; and disposes of 40% of the trash*** If you're ashamed of that proud record you're welcome to emigrate. Pyongyang would suit both your low energy consumption and political leanings.
- Byron in Wahroonga
August 24, 2008 at 9:05am
I can see that this is a pretty leftist website which draws like minded people and I have some questions to ask. Do liberals believe that they are smarter or more enlightened than everyone else? Do they hate the idea of a God? Are liberals unwilling to believe some facts because of their biases? Why does living in a large city make one want to vote Democratic? Why doesn't Obama's liberalism bother everyone? Why is Bush hated? Don't liberals love everyone? Aren't liberals the tolerant ones who accept everyone and their flaws?
- James the Engineeer
October 6, 2008 at 10:06pm