News > June 2, 2008

Red State, Green Campaign

By Sam Boyd

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Rice is making climate change a major issue in his campaign.

This election year, one of the greenest campaigns is being run not in blue Massachusetts or California, but in bright-red Oklahoma.

State Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City) is challenging incumbent Sen. James Inhofe (R), 74, Congress’ most vocal denier of global warming, and is doing so with an innovative message that could serve as a future model for Democrats across the country.

In 2003, Inhofe infamously called global warming “the second largest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” (The largest hoax, he has said, is the separation between church and state.) Inhofe frequently cites novelist Michael Crichton as a source of his rants, and last December he unveiled a list of 400 “prominent scientists” who allegedly agree that global warming is a hoax. (Several of those listed do not in fact allege that.)

Rice, 34, and his campaign are linking climate change (a term he prefers to global warming because of its ominous overtones) with energy independence.

“They definitely complement each other,” Rice says. “Wouldn’t we be proud as Oklahomans to be relying on our own energy sources and not be sending money to Saudi Arabia?”

He also connects energy independence to national security, a message he argues appeals to conservative rural voters.

In a heavily agricultural state like Oklahoma, changes in climate can be crippling. In recent years, the state has experienced a lengthy drought and unusually destructive rains. The Oklahoma Climatological Survey predicts that this will continue as global warming continues — with extended dry periods, more frequent heat waves and intense storms.

Hunters and fishermen across the nation have expressed concern about the changing climate and, along with farmers, have been key to recent Democratic victories in many Western states.

Rice’s opponents claim that a focus on the environment could hurt job growth.

But Rice says Oklahoma’s coal industry “and our big utility — which uses a lot of coal — use the economic argument, playing to people’s fears. But I think you [can] get people into the shared sacrifice.”

Last year, that big utility, the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, unsuccessfully sought to build a $1.8 billion coal plant — in a state that already gets more than 60 percent of its power from coal.

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the state’s regulatory agency, blocked the proposal, partly on environmental grounds. The utility has since increased investments in wind power and natural gas. Says Rice: “Inhofe, who maybe 10 years ago started to say climate change is not a big deal, put himself in a bad position because I think he assumed Oklahomans would never care about it.”

According to the campaign’s polling, while 75 percent of Oklahomans approve of government action against global warming, only 39 percent agree that the United States should “take bold action to address the problem by developing alternative sources of energy, even if it means we have to pay more in energy costs.” And 35 percent oppose doing anything if it involves increased energy costs or taxes, while 19 percent oppose doing anything at all.

In 2002, Inhofe’s campaign was the second largest recipient of money from oil and gas political action committees, or PACs, in the nation — receiving more than $242,000, despite a relatively uncompetitive race.

Few precedents exist for campaigns that have been based heavily on drawing awareness to climate change.

In Australia (one of the few developed countries whose government has been reluctant to take action against climate change), the opposition Labor Party won last year’s election, in part by criticizing the conservative government and then Prime Minister John Howard’s unwillingness to join the Kyoto Protocol — the international agreement established to curb greenhouse gases.

Could a similar political movement take place in the United States? With its electoral system designed to slow change, the only way to catch up to the rest of the world is one election at a time.

“If Inhofe went down in Oklahoma,” says Tim Greeff, deputy legislative director at the League of Conservation Voters, “it would send a signal that the American people really have moved on this issue.”

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Andrew is amazing.  Inhofe votes against children, farmers, families and veterans.

  Let’s help the good guy.

  http://www.andrewforoklahoma.com

  http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18228

  Posted by JimInhofeHatesPeople on Jun 2, 2008 at 7:27 AM

  There are people with excellent credentials who disagree with what has become the common wisdom regarding global warming or climate change. It may be we are entering a cycle such as the world has experienced many times before. Some say we may be about to experience another cooling period. What is without doubt is that our habits are causing toxic fumes and endangering lives — both animal and human.

  While we know this is true and not enough is being done, it is a topic politicians can back to get votes and never worry the results or lack of will come back to haunt them in their lifetime.

  It becomes one more distraction to avoid dealing with the more politically dangerous ones like illegal immigration, Social Security and Medicare, the disappearing middle class, tax reform, health care — all those messy ones they want to just wish away.

  -----------
  Separation of church and state — the “largest hoax”?

  Granted, it gets a lot of media play, but is only an issue if any religious belief or doctrine is made into a government requirement. These things are something WE can just ignore and it will go away or go on without us. Don’t sweat it.

  I guess he’s willing to accept the Y2k events as a non-hoax. Like so many things we’ll never know if it was a real crisis which was dodged by the actions taken or if it was a non event either way.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jun 3, 2008 at 2:00 PM

  I’m impressed (or rather--not dissappointed as usual) to see Rice isn’t proposing to use corn for ethanol or “clean coal” or some other such bogus, industry-backed, psuedo-progressive approach to alternative energy like, unlike most so-called progressive politicians. 

  Regarding whattheheck:
  There are also people who think that PCBs and DDT are harmless to humans.  And, while they may rightfully discount most of the scientific evidence to the contrary, most scientists in the field would yeild to the huge weight of evidence that the chemicals are very likely to be harmful to humans.  You can play it safe (even though you can’t be absolutely certain it necessary) or be reckless (throwing caution to the wind). 

  A few simple stats: over the last 650000 years the CO2 level has varied between 180 and 300ppm.  In the last 150 years humans have increased CO2 levels from 282 to 383ppm--well beyond the naturally occuring maximum.  Of course climate change is far more complicated than a simple CO2 cycle, but temperatures have followed the CO2 level throughout studied geological history.  Anyone who disregards that suggestion that CO2 levels rising well above historical levels creates dangerous situation in that temperatures as well may exceed historical levels despite whatever the natural cycle we are in would cause is a reckless fool and a blight on humanity.  The fact that the anthropogenic CO2 shift has occurred in a tiny fraction of the time such a change usually takes makes the short and long term changes we may be facing unpredictable and ought to be quite alarming.  It’s not just another vote-getting issue.  More to your point, the solution(s) are also solutions to economic and social issues and may be passable under the title of climate change mitigation than they would be under the headings of social welfare or taxation.

  “Separation of church and state — the “largest hoax”?  Granted, it gets a lot of media play, but is only an issue if any religious belief or doctrine is made into a government requirement. These things are something WE can just ignore and it will go away or go on without us. Don’t sweat it.”

  No.  The sloganeering of deists in my government is offensive.  “In God we trust” is an affront to my personal beliefs and a promotes a misperception of what my country’ and my countrys government were designed to be.  There are way too many idiotic Amerikkkans who think that this is a Xian nation--totally in opposition to the founders’ good intentions.  Same goes for “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.  Likewise there should be no religion-based bans on any behaviors such as sex, suicide or abortion.  Religion hindered good government for almost 1500+ years before the founding of the US; what we have in this nation is a tremendous revelation the likes of which have not been seen since the founding of the Holy Roman Empire.  The threat placed on this revelation by the misinformers and demagogues who like to think this is a Christian nation (the same people who would privatize medicare and social security and deny climate change) are bolstered by the failure to put the brakes on the religification of our nation and government.  “Don’t sweat it” my rear!

  Posted by beersnob on Jun 4, 2008 at 8:08 AM

  beersnob, I quite agree with you. What’s more, I think the Bible has been a tool used for many years to make people accept the unacceptable. The notion that a god chose a particular people from the many tribes to talk to is quite discouraging. The notion that all the creation was just something for man to use as he pleased is such a big mistake we are bound to pay for it. We are part of nature, not nature’s masters as we are constantly reminded by the events we are facing now. The sooner we all develop a conscious about the results we are harvesting through our thoughtless and selfish attitudes, the bigger a chance of trying to reverse our situation.

  Posted by Maria on Jun 5, 2008 at 11:40 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by Sam Boyd

• Red State, Green Campaign