Tonight, the candidates are answering the question: "Do you think the risks of climate change are at all overblown?" I have discussed the real-world politics (what real people actually think) and some of the beltway politics of the issue. It is clear in New Hampshire, at least, that Republicans think that global warming is an issue that the government must act on, even if it is one that is a low-priority for primary voters.

In the end,  as I have said, I think that this is an issue that is more important as a credibility issue than a ballot issue. Very few people are going to vote on the specifics of plans on global warming. But people, including Republicans, are increasingly seeing this as an issue that candidates need to have a credible position on to be a credible candidate. Anecdotally, it seems clear to me that this is something that is important to a number of Evangelical and Catholic groups.

I have summarized the responses in a table. I think it is revealing.

The main proposal on the table is cap-and-trade. Greg Mankiw, a Romney economic advisor and a former Bush Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors has a very cogent criticism of cap-and-trade, but calls for carbon taxes instead.  The quotes from the candidates are after the jump.

McCain, who has been the most vocal of the GOP candidates on this issue — he even talks about it in his stump speech — and has legislation that the Senate has voted on several times.

I have been to Greenland, I have been to the South Pole. I’ve been to the Arctic and I know it’s real. I believe that we’ve got to go back to nuclear power. We’ve got to do alternative energy. We’ve got to have a cap in trade proposal which Joe Lieberman and I have proposed. … And unfortunately, we have not acted either as a federal government or a Congress.

In response to a follow up about why nothing has happened, McCain returns to a standard riff:

Special interests. It’s the special interests. It’s the utility companies and the petroleum companies and other special interests. They’re the ones that have blocked progress in the congress of the United States and the administration. That’s a little straight talk

Huckabee has also been fairly vocal, but doesn’t have much specific to say:

I don’t know. I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is I don’t know. But here’s one thing I do know, that we ought to not let this become this big political football and point of argument. We all ought to agree that we live on this planet as guests. I think Republicans have made a big mistake by not being more on the forefront of conservationism.

I consider myself a conservationist. I think we ought to have some cap and trade. It worked with acid rain. I think it could work with Co2 emissions. I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.

Like McCain, Giuliani has had fairly strong positions on global warming, while not making it a fundamental part of his pitch in the primary. Interestingly, it has a big shout-out to coal. In the Democratic primary, a similar statement about coal by Barack Obama led to allegations that he "wasn’t serious about global warming."

There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it. I think the best answer to it is energy independence. We’ve got more coal reserves in the US than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. If we find a way to deal with it and use it so it doesn’t hurt the environment, we’re going to find ourselves not contributing to global warming and also being more energy independent. I think we have to take another look at nuclear power. France is 80 percent nuclear. We’re 20.

Romney embraces that global warming is human caused. He explicitly rejects Kyoto (a conservative button, which he is happy to press) and blames China. And he talks about nuclear. But he does offer very few specifics:

I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you’re seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it. I would develop sources of energy which would allow us to be free of foreign oil. But sources that don’t emit Co2. And that’s nuclear power, clean-burning coal, all of our renewable resources and so forth. I also wanna see greater efficiencies in our autos, in our homes, in our businesses. That’ll get is energy independent.

I don’t wanna have America unilaterally think it’s somehow gonna stop global warming. They don’t call it America warming. They call it global warming. And that means China, which is the biggest Co2 emitter in the world, as well as other nations like Indonesia and Brazil are gonna have to be a part of the global effort. So Kyoto was wrong, because it  left major polluting nations out.

Thompson just doesn’t seem to address the question:

There are a lot of unanswered questions. We don’t know to the extent this is a cyclical thing. This may or may not effect very much. The extremists are the ones who want to do drastic things to our economy before we have more answers as to how much good we can do and whether people in the other parts of the world are going to contribute. It’s the fact that our entitlements are bankrupting the next generation. We’re spending the money of those yet to be born and we can’t continue that way. … I mean, ultimately global warming may be a greater problem. I don’t think we know the answer to that. I can’t give you a list of specific items I would address. I think research and development has got to be at the top of that list.

Next week, I will be flying to-and-from Ottawa, Canada. Hopefully, I can read this and have a review up.

I don’t understand Democratic primary voters well enough to know what would happen in their primary. Basically, everyone would have to fold for him to have a chance, I would assume. But I don’t know.

I also wonder about the GOP primary. Will this create a backlash against the candidates who think that we need to do something about global warming, namely John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Sam Brownback?

On a broader level, I wonder where this issue is going in the national electorate. A bunch of consultants and think-tankers point out that no one really votes on global warming. But we are in a politics of narrative, not a politics of fact. The narrative that global warming denying gives us is that we are out of touch. It is another talking point in a long list that the Democrats have. When 60+% think that we are in a recession and Republican candidates talk about everything being rosy, something seems strange. When our electeds deny global warming, but 80% of NH Republicans say they would raise taxes to address the problem, something seems strange.

Last night I had coffee with my uncle. He is one of the founders of the What Would Jesus Drive movement. Today the National Association for Evangelicals — my uncle is the co-chair of their policy committee –, Bread for the World, the Micah Challenge, and a number of evangelical and mainline groups are meeting in DC to talk about a number of issues, but first on the agenda? Global warming. (Second is "torture" by the way) One of the most important swing votes right now is moderate evangelicals. And this issue (these issues? I might even throw in immigration for a trifecta) is moving on us. We need to start addressing it.

Back to my friends in Europe for a second. In February, I attended, representing the GOP, a conference of young leaders of center-right parties from around the world. All the Europeans said that this issue creeps up on you. That it is not a ballot issue, but a credibility issue. That taking a measured position had become no longer politically viable for them. The Aussies (the Liberal Party), the Canadians (the Conservative Party of Canada) and the Republicans, all said, "no no no…"

Since then the Australian Liberals and the Canadian Conservatives have switched positions, leaving the Republicans the only remaining major center-right party in the world that has not moved on this issue.

MORE kangaroos should be slaughtered and eaten to help save the world from global warming, environmental activists say.

The controversial call to cut down on beef and serve more of the national symbol on our dinner plates follows a report on curbing greenhouse gas emissions damaging the planet.

Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham urged Aussies to substitute some red meat for roo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas from flatulent cattle and sheep.

PETA is not going to be happy….

So what will happen with the environment? The Catholic Church is taking a strong position on global warming, H/T Andrew Sullivan:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following.

Will this have any impact on the conservative movement? Will this have any impact on Catholic voters in the US? (In Rob’s case, almost certainly not. But he didn’t care what his church said about immigration either) Is this growing disconnect going to matter?

A carbon tax or fee has been endorsed by President Bush‘s former chief economic adviser, Greg Mankiw; Nobel Prize-winning conservative economist Gary Becker; the chief executive of the largest U.S. auto-dealer chain, Mike Jackson; and several environmental organizations. From Alan Greenspan to Greenpeace, many recognize its utility. …

I don’t expect to overcome ideological Republican opposition to all forms of taxation, but if CEOs, economists, environmentalists and citizens speak out, we could effect real change. I don’t pretend to speak for my party on this; I’m trying to speak to common sense and experience.

While I don’t want to agree with John Dingell on anything but Greg Mankiw makes an important point:

Economists recognize that a cap-and-trade system is equivalent to a tax on carbon emissions with the tax revenue rebated to existing carbon emitters, such as energy companies. That is,

Cap-and-trade = Carbon tax + Corporate welfare.

If the public understood this theorem, the carbon tax alternative, with revenues rebated to households through lower payroll or income taxes, would attract a lot more interest.

In many ways, cap-and-trade is a policy-equivalent of sending tariffs to struggling businesses, something Democrats love. In addition, there is something deeply arbitrary about cap-and-trade. Right now, 5 EU member states are suing the EU because the caps are arbitrary:

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Estonia have all started legal action against pollution quotas imposed by the European Commission. The arguments they use are similar to those made by China and other emerging markets: that the strict limits will hurt their economic growth.

It seems to me that if you believe that environmental regulation is necessary, the least market distorting is a carbon tax. Now many (but perhaps not most) conservatives and Republicans will disagree with the if clause in that statement. But, surely legislation is coming on this in the next Congress, especially with a Democrat president. Surely we need a position that makes sense before then? And an idea like replacing a corporate tax with a carbon tax could get some Republican support?

McCain partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to introduce the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003. Although congressional leadership was not focused on climate change, through sheer force of will, McCain forced a vote on the measure. While it narrowly failed, he reintroduced the legislation in 2005 and again forced it to a vote.

Sens. McCain and Lieberman introduced an even stronger version of the legislation earlier this year. After traveling with McCain to Antarctica and seeing the mounting scientific evidence regarding the seriousness of climate change, I joined as a cosponsor of this important bill. This legislation employs economically sound measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to year 1990 levels by 2020. It would then lower that cap gradually and reduce emissions by 67 percent by 2050.

Now, this was clearly placed here by the McCain campaign. It even addresses his energy and age in the 2nd graf. Several theories. First, this could be done to help attract independents in a state that is quite green. Second, this might actually be a good issue with Republicans. As I have noted before, concern for global warming polls quite high among Republicans in New Hampshire.

This is extraordinary.

Let me start with a summary of where the GOP candidates are on the issue.

As many know, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are clear proponents of the position that global warming is happening and caused by human activity. Of the second tier candidates, you have Mike Huckabee who is probably to the left of McCain and Giuliani.  Sam Brownback is also on the side of taking action to address global warming.

As usual, Mitt Romney is  straddling the fence of the issue, (list of quotes here) although his recent position suggests that he will be willing to cooperate with people in the party who are opposed to interventions. Although in his recent interview on Kudlow, he responds to a question about taxes and caps by only answering the tax question

And Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are on the record as more skeptical, although I have heard that Thompson is closer to McCain. But I can’t find it.

So, the top tier of candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and Romney) is split, with Thompson being the only real skeptic. And much of the serious 2nd tier is with or to the left of McCain and Giuliani. (more on this in a second)

Now, let me point to two other things. First, the Concord Monitor recently said:

In November and December, the Mellman Group surveyed likely Republican and Democratic voters, 400 of each, for two climate awareness groups: Clear the Air and the New Hampshire-based Clean Air-Cool Planet. Seventy percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats called global warming a serious threat, though smaller majorities in both parties said they believed it was a human byproduct. Ninety-six percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans said the United States should take action now to reduce emissions.

As of yesterday, 143 New Hampshire communities had approved language calling on Washington to take action to slow U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Eight towns had rejected it and at least 25 have yet to vote.

The Boston Globe’s Primary Source has more on the poll and the NYT has more on the New Hampshire towns. (a LOT of them are Republican towns)

Now some analysis. First, it is highly unlikely that this is a vote-moving issue for Republican primary voters. If it is really that important to a voter, the voter is probably a Democrat. However, this may be an issue that independents might cross-over on. Second, if anyone does, those votes are probably already going to McCain or Giuliani, so there may not be much incentive for other candidates to take strong positions in favor of some sort of government response.

However, as McCain’s town hall speech above indicates, this issue may have a different sort of traction in Iowa, where talking global warming is a way of talking about ethanol and corn subsidies. The combination of a subsidy hungry Iowa and a green New Hampshire may make a more green position. Furthermore, the (phony?) issue of oil independence gives another pressure and excuse to move to the middle. Also recent statements by the Catholic Bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals may provide some cover, although the statements by Dobson show that there will be pushback. (incidentally, I still don’t know what it means that the candidates filling the Christian conservative space are with the religious groups but not the conservative groups on this issue. It reminds me of immigration)

Another issue that McCain brought up is nuclear energy. In the UK, the Labour party has used nuclear as a way to square the circle of lower emissions and more energy. However, the presence of Nevada in the early primary calendar, along with a Senate Majority Leader from that state, makes it highly unlikely that the Dems are going to be moving much.

In conclusion, the front runners on the GOP side seem to be open to the idea of government intervention on the issue of global warming. This may move the party to the middle on the issue. At the same time time, the Dems are probably stuck with an anti-nuclear position until some alternative to Yucca Mountain emerges.