61662__911181114

8/8/2019 61662__911181114

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/61662911181114 1/8

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:

On: 29 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713635072

The 2008 US presidential election: Obama and the environmentElizabeth Bomberga; Betsy Supera

a Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh, UK

To cite this Article Bomberg, Elizabeth and Super, Betsy(2009) 'The 2008 US presidential election: Obama and theenvironment', Environmental Politics, 18: 3, 424 — 430

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09644010902823782

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823782

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713635072

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823782

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823782

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713635072

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


PROFILE

The 2008 US presidential election: Obama and the environment

Elizabeth Bomberg* and Betsy Super

Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh, UK

The 2008 presidential election was remarkable for many reasons. One was theprominence given to environmental and energy issues. The environment is

seldom a salient issue in national, and especially US presidential elections. In

the 2000 and 2004 campaigns it was notable primarily by its absence (Bomberg

2001, Langer and Cohen 2005). Yet in 2008 energy and environmental

concerns played a key role in the campaign, capturing the attention of both the

public and the candidates. We examine the role environmental issues played in

the election campaign and speculate on the election’s implications for

environmental policy and politics in the US and abroad.

The campaign

In 2008 issues of environment and energy combined to form one of the

dominant domestic policy concerns for voters. According to Gallup polls,

environment or energy featured as one of the public’s top three election issues.

That summer, with gasoline (petrol) prices at an all-time high, energy issues

outranked both Iraq and the economy as voters’ top concern (Gallup 2008).

Energy and the environment also formed one of the principal policy

battlegrounds between candidates. Democrat Barack Obama campaigned for

active government involvement in energy and environmental protection. He

promised generous government support for biofuels and scientific research, set

ambitious specific targets for renewables and pledged to raise fuel economy

standards. He was notably unenthusiastic about nuclear power and offshore

drilling for oil. In contrast, Republican John McCain was strongly in support

of nuclear power and, belatedly, offshore drilling for oil. He opposed

government subsides for ethanol or renewables. He offered no new (or tighter)

fuel economy targets and, with the important exception of government support

of nuclear power, favoured a far less active government role in environmental

protection programmes.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Environmental Politics

Vol. 18, No. 3, May 2009, 424–430

ISSN 0964-4016 print/ISSN 1743-8934 online

Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09644010902823782

http://www.informaworld.com

D o w nl

o ad

ed

A t : 16

:15 29

J u n e 2010

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


Yet while the two candidates differed on several key environmental and

energy issues, their similarities were often more striking. First, both Obama

and McCain sought to distance themselves from George W. Bush’s record on

the environment, climate change and energy. Obama made that separation akeystone of his campaign, but McCain also highlighted his independent

(‘maverick’) stance. Standing up to climate sceptics in his own party, McCain

emphasised his opposition to the Bush administration’s neglect of climate

change. Early in the campaign (though later with decreasing frequency) he

reminded voters that he had sponsored the first major climate change bill in

Congress. Unlike Bush, both McCain and Obama advocated a cap-and-trade

system to cut greenhouse gases and pledged to take climate change seriously.

Secondly, both candidates concentrated on environmental and energy

issues to a greater extent than seen in any recent election. Moreover, bothcandidates framed environmental and energy issues almost exclusively in terms

of energy independence and energy security. Indeed, John McCain’s choice of

Sarah Palin as vice president was originally an attempt to include on the

Republican ticket someone who could speak on the issue of energy

independence. (Of course in the end Palin became best known not for her

energy expertise but for her ‘drill baby drill’ solution to the energy crisis.)

Finally, both candidates advocated consumption over conservation; the

campaign discourse was far more about securing new sources of energy

(through either biofuels or domestic drilling) than using less. This morepalatable message is not surprising during a campaign. But it echoed a

distinctively American slant to energy and environmental issues, and a

discourse that stresses security and national interest rather than wider, loftier

goals (Schlosberg and Rinfret 2008).

In addition to the salience and framing of environmental issues, another

striking feature of the campaign concerned mobilisation. Obama’s candidacy

inspired an enormous wave of civic and political engagement. Interest, passion

and involvement by the young, African-Americans, and first-time voters are

well documented. Two features are of particular interest here. First is the

mobilisation of the youth vote. Young voters are increasingly Democratic

voters, and in 2008 66% of 18–29 year old voters chose Barack Obama in the

general election. In this age category, Democrats now also have an almost 2-to-1

registration advantage over Republicans compared with parity between the

parties in 2004. Moreover, more young voters describe themselves as politically

liberal (Keeter et al . 2008). This increase marks an acceleration of a year-on-

year trend towards a greater proportion of young voters leaning towards the

Democratic Party. It adds up to what Keeter et al . (2008) refer to as a

‘significant generational shift in political allegiance’. That demographic shift

matters for the environment. Democrats continue to rate environmentalissues – especially climate change – as far more important than do Republican

voters (Dunlap and McCright 2008). An increase in young registered Democrats

may thus both reflect and sustain heightened public concern on climate change

and other issues. Secondly, independent from party affiliation, young voters are

Environmental Politics 425

D o w nl

o ad

ed

A t : 16

:15 29

J u n e 2010

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


more environmentally concerned and tend to rate environmental issues as more

important than do older cohorts. To illustrate, while 68% of all voters supported

offshore drilling, only 57% of young voters did. Similarly, young voters are more

likely than older voters to rate energy policy as the most important policy to them(Keeter et al . 2008). Rather than a one-off occurrence in 2008, it appears that

young voters will in future be increasingly Democratic, liberal, and environmen-

tally-minded compared to their older counterparts.

Secondly, mobilisation around environmental issues saw a significant

boost. The campaign produced alliances of actors not normally galvanised by

environmental protection, energy or climate change. For instance, Christian

evangelicals had little to say about environmental issues in earlier presidential

elections. In 2000 and 2004 evangelical voters focused overwhelmingly on

issues of abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research. In 2008 these issueswere not completely sidelined by evangelicals but they were supplemented by

issues of poverty, development aid and the environment. The latter was

expressed most enthusiastically by a younger generation of evangelicals and

often packaged as ‘creation care’ – a bible-based duty to ‘care for God’s

creation’. That sentiment complemented Obama’s (2009) discourse on the need

to protect a ‘Planet in Peril’.1 Mobilisation on environmental issues did not

swing the election (Obama fell far short of gaining a majority of white

evangelical votes), but it is important because it suggests that new forms of

support and unexpected alliances on environmental issues are possible (seeBomberg and Schlosberg 2008).

Most environmentalists greeted Obama’s victory with a wave of euphoria,

with expectations to match. Within 24 hours of his election, a consortium of

environmental groups reminded Obama of his pledge to prioritise clean energy,

reduce dependence on foreign oil, spark economic recovery by creating millions

of ‘green jobs’ and rein in global climate change (Judkis 2008). Obama’s win

brought a relief so palpable, the promised contrast with Bush so stark, that

many environmentalists – like many other constituencies – were unwilling to

contemplate the prospect that their expectations might not be met.

The new administration

Obama’s early actions – his key cabinet appointments and his reversal of a

number of Bush administration policies – encouraged environmentalists’

enthusiasm. At the same time, however, his appointments and the development

of new alliances, initiatives and actions have revealed new environmental ‘fault

lines’ within the government, the Democratic Party and the wider polity.

Appointments

Obama’s choice of cabinet posts suggests a clear change from Bush’s

environmental policy practice and tone. Obama chose respected and prominent

names to lead on environmental policy. They included Lisa Jackson, former

426 E. Bomberg and B. Super

D o w nl

o ad

ed

A t : 16

:15 29

J u n e 2010

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


head of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to lead the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Stephen Chu, a Nobel-winning

physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, as Energy Secretary. The

Obama administration also features a number of non-cabinet-level personnelwith an environmental remit, including Carol Browner, former EPA chief

under Clinton, as White House Coordinator of Energy and Climate Policy, and

Todd Stern as the State Department’s new special envoy for climate change.

Announcing Stern’s appointment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under-

lined the new administration’s ambition: ‘we are sending an unequivocal

message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious

about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy’

(Clinton 2009).

Obama’s appointments also signal a change towards a much more holisticapproach to environmental policy. For example, Obama has established a new

Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Carol Browner’s appointment as

coordinator of that office puts her in a special league of several ‘czars’ who

have been brought in to coordinate key policy areas across the executive

branch.2 Notably, when announcing Browner’s appointment, Obama stressed

that ‘our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate

change demand integration among different agencies, cooperation between

federal, state and local governments and partnership with the private sector’

(Obama 2008). Appointments of new envoys, new offices and new coordinatorsrisk weakening the strength and position of any one cabinet head. But the

Obama administration is betting that greater coordination can overcome the

challenge of enacting a coherent environmental and energy policy in a highly

fragmented policy-making system.

Policy

Within his first week in office Obama had signalled a marked departure from

Bush-era environmental policies. In a swipe at the outgoing administration’s

foot-dragging on climate change he insisted that for too long ‘rigid ideology

has overruled sound science . . . My administration will not deny facts, we will

be guided by them’ (Obama 2009). His very first presidential memorandum was

dedicated to highlighting the dangers of climate change, warning that ‘no single

issue is as fundamental to our future as energy’. He launched specific

programmes to deal with that challenge, including executive orders aimed at

kick-starting the manufacture of more efficient automobiles, boosting renew-

able energy research and creating new ‘green-collar’ jobs as part of the

government’s gigantic stimulus package. The latter included millions in direct

spending on various green projects.In another dramatic shift, also within his first week, Obama sought to undo

the previous administration’s thwarting of state environment action, especially

California’s efforts to set emission targets and restrictions tighter than federal

rules. Insisting ‘the federal government must work with, not against, states to


D o w nl

o ad

ed

A t : 16

:15 29

J u n e 2010

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


8/8/2019 61662__911181114


instance the administration’s ‘New Energy for America Plan’ announced in

January 2009 aims primarily to secure energy independence and ensure

‘America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes,

and a warming planet’ (Obama 2009).Such national interest framing is almost certainly required to gain necessary

support from the wider public and, crucially, Congress. But it is bound to

disappoint at home and abroad. For the cynically minded, Obama’s position

represents merely a strategic re-packaging which ignores wider imperatives:

Obama’s plan emphasises new green jobs, new sources of energy, but the

necessary costs (and sacrifices) of environmental action are minimised, and the

necessary shift in consumption downplayed (‘don’t drive less, just drive a green

car’). Abroad the framing raises concerns about the extent to which US

environmental policy and priorities extend beyond US interests and nationalsecurity. Both are inextricably intertwined with – but hardly identical to – the

security and interests of the rest of the globe’s inhabitants.

For the more optimistic, however, these concerns are misplaced if not

downright churlish. First, the demographic trends in the 2008 election highlight

the possibility that the importance of green issues is part of a larger

generational shift in thinking about politics and policy issues. Russell Dalton

(2008) points out that changing citizenship norms across generations extend

beyond voting; 18–29 year olds today are more likely to volunteer, buy

products for political reasons (such as green or fair trade goods) and engage ina variety of ‘environmentally-friendly’ actions beyond the electoral arena. If

Dalton is right, the 2008 election represents a new linkage between non-

traditional activities and traditional engagement amongst young Americans.

That activity may well suggest a nascent, emerging form of consistent political

and social pressure to address environmental issues.

Secondly, compared with previous administrations, the Obama adminis-

tration’s engagement and early policy moves could herald not a mere

re-packaging but rather a wider, much more fundamental re-framing of green

issues away from a vaguely altruistic, unaffordable luxury to a central

organising principle of a new administration’s domestic and foreign policies. It

is of course too early to know which of these characterisations will prove more

enduring or accurate. But it is clear that after years in the political wilderness

the issues of energy and the environment have become central to both national

and international policy debates.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Neil Carter and John Peterson for their helpfulcomments.

Notes

1. Note that the sentiment was echoed in the invocation delivered by evangelicalpastor Rick Warren at Obama’s inauguration.


D o w nl

o ad

ed

A t : 16

:15 29

J u n e 2010

8/8/2019 61662__911181114


61662__911181114

Documents

Transcript of 61662__911181114