"All politics is local," declared longtime Democratic Speaker of the US House, the late Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. It's such a brilliant, palm-slap-to-the-forehead-obvious insight, that it has become cliché. It's dusted off whenever someone needs to make the point that all politics is, well, local. Even the politics of global warming.
It's not for The Barrel to speculate about whether Alaska's two Republican senators, Ted Stevens or Lisa Murkowski, care about the potential environmental and health impacts of global warming and climate change on the people of remote Pacific Islands, or India, or Africa. Assume they do, and very much so. But they were moved to support legislation reducing US emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming only when it became painfully and undeniably obvious that their own state is facing major climate-related problems.
"There is little doubt that Alaskans are feeling the effects of climate change more than anyone else in our nation," Stevens said last month. "Regardless of whether these changes are caused solely by human activity, we must take steps to protect the people in the Arctic."
For Stevens, climate change is no longer a theoretical construct but a close-to-home environmental and economic reality. A study released in June by the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research, reported that a "warming climate will damage Alaska's infrastructure because it was designed for a cold climate. The damage will be concentrated in places where permafrost thaws, flooding increases and coastal erosion gets worse."
Infrastructure at risk includes airports, bridges, harbors, roads, water systems, and entire villages, the study reported. "Damage from climate change could add $3.6 to $6.1 billion (10 to 20%), to future costs for public infrastructure from now to 2030," it said.
In 2003 and 2005, Stevens and Alaska's other Republican Senator, Lisa Murkowski, voted against legislation that would have capped US carbon emissions. But last month they joined four other senators introducing the Low Carbon Economy Act, which would reduce US emissions to 1990 levels by 2030; and 60% below 2006 levels by 2050, providing the five largest trading partners of the US take similar actions.
"The permafrost is melting, Arctic ice is disappearing and wildlife habitat is changing," Murkowski said in a statement. "It is responsible for us to take actions to reduce carbon emissions, as long as we can do it without harming our economy."
According to the US Army Corps of Engineers, "nearly a dozen villages in Alaska already face damage," the statement said. "Entire village relocations, costing in the hundreds of millions of dollars, will most likely be necessary."
Coincidentally, under the proposal Alaska would receive tens of billions of dollars starting in 2009 to cover the cost of highway and airport damage, water and sewer line repairs, seawall construction, port and pipeline repairs, and village relocation costs. The irony is that Alaska is the nation's second leading oil producing state, and that burning oil and other fossil fuels is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Over the years, the state and its residents have received billions of dollars in oil related revenues.
The Low Carbon Economy Act is among several carbon-capping bills introduced in the Senate this session. The Senate Environment Committee plans to review the bills in September. Its chairwoman, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat-California, wants to pass climate legislation by the end of the year.
Leave a comment