All combined, the Republican candidates for president have visited New Hampshire hundreds of times over the past year to explain to voters why they are most qualified to lead our nation. At debates, in press conferences and in their stump speeches, we've heard a great deal about immigration, terrorism and the war in Iraq. But on the most pressing environmental issue facing the world today, there has been little substance from the candidates.
Six months ago in these pages, we called on all the presidential candidates to present details of their plans to address climate change. Since that time, the science of global warming has gotten even clearer and the public here and around the world has become more aware of its causes and effects. Most of the Republican candidates have not responded.
It is astonishing that four months before the New Hampshire primary, the majority of GOP candidates have created position statements on issues such as political correctness and the benefits of home schooling but have not taken the time to seriously weigh in on global warming.
Climate change is clearly an issue on the mind of New Hampshire voters. This spring, 164 towns across the state adopted a resolution at town meeting calling for strong national and local leadership to address climate change. Dozens of communities responded by establishing formal energy committees to begin studying and recommending ways that individual New Hampshire can limit energy use, lower carbon emissions, and save money. We are both proud members of our local energy committees in Bath and Hopkinton.
Polling indicates that more than 70 percent of Republican primary voters consider climate change a serious threat. Eighty-two percent of Republican primary voters favor immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These numbers clarify what New Hampshire voters already know: Climate change is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is a serious problem that will require strong bipartisan leadership.
When Republican candidates are asked about global warming at town hall meetings, their responses ultimately turn to "energy independence" as their solution for climate change - a worthwhile goal, but not one that necessarily reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the candidates, energy independence means drilling for more oil, digging for more coal and engineering more nuclear power here at home. Most candidates pay lip service to conservation, renewable energy and Iowa's favorite subsidy, corn-based ethanol. These efforts, however, are not addressed as a tactic to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but rather as a way to achieve "independence," or in some cases as a money-making enterprise.
John McCain is the only Republican to step up and make climate change a top tier issue. On the stump, McCain tells the story that during his previous campaign in 2000, people here in New Hampshire repeatedly asked him what he was going to do about climate change. Upon his return to the U.S. Senate McCain studied the issue, even traveling to Greenland to see for himself the changes being felt there. McCain has sponsored legislation calling for a cap on emissions and believes the United States should utilize nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions.
McCain's story reminds us why New Hampshire's role in this process is so important. Only when we Republicans insist that candidates make solutions to climate change a priority will they listen. We are now asking the Republican candidates for the second time: How will you make global warming a priority? We're all waiting for your answers.
(Republican Raymond Burton is executive councilor for New Hampshire's District 1. Jim O'Brien, campaign manager and chairman for Gordon Humphrey's 2002 gubernatorial campaign, is executive director of the Granite State Conservation Voters and steering committee member of the Carbon Coalition.)
------ End of article
By RAYMOND BURTON and JIM O'BRIEN
For the Monitor