Let’s take a look at these new results:

Climate Had a Role in Superstorm Sandy

Q: Do you think climate change is adding to the severity of recent extreme weather such as Superstorm Sandy and the summer droughts?

57.2% Yes             27.9% No       14.8% Not Sure

Deeper Dive: Superstorm Sandy impacted the public across the country not just in the Northeast. At least 54% responded “Yes” in each region of the country (East, South, Central/Great Lakes & West). According to veteran pollster John Zogby:

These results show the dramatic impact 2012′s extreme weather has had across party lines, with half of Republicans, 73 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats saying they’re worried about the growing cost and risks of extreme weather disasters fueled by climate change. It’s a major change from our December 2009 poll, which showed two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of political independents saying they were ‘not at all concerned’ about global climate change and global warming. The political climate has shifted and members of Congress need to catch up with their constituents.

69% Concerned Over Costs & Risks of Climate Change

Aerial views of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy to the New Jersey coast (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen).

• 22.3%  I am worried a great deal
• 46.7% I am somewhat worried
• 15.9% I am not very worried
• 11.3% I am not worried at all
• 3.8%  Not sure

Deeper Dive:  Concern over climate fueled extreme weather spans the political spectrum. 58% of those sympathetic to the Tea Party are greatly or somewhat concerned about climate change.  82% of those sympathetic to Occupy Wall Street are concerned.

More Than 65% Want Elected Officials to Act Now to Address Climate Change

Q: Do you believe elected officials should take steps now to reduce the impact of climate change on future generations, or wait until there is more evidence?

• 65.3%   Take steps now
• 27.3%  Wait until there is more evidence
• 7.3%   Not sure

Deeper Dive:  The call for action from elected officials spans across all generations. 74% of those in the age group 18-29 say take steps now; 68% in the age group 30-39 want action; 64% of those between 50-64 years old want action; and 52% of 65+ say take steps now.

Don’t Roll Back the Clean Air Act

Q: Which of the following proposals offered by candidates do you think should be the highest priority to help solve America’s energy challenges?

A:  When given a number of choices, only 3.5% wanted to “relax clean air standards to promote more electricity from coal.”

Deeper Dive: In comparison, 38% want political leaders to do more to encourage the development of renewable forms of energy like wind and solar power.  This choice had more than double the support of any other choice.

Voters Are Tired of Polluters Trying to Influence Elections

courtesy oliveventures.com

• 41.7%  Very concerned
• 35.1% Somewhat concerned
• 14.2% Not very concerned
• 4.6%   Not at all concerned
• 4.5%   Not sure

Deeper Dive: The concern over polluter contributions spans the political spectrum.  81% of Democrats, 70% of Republicans and 77% of independents are very/somewhat concerned about the role of polluter money in campaigns.

Ignoring the Call for Climate Leadership

The polling results as a whole continue to show that a failure to lead or take action on climate will put political leaders at odds with the public. And while this is true across the political spectrum, after the election some political leaders are not getting the message.

House Majority Leader John Boehner has once again decided to hide behind the phony debate over climate science. Responding to question about climate he said:

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that we’ve had climate change over the last 100 years. What has initiated it, though, has sparked a debate that’s gone on now for the last 10 years. I don’t think we’re any closer to the answer than we were 10 years ago.”

Similarly, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton was asked whether he would consider a carbon tax as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations and responded, “I don’t like the idea.” Let’s remember that Congressman Upton has also opposed the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation and last Congress led legislative efforts in the House to strip the EPA of its authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with carbon pollution. All of which means that the Congressman is running out of options to support that will actually tackle the climate problem.

This lack of leadership on climate is woefully out of alignment with where voters are after Superstorm Sandy and the recent election. It is past time for of our elected officials of all strips to look to the future: whether for the sake of addressing the growing impacts of climate change or even if it is for their own political future.

Help protect crucial habitat from worsening superstorms—take action to support limits on carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants.

1. Climate Change Impacts are Costing the Federal Government Too Much Money

Rockaway, New York on Nov. 1, 2012. Photo by Walt Jennings/FEMA.gov

Hurricane Sandy, however, is only one piece of the climate impact puzzle. This year the country has also experienced record drought, widespread wildfires, and the worst West Nile virus outbreak ever. Munich Re put the cost of the first six months of 2012’s extreme weather events at over $14.5 billion. All of these impacts have required a federal government response. Lawmakers sought $800 million in additional funds this year to deal with wildfires and new legislation for over $300 million in drought assistance to livestock producers hit by the drought is expected soon.

But wait there is more.  Sandy has shown that the country needs a crash course in preparing for and adapting to the changes and impacts that will occur in the future (read NWF’s prescription here). This is not cheap.  For example, Norfolk, VA—home of Naval Station Norfolk and on the frontline of climate impacts—has a comprehensive adaptation plan that will cost about $1 billion. This is roughly twice the city’s entire annual budget and cannot be undertaken without federal dollars.

So, if we are serious about addressing the federal budget crisis, lawmakers need to look at the exploding costs of climate change impacts and how much it will take to better prepare for such events.

The choice Congress will face is who picks up the tab.

The past failure to put price on carbon pollution means that the costs of dealing with these “externalities” (read: impacts) have never been borne by the polluters. Instead, the federal government and taxpayers like you and me foot the bill. The looming fiscal crisis and the costs of climate change demand this equation be changed.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. President Obama, 2012 victory speech

2. Big Oil and King Coal’s Money Play Was A Costly Failure

Early last year the political punditry predicted a significant loss in the Senate for a number of Senators that voted to support using the Clean Air Act to limit the carbon pollution causing climate change.  Big polluters sought to make this a reality with enormous campaign expenditures through independent entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. Together, just these two organizations funneled over $31 million into the Senate races against candidates that hold key votes in preserving the Clean Air Act during the next Congress. Guess what?  The polluter attempt to buy the election failed miserably.

Let’s take a deeper dive. A key moment in the last Congress was a vote on a Senate amendment to a small business bill that would have rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to fight climate using the Clean Air Act. The amendment failed.  Cross referencing some of the key votes that fought to defeat the climate rollback amendment with the new election results reveals that the millions of polluter dollars did not alter the political equation. This holds true across the whole map of the recent Senate elections. Tuesday night’s results actually weakened the polluters’ political hand on climate and the Clean Air Act. The results mean politicians don’t have to be afraid of Big Oil and King Coal and it’s time to move forward.

*Sen. Casey’s opponent, a coal company executive, self-financed his campaign with over $17M. All figures from OpenSecrets.org

3. Poll After Poll Shows the Public Increasingly Wants Action on Climate Change

Additionally, the future for politicians that have spent their time on the fossil fuel dole and opposing action to address climate change does not look so, pardon the pun, hot. Polling undertaken before Hurricane Sandy has shown that the public attitude toward taking action on climate on the significant upswing.  Three recent examples:

• Yale’s September poll finding that 70% of Americans see global warming as a reality that is occurring. This number is up 13% since January 2010 and those who do not see climate change as occurring declining to a low of 12%.
• NWF’s September poll of sportsmen finding 66% in agreement with the statement that “We have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children’s future.”
• Kaiser Foundation Foundation/Washington Post poll in August finding that 74% support government action to “regulate” the climate changing air pollution that is emitted from power plants, cars and factories. The support was bi-partisan with 87% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 61% of Republicans in support. 

It’s safe to say after witnessing the suffering of millions from the aftermath of Sandy these numbers will only continue to rise.

The Bottom Line

All of these factors lead to the cumulative conclusion that members of the next Congress must address the climate crisis soon or risk their political well-being. Simply put:

• The nation can no longer afford to bail out polluters and foot the bill. Putting a price on carbon pollution will help the fiscal state of the country, drive adoption of clean energy technologies, and place the responsibility of paying for climate change damages on those that cause the problem;
• Counting on Big Polluter campaign money to win you an election will not succeed and it will not overcome the public’s desire to vote for those that will protect our families, homes, and communities from the ravages of climate change; and
• Politicians that step forward to provide leadership in addressing climate change and its impacts will be meeting the expectations of the electorate and rewarded in 2014.

Help protect crucial habitat from worsening superstorms—take action to support limits on carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants.

Photo by Mike Criss.

Never before has the hill been so steep toward this goal.  This election featured GOP candidates who took a sharp departure from the Republican Party’s strong history of leading fights for stewardship of America’s lands, wildlife, clean air and clean water.

Republican conservationists haven’t disappeared, but they have been marginalized and are not sufficiently represented within the party structure. Outside Washington, conservation values are strong:

• According to a landmark 2011 study of American public opinions by Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 54% of Republicans agree that “this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”
• A more recent survey by National Wildlife Federation found that Republican hunters and anglers strongly support public lands and clean water protections, and 53% of GOP sportsmen believe we have a “moral responsibility” to deal with global warming.

Who today is speaking to conservation Republicans who are such a large share of the Republican ranks? And how does the GOP plan to grow in the future? As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said before the polls closed on election day: “If we lose this election there is only one explanation – demographics.”

I think Sen. Graham has it right.  Look at the continued flight from the GOP of young voters, who rate the environment, climate change and clean energy near the top of their concerns. And as Hispanic voters’ share of the vote continues to grow, it is worth noting that Hispanics are more concerned about the environment than any other demographic. According to a 2012 survey, 92% of Hispanic voters believe we have a responsibility to ‘take care of God’s creations on this earth – the wilderness and forests, the oceans, lakes and rivers.”

It may be hard for politicians in Washington to resist the temptation of the deep pockets of polluting industries.  However, this election demonstrated that money isn’t everything. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $20 million to defeat 7 pro-conservation Senators, but has nothing to show for it as all 7 of those candidates are likely heading to the Senate.  In contrast, the Democratic and Republican candidates endorsed by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, the political wing of NWF, persevered in their competitive races – candidates such as newly elected Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Angus King (I-ME) and returning Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA).  The NWF Action Fund can’t match the financial resources of corporations, but conservation issues resonate with voters.

My hope is that this election delivers a political realignment on the environment that favors bi-partisan cooperation. If, instead, we see a continuation of the environmental attacks from the past two years, then we will rely on our grassroots members, the strengthened firewall in the Senate, President Obama to stop the attacks and find other ways to make progress for our children’s future.

Hurricane Sandy destroyed crucial habitat for imperiled piping plovers. Photo: Richard Seeley

Ready, Set, Vote!

Voting for wildlife-friendly candidates is bigger than any one race on November 6th. It means looking at your ballot before you go to the polls, researching candidates’ positions on key issues for wildlife, and making sure you have a plan to vote in person on November 6th or by absentee ballot.

Know Who and What You’re Voting For

Look at your ballot and compare candidates’ positions at Vote411.org. You can take notes with you into the polls on which candidates and proposals you plan to vote for.

In addition to voting for pro-wildlife candidates, residents in a number of states will have the opportunity to vote for ballot initiatives that have potential to shape the future of our wildlife and wild places. For example, residents of Michigan can vote YES on proposal 3 to help more of the state’s energy come from renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Know When and Where to Vote

Locate your polling place for voting and make a plan for what time you will vote on Nov. 6th.

Help Pack the Polls

Studies have shown that people are more likely to vote if they hear that their friends and neighbors will be voting, too. So please encourage your friends and family to vote, and make sure they have rides to the polls!

Defeat Big Polluters at the Polls

This past July, I saw record fires blaze through communities near my home in Colorado and severe droughts leave local black bears desperate for food. And just last week, Hurricane Sandy devastated not only communities across the East Coast, but also wildlife–crossing more than one hundred National Wildlife Refuges and destroying crucial habitat for imperiled piping plovers and many more shorebirds.

Yet, as these record-breaking extreme weather events–all with clear links to climate change–become more and more common, the fossil fuel industry continues to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into attacking pro-environment candidates and pushing a reckless agenda that puts their profits before the safety of communities and wildlife.

By researching candidates’ positions and voting, people like us who care about wildlife and vote can fight back against Big Polluters whose reckless behavior is increasingly putting wildlife in harm’s way.

Please SHARE with your friends to make this the largest voter turnout for wildlife ever!

Thanks for making your voice heard for wildlife this election!

There’s one vote on climate and clean energy this election that’s pretty clear and simple: Michigan’s renewable energy ballot initiative, Proposition 3. And right now, it needs our help.

Prop 3 is being called “the most important clean-energy vote this year” because it would substantially boost the state’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES) and help further develop Michigan’s clean energy economy, bringing much needed jobs to the state.

Not surprisingly (but still outrageous), dirty energy utilities and fossil fuel-funded front groups are spending million of dollars to defeat Prop 3, running misleading ads, producing faulty reports and spreading disinformation about the initiative. And it’s not just from in-state utilities, Canadian pipeline company Enbridge, which dumped nearly 1 million gallons into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (a coal industry front group) also contributed to the campaign to defeat Proposition 3.

Phone bankers are encouraged to use this photo as their profile picture on facebook and Twitter to help spread the word about the importance of Prop 3!

Battles like Prop 3 are a clear contest between Big Polluters & People Power — and in these final days we need to bring the people power to the polls. We need make sure every young person in Michigan knows what’s at stake with Prop 3.

On Thursday and Sunday nights from 6-9pm ET, Energy Action Coalition partners, the Michigan Student Sustainability Coalition, and grassroots activists across the country are hosting phone banks to call over 10,000 young voters in Michigan. 

Yes, ten thousand. And yes, that’s a lot. And with a close race in Michigan, these 10,000 young voters could be the margin of victory.

Let’s go for it. With clean energy and the elections under attack by big polluters, Michigan’s Prop 3 is our chance to win a clear victory for clean energy and climate action. It’s time to dig in. Let’s leave no stone unturned.

On Thursday or Sunday night from 6-9 pm ET, organize a phone bank, or make calls yourself, to remind young voters in Michigan to vote YES on Prop 3!

Personal calls are the best way to ensure people get out to vote. Round up a couple friends, or just pick up the phone and join us in calling over 10,000 young voters in Michigan!

To join, go to PowerVote.org/phonebank

Cross-posted from WeArePowerShift.org. 

Get ready to cast your ballot by:
1. Finding out WHERE to vote: http://bit.ly/QCSyUc
2. Looking at your ballot and deciding WHO to vote for: http://bit.ly/T5NV9J
3. Deciding WHEN and HOW you will get to the polls to VOTE on November 6th.

What was completely lost in the discussion is that increasing oil drilling in the United States will not bring down prices at the pump, and, since oil prices are set on the world market, more drilling here at home will do little to reduce gas prices.  In fact, an Associated Press analysis of 36 years of Energy Information Administration data shows “no statistical correlation” between domestic oil production and gas prices.  In short, we just can’t drill our way to cheaper gasoline.  Increasing vehicle efficiency is a far better solution to decrease our dependency on oil and gas.

I catch a breather near Gunsight Pass in Glacier National Park

Also missing from all the finger-pointing over gas prices was any recognition of the fact that the explosion of drilling in this country over recent decades has had a profound impact on water resources, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.  These vital resources suffer because of the direct cumulative impacts of the drilling process but also because burning fossil fuels is warming our planet and causing global climate change, which carry devastating consequences for decades to come.

We have yet to see enough detail in the debates, from either candidate, as to how they plan to protect wildlife, wild landscapes and recreational opportunities even as oil and gas permitting increases.  Governor Romney’s energy plan proposes opening new, sensitive offshore areas for drilling, fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline, undermining environmental review, and turning over control of federal public lands to states for the purposes of energy development.  However, nowhere in Governor Romney’s plan does it even mention the importance of the conservation of  fish and wildlife, and we have yet to hear a commitment from the campaign to protect the water we drink and their air we breathe from more drilling.

Land Tawney & his daughter fishing on Rock Creek

I called Land Tawney, the National Wildlife Federation’s senior manager for sportsmen leadership based in our Northern Rockies and Prairies Regional Center in Missoula, MT, for his take. “Sportsmen are a valued constituency, both during and after the election season, and I look forward to reading Mitt Romney’s plan to address our concerns,” Land began. ”But a top issue Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will need to address is their thoughts on selling public lands. Exactly what would that mean for America’s public lands, the fish and wildlife that live there, and the hunters and anglers that rely on them?”

Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, wrote to Rep. Ryan last week asking him to clarify some recent comments on public lands:

As an organization deeply committed to the conservation interests of America’s hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts we appreciated your statement in an October 1 interview with Outdoor Life magazine that “we need to open up public lands for access for hunting.” Public lands are critical part of America’s national heritage, and access for all Americans is a conservation legacy that provides everyone the opportunity to hunt and fish.  Public lands also play a critical role supporting local economies: in 2011, 13.7 million hunters spent $33.9 billion and 33.1 million anglers spent $22 billion.

We are concerned however that in another portion of the interview you seemed unfamiliar with the provisions of your budget proposal which call for liquidating millions of acres of America’s public lands, resulting in less access for sportsmen.

While your statement to Outdoor Life indicated this was more about “buildings and assets like cars … [and] vacant properties,” your budget proposal specifically touts legislation (HR 1126) introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) as a model to sell federal lands to generate revenue. In fact, HR 1126 would force the government to sell off 3.3 million acres in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming to the highest bidder.

Four in five sportsmen want more access to public lands that to date have been inaccessible, according to a recent poll of sportsmen conducted by Chesapeake Beach Consulting for the National Wildlife Federation. Given a choice between protecting America’s public lands and prioritizing the production of oil, gas and coal, 49% want to protect public lands and just 35% choose fossil fuel production. Will the campaigns confront these issues? So far, the presidential debates have ducked conservation almost entirely.

Read more about where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney stand on conservation in National Wildlife magazine’s special report.

Fran Steidle, a supporter of conservation from Florida, has already submitted a great climate question to Google: “What actions will you take to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?”

Use the link above to see Fran’s question and click the check mark under the words “Good question” to let Google know that you stand with her. (Please note that you will need to sign in to a Google account in order to vote.)

The questions that receive the most votes are the ones most likely to be asked during the debate. By all voting YES to Fran’s question, we can make climate change — the most important threat to polar bears — an issue in the next debate!

Sea Ice Melts to Record Low

A polar bear climbs onto thin Arctic Ocean ice (Flickr/U.S. Geological Survey)

This is devastating news for polar bears, who rely on sea ice as they hunt for food.

Despite this increasing threat facing polar bears, the presidential candidates have not been asked to compare their positions on climate change in the weeks leading up to the election.

The debate moderator failed to address global warming last week during the first presidential debate, despite over 160,000 people calling for Jim Lehrer to ask President Obama and Governor Romney about the climate crisis putting the future of wildlife at risk.

Make Climate Change Part of the Debate

We can’t expect our leaders to take action to protect wildlife from rising global temperatures unless they start talking about it now. This debate is an important opportunity to demand that the candidates tell us their plans to address climate change before Election Day.

Speak up for polar bears! Vote for the climate question to be used in the presidential debates.

First Presidential Debate (via University of Denver)

Conservation barely came up at all, an omission that was all the more glaring given that the debate was held in Colorado. Hundreds of thousands of acres in Colorado burned this summer in wildfires that are becoming more common and more intense due to global warming. And as the candidates discuss expanded oil and gas drilling, a new National Wildlife Federation poll of sportsmen shows they’re concerned public lands are in the crosshairs.

And when clean energy did come up, as the Washington Post reports, it was falsely attacked:

The Energy Department put $90 billion worth of grants, loan guarantees and loans into what it calls a “clean energy” economy. But that money is spread widely: About $3 billion went to carbon capture and storage projects needed to make coal “clean,” a goal Romney shares; about $11 billion went to energy efficiency; about $5 billion went to clean up old nuclear weapons sites; about $4 billion went to modernizing the electricity grid; and about $2 billion went to research and development, which Romney has also supported. DOE has a breakdown here.

Romney said that Obama sent money to firms whose executives had donated to his campaign. That is true in the case of Solyndra, but while House Republicans have harshly criticized the administration for that, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president.

In addition, a significant portion of the money the Energy Department distributed came in the form of loans, some of which will be paid back.

Here’s hoping conservation comes into focus at the rest of the debates:

Vice presidential debate (domestic & foreign policy):

Thursday, October 11

Centre College, Danville, KY

Moderator: Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News

Second presidential debate (town meeting format):

Tuesday, October 16

Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Moderator: Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent, CNN and Anchor, CNN’s State of the Union

Third presidential debate (foreign policy):

Monday, October 22

Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL

Moderator: Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News and Moderator, Face the Nation