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

The 2008 US presidential election: Obama and the environment

Elizabeth 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 the
environment', Environmental Politics, 18: 3, 424 — 430
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09644010902823782
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823782

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should 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 directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Environmental Politics
Vol. 18, No. 3, May 2009, 424–430

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 the
prominence 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
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

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: e.bomberg@ed.ac.uk

ISSN 0964-4016 print/ISSN 1743-8934 online

Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09644010902823782
http://www.informaworld.com
 Environmental Politics 425

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 a
keystone 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, both
candidates 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
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

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 more
palatable 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 environmental
issues – 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
 426 E. Bomberg and B. Super

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 issues
were 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
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

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 (see
Bomberg 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
 Environmental Politics 427

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 personnel
with 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 holistic
approach 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
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

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 coordinators
risk 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
 428 E. Bomberg and B. Super

reduce greenhouse gas emissions’, Obama asked the EPA to review a Bush-era
decision banning California from imposing stricter than federal limits on
automobile emissions of greenhouse gases (Obama 2009).
Obama’s departure from Bush on global issues such as climate change was
just as marked. In addition to assigning a special envoy on climate change,
Obama proclaimed in January 2009 a new role for the US: ‘It’s time for
America to lead, because this moment of peril must be turned into one of
progress. To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call
together a truly global coalition’ (Obama 2009).
The implications of these appointments and early actions are potentially
profound. Environmentalists and supporters greeted them ecstatically, not
least because they stoked already high expectations for policy change. The
president’s engagement, but also the promise of green jobs, the putative
transformation of auto industries, and subsidies for biofuels and renewables
appealed to a wide range of key constituencies including traditional
environmentalists but also labour, business, agricultural, urban and other
stakeholders. Hopes were thus high for sustained success in alliance-building
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

and the networking necessary to transcend institutional barriers to change and

‘create a national consensus for action’ (Olopade 2008).
But such expectations may not be met, for at least three reasons. The first is
institutional fragmentation characterising US policy and politics. Enacting any
sort of meaningful change in a stubbornly fragmented policy-making system is
devilishly difficult. Obama’s appeal to a wide range of constituencies, along
with his appointments of overarching ‘czars’ (of climate change, energy and so
on) are attempts to overcome that fragmentation. But the challenge is
enormous and success far from assured. Second, the focus on the executive is
understandable but it ignores one of the most important institutions in US
energy and environmental policy – Congress – which only a few months before
the election had failed to pass a quite modest climate change cap-and-trade bill.
A new Democratic-led Congress may be more amenable to ambitious
environmental bills and the priorities of the President, but that cooperation
can not be assumed. Even amongst Democrats in Congress a rift is emerging
between coal-producing and non-coal-producing states. A ‘gang of 10’
lawmakers from Midwest states has banded together to make sure their
interests are not ignored by a Democratic congressional leadership dominated
by members from more environmentally active (and less polluting) coastal
states (Broder 2009). Even if Obama manages to put red/blue state divisions
behind him, he may very well have to face green/brown state divisions in his
own party.
A further reason for caution is that while Obama’s appointments and early
policies signal a definitive break with Bush policies, they do not mark a return
to 1970s-style ambition or NEPA-style environmental protection, which
prioritised environmental protection over its possible costs. Rather, as in the
campaign itself, Obama’s engagement with environmental and energy issues is
very much framed in terms of national economic interest and security. For
 Environmental Politics 429

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 national
security. 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
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

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 in
a 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 helpful
comments.

Notes
1. Note that the sentiment was echoed in the invocation delivered by evangelical
pastor Rick Warren at Obama’s inauguration.
 430 E. Bomberg and B. Super

2. These include Lawrence Summers as economy czar and Nancy-Ann De Parle as

health czar.

References
Bomberg, E., 2001. The US presidential election: implications for environmental policy.
Environmental Politics, 10 (2), 115–121.
Bomberg, E. and Schlosberg, D., 2008. US environmentalism in comparative
perspective. Environmental Politics, 17 (2), 337–348.
Broder, J., 2009. Geography is dividing democrats over energy. New York Times, 26
January.
Clinton, H., 2009. Appointment of Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. US
Department of State. 26 January. Available at: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/
2009a/01/115409.htm [Accessed 1 February 2009].
Dalton, R.J., 2008. The good citizen: how a younger generation is reshaping American
politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Dunlap, R. and McCright, M., 2008. A widenning gap: Republican and Democratic
views on climate change. Environment, 50, 26–38.
Gallup, 2008. Economy reigns supreme for voters [online], 29 October. Available at:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111586/Economy-Reigns-Supreme-Voters.aspx.
Judkis, M., 2008. Environmental groups congratulate Obama on victory. US News and
Downloaded At: 16:15 29 June 2010

World Report, 5 November.

Keeter, S., Horowitz, J., and Tysl, A., 2008. Young voters in the 2008 election. Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press [online]. 12 November. Available at:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election.
Langer, G. and Cohen, J., 2005. Voters and values in the 2004 election. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 69 (5), 744–759.
Obama, B., 2008. Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama: announcement of energy
and environment team. 15 December. Chicago, Illinois.
Obama, B., 2009. From peril to progress. White House address. Available at: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/Fromperiltoprogress/.
Olopade, D., 2008. Will a national energy council solve the problem? The New Republic,
11 December.
Schlosberg, D. and Rinfret, S., 2008. Ecological modernisation, American style.
Environmental Politics, 17 (2), 254–275.