Alabama Reps Score Red on Green Report Card
February 22nd, 2010by Glynn Wilson
Alabama is a red state in more ways than one.
In addition to voting more for conservative Republicans than just about any other state in the country, earning the state red status on the national political map, Alabama scores a low down red on the green report card issued by the League of Conservation Voters.
Conservative Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby both scored Fs for Failure in a report released Monday. Sessions scored 9 out of a possible 100, while Shelby got an 18.
One of the primary reasons for the low score was due to the fact that Alabama’s delegation took a hard line against the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would help bring more than 29,000 clean energy jobs to Alabama, according Conservation Alabama, a statewide conservation group that today joined the national League for the first time on our suggestion in releasing the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard.
“Alabama’s Congressional delegation opted against bringing clean energy jobs to the state and voted against reducing our national dependence on foreign oil,” Conservation Alabama’s executive director Adam Snyder said in a press release accompanying the report.
“In a state that has 11 percent unemployment, with some counties at nearly 25 percent, Alabama’s Congressional delegation cannot afford to send a message to the world that we are not open for business for clean energy jobs,” he said, even though that’s exactly what they did.
The 2009 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and 13 House votes dominated by clean energy and climate legislation but also takes into account other environmental issues such as public lands, water and wildlife conservation.
In Alabama, the average House score in 2009 was 26 percent and the average Senate score was 14 percent.
No Congressional representative earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2009, Snyder pointed out, although Rep. Artur Davis received an 86 percent, up one percentage point from 2008, in spite of voting against climate change legislation and showing no leadership on stopping millions of tons of toxic coal ash waste from being shipped to Alabama from the TVA river cleanup underway in Tennessee.
“Sadly, Reps. Aderholt, Bachus, and Bonner received an abysmal 0 percent,” Snyder said.
According to League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski, the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard “illustrates the extent to which the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began to move our nation towards a clean energy future that will create new jobs, make America more energy independent and curb global warming pollution.”
“However,” Karpinski said, “it also makes clear that there is still much work to be done, first and foremost to finish the work started in the House by swiftly passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the Senate.”
Earlier this year, the League published a Presidential Report Card, assigning President Obama a solid B+ grade for his “impressive accomplishments on clean energy and climate issues during his first year in office.”
“President Obama has done more to create new clean energy jobs and curb global warming pollution during his first year than any other president accomplished during an entire term,” Karpinski said. “The election of Barack Obama as president in November 2008 represented a clean break from the previous eight years of the Bush administration, in which politics trumped science and, as a result, the United States continued a failed energy policy that favored corporate polluters over clean energy alternatives.”
“From the snowy fields of Iowa and New Hampshire to the crowded tarmacs of key battleground states to the steps of the Capitol on Inauguration Day, President Obama made clear that transitioning to a clean energy economy and tackling the challenge of global warming would be among his top priorities,” the report says. “In his first year in office, the president has turned words into action and achieved real results that are beginning to pave the way toward a clean energy economy that creates jobs, makes America more energy independent and protects the planet.”
As the League, and we, often say, “elections have consequences.”
The individuals we elect to Congress determine the laws that govern our air, land, and water. So in addition to working to enact policies that safeguard the environment, invest in clean energy and protect public health, these groups work to elect pro-environment candidates who will help implement pro-environment policies. That is also part of our editorial mission.
For 30 years, the National Environmental Scorecard issued by LCV has been the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health and energy issues. The full 2009 National Environmental Scorecard can be found online at this link.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm
No surprise about Alabama.
It is a little surprising to see Arkansas and Virginia with the same shade of green as California, though.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Guess they have decent Senators, unlike Alabama. This is only the U.S. Senate map.
What is needed is a state version of this for candidates for governor, attorney general, etc., as well as the Legislature.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 pm
A state version is not as easy as it sounds, primarily because most environmental bills get stuck in committee, making it difficult to assess all equally. There’s also the quirkiness of the BIR – budget isolation resolution – which, if defeated, means a bill doesn’t come up for consideration. Can you say a legislator voted against a bill when they voted against the BIR? An argument could be made either way.
Nonetheless, a scorecard for the state is coming, but more likely in 2011.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Not sure what all the technical issues are, but could probably help you figure it out as a stats expert.
On the other hand, a quantitative measure based simply on voting doesn’t catch other nuances. It is quite clear, for example, that Davis is no environmentalist, in spite of his score in this report.
There’s no way he deserves a B, but then, he would never tell anyone about getting a B on a conservation report card, since his entire campaign is clearly focused on being seen as he has said in his own words, “One of the most conservative Democrats in the House.”
He is after big business support, not voters who care about the environment.
I suspect he would be scared to death his opponent would get hold of this and use it against him in TV ads…