Just a few weeks ago Kansas made a decision for the history books – to block the construction of a new coal-fired power plant.

It was a proud moment for many (like me – from Kansas!), including Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who’s still feeling the heat for her backing of the decision. I’d heard through various sources that the backlash in Kansas right now is pretty bad. I didn’t realize how bad, politically and in the public’s eye, until I saw this Gristmill post by David Roberts about this absurd ad, which says

“Why are these men smiling?” the full-page ad asks below photos of Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Because the recent decision by the Sebelius Administration means Kansas will import more natural gas from countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran,” the ad states.

All I can think is “Oh. Come. On.” Just when Kansans had begun to strengthen their case for their own intelligent design, this sort of smear campaign emerges. I can only hope that word is spreading as fast as the California wildfires that Sunflower Electric – a.k.a. the denied – is bitter and behind it all…

I usually like the stories of the Washington Post‘s climate reporter Juliet Eilperin — but why isn’t her article today titled “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Both Parties”? — or even “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Republicans.” So much for the so-called liberal bias of the Post.

She focuses at length on the cost of the climate plans of Clinton, Obama and the other Dems, but hardly talks about the benefits at all — and never mentions the costs of inaction: catastrophic global warming.

She does quote Former House speaker Newt Gingrich who

said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on “litigation and regulation” could alienate voters, he said in an interview. “You can just calculate the costs,” Gingrich said.

“Then, Republican candidates are on the opposite extreme,” he added. “A candidate who’s anti-environment and denies global warming gets killed in the suburbs.”

And she also writes:

“It’s a huge issue. I’ve been stunned by this,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, who found in a May poll that energy independence and global warming were cited as America’s most important domestic challenge by 29 percent of respondents, second only to health care. “I think this is a top-tier voting issue that has crossover appeal,” Greenberg said.

So the piece has the wrong headline and the wrong emphasis and an incomplete argument, leaving readers with the idea that this is a politically riskier area than it in fact is.

I am not saying this is a can’t-lose issue from a political perspective, especially if handled wrong, but it definitely isn’t can’t-win, especially if handled right — as most of the Dems seem to be doing.

The Washington Post needs to do a better and fairer job covering the politics of this top-tier issue.

NASA’s James Hansen has posted here his final testimony submitted to the Iowa Utilities Board on the proposed coal-fired power plant in Iowa.

You can send this to anyone seeking a clear, general-audience primer on

1. the state of the science on climate change
2. why we need to take immediate action
3. what we should do about coal.

In addition to his Oscar and his Nobel Prize, Al Gore may be in line for the title of Prognosticator of the Year. Last January while I was attending his training program in Nashville, Gore predicted that by the time of the 2008 presidential election, climate change would be the hottest issue in the race.

That prediction hasn’t come true yet, but things are moving that way. Climate change is emerging like a tropical storm building to Category 5. It may become the issue that most clearly defines the candidates’ courage, vision, ability to unify the nation and willingness to be honest with the American people.

“The most remarkable thing about the environmental debates taking place in this year’s presidential campaign is that they’re occurring at all,” TIME magazine reported this week. “Once the stuff of a few hug-the-planet bromides in green states like Vermont and Oregon, the environment is one of the hot topics of the 2008 campaign.”

With that introduction, TIME dedicated a page to comparing the candidates’ positions on global warming and related energy issues. Its conclusion: With the exception of John McCain, the Republicans aren’t saying much yet. (Don’t expect them to until after the primaries.) But on the Democrat side, virtually all of the candidates have taken substantive positions, some bold. That’s not a surprise from Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, who don’t have to worry about protecting a lead. But the front-runners are going on record, too. In fact, we may see them competing against one another for the strongest climate platform. Word is circulating in the climate-action community that John Edwards, who came out early with proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is gathering ideas for a new and improved climate plan that he wants to announce in the next few weeks.

Why is the political climate heating up? The candidates’ polls may be showing that voters have reached the proverbial “tipping point” on the issue. For example, a poll conducted last July by Yale University, Gallup and the ClearVision Institute registered some startling numbers that haven’t received enough public attention. Among its findings:

Read more