Chuck Hagel has Become a Sexy and Intriguing Running Mate Option for Barack Obama. But What Does He Think About Environmental Issues?

As a political junkie I must admit that I am intrigued by the idea of Barack Obama choosing Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as his running mate. Not only would a dual-party ticket be refreshing to some of us, but it could provide evidence to support Obama’s claim that he wants to work with Republicans rather than participate in a tit-for-tat Washington culture.

Some Democrats would dislike the choice of Hagel though, as it would put a Republican in good position to win the White House the next time around should Obama win. Of course there is also the possibility that John McCain might select the Independent and primarily liberal Senator Joe Lieberman as his vice president pick. So a dual-party ticket is possible on both sides.

Hagel’s opposition to the Iraq War is the principle reason why many Democrats label him the “new John McCain.” (the 2000ish John McCain that is– not the soulless hack we see now). From Nebraska, Hagel is one of the few prominent Republican politicians that Democrats like because he speaks with conviction and does not always file in with his party’s line. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Governor Charlie Crist also to some extent fit into this category.

Hagel, along with Rhode Island Democratic Senator Jack Reed, is currently joining Barack Obama on his international world tour to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. By having Hagel accept Obama’s invitation to join him on the trip, it has only fueled additional speculation that his chances of being selected as vice president are real. Hagel has also said previously that he is open to the possibility of running with Obama: a bold gesture. Hagel’s status as a Vietnam War veteran and his foreign policy experience would add a lot to Obama’s candidacy, in addition to perhaps winning over some independent voters and moderate Republicans to Obama’s side.

So given this possibility, I thought it would be cool and exciting if Obama made Hagel his choice. Although I have read that Hagel’s positions on almost all issues other than the Iraq War seriously differ from those of Obama. Their differences of opinion on abortion is the one difference most commonly mentioned by reporters. So I asked myself earlier today, where is Hagel on environmental issues?

It turns out that his voting record on energy and environmental issues is pretty bad.

A Grist interview from about three years ago is revealing, however, of Hagel’s nuanced views about environmental issues. While he believes that the problem of global warming should be addressed, he also thinks we should confront the challenge through private/public sector innovations and solutions rather than by using legislation to set carbon caps and emission standards. The free market is a wonderful thing he says.

Hagel also voted against the U.S. signing the Kyoto Protocol because he said it did not include developing countries. He believes these nations are responsible for most of the world’s carbon emissions (I’m not sure he’s right about this one, but I will need to check). I also find this reasoning somewhat bothersome because Hagel does not recognize that developed countries like the U.S. should be leading the way rather than developing countries. Many of these poor nations don’t have the means or priority to take on environmental issues yet, when poverty and economic stimulation are more important issues for them.

Hagel, as of the time of the Grist interview, had recently taken the initiative though to introduce some bills to help combat global warming (it does not seem like they went anywhere). I won’t get into details, but this was probably the most interesting and encouraging thing Hagel said in the interview:

I don’t think you can separate environmental policy from economic policy or energy policy. They are circles of connection and they overlap each other. You can’t have economic growth without energy, and you can’t talk about the use of oil, coal, and natural gas without talking about environmental policy, because those carbon-based energy sources emit carbon, and that’s not good. The only way you can realistically deal with these issues is to come up with policy that integrates all three.

Probably the most discouraging thing he said in the interview is as follows:

Q: Grist: Have you made any changes in your own lifestyle to conserve energy and lessen your contribution to greenhouse gases?

A: Hagel: Well, I still drive a car. I still heat my home.

A pretty surly and curt answer there, huh?

So after doing a little bit of online research, it seems to me that when it comes to his positions on environmental issues and his actions, Hagel is a little bit of a mixed bag. If anything, he seems to be given a little more credit than he deserves on environmental issues. Just because you submit some legislation to combat global warming should not make you a green crusader. Call me an idealist, but it should make you part of the club.

Read More About the Environmental Positions of Presidential Candidates and Their Potential Running Mates on the Green Options Network:

McCain Calls Electric Vehicles “Vital”, Says He’d Support Federal Tax Credits

Obama and Ethanol: Is it Just About Winning Votes?

Potential Running Mate Florida Governor Charlie Crist Has Green Cred– Is it Deserved?

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons