Presidential Candidates: Where Do They Stand On Climate Policy Proposals?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 10.15.07
The Christian Science Monitor recently reviewed climate change policy suggestions made by US presidential candidates, to date. Below, is a high level summary that we assembled based on the CSM article as a starting point. After exploring the various candidate websites to corroborate points highlighted in the article, we realized that CSM had missed much. So, we added what we could find in a variety of places. If we missed or mis-stated any policy or program proposals please let us know.
Note: order of presentation does not denote preference; candidates not listed have not posited serious positions on Climate issues; and, we purposefully have not listed party affiliations.
Point of reference: to-date, no US presidential candidate makes environment a top issue, nor would we expect them to. But, it will be fun to see if Al Gore's Nobel gives at least Climate Change some podium lift on the campaign trail.
Senator Christopher Dodd favors a corporate carbon tax, supports the Sanders "Cap-and-trade" legislation, would increase efficiency standards for consumer products, would raise fuel economy standards in automobiles to 50 mpg, would impose carbon capture and sequestration on new coal plants, would increase renewable electricity standard to 20% by 2020, would increase investments in Biofuels and other Clean Energy Technologies, would make the Production Tax Credit permanent for clean and renewable sources of energy, would require that all new government vehicles use hybrid, plug-in, or other fuel efficient and alternative technology, would require that all new and existing federal buildings be equipped with the latest energy efficiency technologies, and more.
John Edwards seeks to cap greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system, and reduce it by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, he would lead the world "to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations", he would create a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies, and he proposes to meet the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity.
Senator John McCain has proposed capping cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 2004 levels by 2012 and then reducing them by 65 percent by 2050. He also favors increased spending on nuclear power... Note: there is very little about climate on the McCain website.
Senator Joseph Biden wants to raise vehicle fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2017, and favors resumed negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Senator Barack Obama has proposed a detailed plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050 (similar to John Edwards). Senator Obama has favored expanding the manufacture of ethanol-capable vehicles, offering tax credits to spur cellulosic fuel production, requiring clean-fueled transit buses be bought with federal dollars, and providing incentives to ethanol plants to invest in E-85 blending equipment on their premises. At one point he also favored Federal funding of "clean coal plants" to produce liquid fuels (current stance uncorroborated). He favored mandating a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the national transportation fuel pool by 2020.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, wants to cut US oil demand 50 percent by 2020, obtain half of all the country's electricity supply from renewable sources by 2040, double the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for autos to 50 miles per gallon by 2020, and cap CO2 emissions at 90 percent below 2006 levels by 2050. Full listing of details is here.
Senator Hillary Clinton has proposed creating a strategic energy fund, investing oil companies' "windfall profits" in renewable energy, and obtaining 20 percent of the nation's electricity from renewable resources by 2020. She also supports a supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to achieve an "80% pollution reduction by the year 2050," proposed to add $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels, and proposes to require that by 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral.
Via::Christian Science Monitor, "Where the '08 contenders stand on global warming" Image credit::University of Michigan 3D Lab, "Podium"
Read my lips..."blah blah blah."
It's like Mad Libs for politicains: "I promise to reduce (noun) by (date) with my (adjective) plan."
I believe Al Gore would be able to achieve more from the oval office than any other place. Here's wishing he runs. As far as other candidates go, they won't put climate change as a top priority until people realize that nothing else really matters if climate isn't in balance.
To anonymous:
...actually no.
These candidates, plus Kucinich and Clinton, have all sponsored or cosponsored extremely effective legislation for global warming prevention.
Getting it through the Senate has been a challenge because the Republicans in the Senate all more or less agree with Inohofe who thinks its a hoax. Because there is a pretty evenly split Senate: 50/49 and you need 60 to pass, (and 67 to overcome Bush vetoes, and he has vetoed more than 50 Democratic bills already) Democrats can't pass the legislation they'd like. But they are serious, and with a better majority these bills would pass easily.
Other than McCain, the rest of the Republican presidential lineup have shown zero interest in global warming.
Here is Ron Paul's stance:
"Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with China… so what are you going to do, invade China so they don’t pollute? … But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies. I don’t like subsidizing oil companies. They’ve been doing that for years. We go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more oil. So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming—by subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed. And that’s why we’re in the Middle East, to protect oil interests. So that’s one of the first things you would do if you were serious."
Jankdc re Ron Paul:
"Can't do much, but I'd like to do something. If you were serious." (I note that most of the other candidates listed *are* serious according to that criteria, btw.) Extreme straw man: volcanoes. Not a number or a commitment to be seen.
In other words, this has all the hallmarks of a drunk know-it-all at a cocktail party and none of the characteristics of a *plan*.
I understand that this is a touchy subject and can be addressed from many different avenues of approach. How can you expect the government to make a difference when Half of the American population is not willing to take it on there selves to make a difference. An example of this would be passing laws to force manufactures to produce vehicles that get more than 40mpg. These cars already exist, but people want their Hummers. Plus, right now we still have cars on the roads that were made in the 80s, a majority of America would not be able to afford these new cars, so to implement this type of plan would take 20+ years. Where the Politicians need to focus on is Business and manufacturing. More can happen there by forcing corporations to reduce energy consumption or carbon stamp.
i know i am rambling sorry
shaun
What about the lesser-known candidates such as Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich (on the Democratic side) and Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul? By posting only these candidates, Treehugger is playing into the idea touted by the media that there are only two inevitable candidates. This then forces voters into a situation where they say, "Well, I like this person, but only that person can win, so I'm voting for that person." In truth, though, the first person could win if people weren't discouraged from voting for them. After all is said and done, and this leads to another business-as-usual president, you are hurting the chance of progressive policies being passed, especially ones regarding the environment, because big business is too lazy to clean up its act and would rather feed politicians money in order for them to not act on what citizens want.
Shaun is right.
Government is not the answer to this issue. The real answer is knowledge, education, and consumer demand.
We dont need more politician's promises, we need more education.
Gore would definitely do more education, and for that he has my gratitude. Whether he would be the best president, I'm not so sure. I'm against huge government.
He would definitely be better then all of the current "1st Tier" candidates though..
It's too bad that more people are not open to being educated about the issues, otherwise we would have better choices for candidates, and people like Ron Paul would be given the time of day.
Most Americans still think that the war in Iraq is about "preserving our freedoms", not oil.
Yep, our biggest problem is that our politicians are as useless as the American population is ignorant.
I'm feeling torn over Ron Paul. Although the other candidates have plans whereas Ron Paul just wants to stop subsidizing oil and get us out of Iraq, history shows that setting goals with numbers pulled out of thin air like the other candidates have does next to nothing concrete about the problem. So even if Ron Paul won't tax carbon, as of now, I'd still vote for him simply because of all the candidates, he's the only one who's solidly against the war. He wants our troops out of Iraq entirely, not just reducing our troop numbers and pulling the rest into the green zone.
My gut feeling is that stopping the subsidies to big oil alone would do about as much good as a carbon tax. Not having our corporations having free reign over Iraq would force us to really pursue alternatives. Fuel prices would probably shoot up to $5-7 a gallon, especially with a weak dollar, but in the end that would probably have the same effect as taxing carbon for the most of us. What I'm worried about is coal, which most of us never use directly, but only indirectly through utilities that buy and burn it.
(As you can see, I'm somewhat of a fan of Ron Paul.)