HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - August 2, 2007 - Printable Version
- A Pocket Full Of Mumbles
by Robin Buckallew
Ah, election season! Don’t you just love the smell of BS in the morning? Now is the time when the candidates trot out their promises, tell us what they will do once the wisdom of the voters installs them in the White House, and hold their fingers crossed tightly behind their backs, hoping we won’t remember what they promised us once the dust of the “horse race” has cleared away. This election season, however, has one big difference from any election season that has preceded it. Thanks to the runaway boxoffice sensation of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, for the first election season in history the environment is considered a necessary topic for inclusion in campaign platforms. The candidates are being asked what they are going to do about global warming, and not just by the “lunatic fringe” of committed environmentalists. They are being asked by Mr. and Mrs. America, ordinary citizens from swing states, who have become concerned about the future on a feverish planet. As a result, the candidates have developed energy policies as part of their platform. A few weeks ago, I promised I would write a column reviewing the energy policies of the various candidates. And, since I am not running for anything, I keep my promises. This column is bound to get a little long, and at times somewhat technical, but this is very important stuff, so please bear with me.
First of all, before I go into candidate details, I would like to explain a little bit of my philosophy on this topic, so you will understand how I reached the conclusions that I have reached. One of the problems that I have with the current dialogue on global warming is that it is much too limited. Nearly everyone I know, including most environmental scientists, are discussing global warming as “an issue”. Global warming is not an issue. It is not the issue. Global warming is a small piece of a bigger whole that encompasses all of the damage being done by human beings to the planet on which we live, all the ways in which we foul our nest. Global warming is the fever that warns us of a potentially life-threatening illness. Most of the energy proposals I reviewed address energy use and global warming as a discrete, distinct issue, and while I am glad to see the debate occurring, I worry that many other issues, equally important and equally imminent, are being pushed aside in the rush to deal with the “designer” issue of global warming, the fad of the moment, if you will. Back in the 1970s, everyone wanted to save the whales. In the 1980s, it was the hole in the ozone. In the 1990s, it was wetlands. Now, at the dawn of the new millennium, it’s global warming. Our track record at solving the other problems has not been good, and I fear from what I’m seeing and hearing that our track record at dealing with this problem won’t be any better. Part of the problem stems from the fragmentation of the issues with which we are dealing. The environment exists as an interacting whole, and must be dealt with as an interacting whole. To date, this has not been the approach that has been taken, and the results have been mixed, at best, with the overall success rate being much less than it could be, and certainly much less than it needed to be. So, in reviewing the energy policies of the various candidates, I have taken the liberty of considering how this energy policy fits into a greater whole, and how the proposals reflected in these policies will integrate into a less fragmented, more Earth-centered approach to the overall problem of environmental degradation.
There are a few other things I would like to mention. I give the candidates no points for advocating nuclear power as an approach, and in fact consider that in the negative column. This is a controversial issue, and I will discuss at some length in a future column my reasons for rejecting nuclear power as an option at this time. In addition, I give no kudos to any candidate for the advocacy of clean coal. This is, in the words of one environmental author, an “oxymoron born of recombinant public relations”, and has no relationship to anything moderately approaching reality. Clean coal is simply a feel-good phrase cooked up by folks in love with an illusion. In addition, ethanol does not win any points with me, as this fuel creates more problems than it solves, and has no potential for bailing us out of the fix we are in. Many people use the term “renewable” with the assumption that it automatically means “environmentally friendly”. This is not the case, and we should hold their feet to the fire to ensure that all renewable energy sources are sustainable, and environmentally sound.
In addition to the energy policies of the candidates, I reviewed the environmental scorecard issued for each candidate where one was available. Each Congressional session, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) reviews the voting records for all members of Congress, and assesses them a numerical rating on a scale of 0-100 based on their votes on environmentally critical legislation. These records are available only for those candidates who are members of Congress, so several candidates will not have any LCV ratings available.
In order to be totally fair to all the candidates, I am presenting the review in alphabetical order by party, then by candidate. So, the Democrats will be dealt with first, followed by Independents, then the Republicans. Most of the information has been taken directly from the candidates own website, with a handful of additional tidbits culled from debates or other speeches or interviews that I have heard or read.
Joe Biden, Democrat, Delaware. Senator Biden has an LCV score of 100 for the most recent Congressional session. His website does list an energy policy, but it is very vague. For the most part, Biden tells us he would increase fuel efficiency standards, but does not give any specific details of how much. He makes no mention of conservation. He does plan to increase investment in research for energy technology, and also would like to make a transition to “farm grown fuels” (this means ethanol). Overall, I give Joe Biden a D+.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat, New York. Senator Clinton has an LCV score of 71 for the most recent Congressional session. Her website has a substantive and detailed energy policy, and, true to form, it is technical and rather wonky. I’ll boil it down to basics for you. Clinton states that she would reduce carbon emissions and other pollution, and also that she would increase fuel efficiency, but gives no indication of how much increase. She makes no mention of conservation as a policy option. She does state that she would invest in “clean energy techniques” – reading further, she indicates that this means clean coal, ethanol, and other biofuels. One strength of Clinton’s policy is that she does recognize the need to pay for initiatives, and has already given that consideration. She would set up a strategic energy fund, investing $50 billion into research and development, and this would be paid for by oil companies who would have to pay into the fund unless they invest in renewable energy. She also states that she would end oil company tax breaks, which is a big plus in her favor. She intends to make sure that oil companies pay a fair price for drilling on public lands – I do not consider this a positive, as it manages to leave a lot of loopholes for business as usual, and does not adequately address the possibility of eliminating drilling on public lands, which is needed in order to protect fragile ecosystems. Clinton would also like to implement a national market based program to reduce global warming pollution. At the most recent debate, Clinton acknowledged taking a private jet to travel to the debate – a big nono if you want to maintain credibility on global warming. Overall, give Hillary Clinton a C-.
Chris Dodd, Democrat, Connecticut. According to Al Gore, “Chris Dodd gets it”. Senator Dodd has an LCV score of 100 for the most recent Congressional session. Although Dodd does not mention mandatory emissions standards on his website, he does call for an increase in fuel efficiency to 50 mpg by 2017 - a much bolder step than others are calling for. He also would increase efficiency standards for consumer electrical products, and would call for all government buildings to be equipped with the latest energy efficiency technologies. In addition, all new government vehicles would be hybrid, plug-in, or other alternative technology. Dodd does not directly mention conservation, but he does call for tax breaks and incentives for purchase of hybrid vehicles, and would work for increased access to mass transit – an option that is not even whispered by any of the front runner candidates. He calls for 15% reduction in emissions by 2020, and 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, and would implement a carbon tax on all polluters – a unique feature of Dodd’s policy. In addition, he would call for a freeze on electricity usage from 2010 onwards. He would implement tougher standards for construction of coal-fired power plants, and would require capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. He would make permanent the current production tax credits for renewable energy, which are currently due to expire at the end of 2008. Funding of research and development for renewable energy would be increased, and he would call for 20% of power to be generated by renewables by 2020. He would also call for education providers to develop a curriculum for training mechanics and repairmen on the new technology. One weakness of his policy is that the only alternative energy source he mentions directly, besides hybrid and plug-in technology, is biofuels. To be fair, he does promote the use of cellulosic ethanol, which some sources advocate as environmentally friendly, but which in reality could never be maintained at a high enough level to replace any substantial amount of our fossil fuel demand. Dodd also advocates exporting safe, efficient, energy friendly technology to the poor nations to assist them in developing without using the old, cheap polluting technologies. At the most recent debate, Dodd did admit to taking a private jet to get there. Overall, I give Chris Dodd an A.
John Edwards, Democrat, North Carolina. Since John Edwards has not been a member of the most recent Congress, I reviewed his LCV scores from the final sessions of his term in office prior to his last presidential bid. His LCV rating for the 108th Congress was 32, and for the prior session, the 107th Congress, it was a 68. In spite of that, Edwards has made several bold proposals in his environmental policy. Edwards does call for mandatory emissions standards, and would raise the fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2016. Edwards makes no mention of mass transit as an option. Edwards does advocate federal mandates for net metering, in which power companies would be required to buy back surplus energy generated by individuals with windmills or solar powers who were hooked up to the grid; this has already been implemented in several states, but mandating it at the federal level would make this option available in all states, and would greatly increase the percentage of homes that were retrofitted with solar panels or windmills – especially coupled with the tax credit for homeowners investing in renewable energy that Edwards also proposes. He also proposes reversing the Bush budget cuts in the weatherization program, and increased federal investment in wind and other renewables, with the aim to generating 25% from renewables by 2025. He advocates a new Climate Treaty, stronger than Kyoto, and believes that all trade agreements should include strong labor and environmental standards. Like Dodd, Edwards would also make the tax credits for production of renewables permanent. Also like Dodd, he believes we should share technology with the poor nations in return for their agreement to accept binding greenhouse reduction commitments. Edwards proposes creation of a Green Corps to provide environmental jobs. This idea mirrors one of candidate Dennis Kucinich, which will be discussed in more detail below. Although it appears that Edwards got some of his boldest ideas from other candidates, I do not mention this as a criticism of Edwards. I think it is a fabulous idea to incorporate the best ideas of all the best minds into your proposals, and I think this demonstrates clearly the value of the second-tier candidates, who often go unnoticed by the press in the horse race announcing, but who can do so much to influence the nature of the debate and the issues being discussed. Some of the weaknesses I see in Edwards’ policy are his focus on biofuels, and his call for increased availability of E85 gas pumps, as well as his commitment to spend $1 billion a year on research into clean coal technologies; however, Edwards’ plan is very thorough, and demonstrates a great deal of thought and dedication. At the last debate, Edwards did admit to taking a private jet (as did most of the other candidates). Overall, I give John Edwards an A-.
Mike Gravel, Democrat, Alaska. Although Gravel was once governor of Alaska, he has not served in Congress, and therefore does not have an LCV rating. Gravel does have an energy policy listed on his website, but it is very short, and does not include very much detail. For the most part, Gravel does express his commitment to mandatory emissions standards. He also wants to fight against global deforestation, but does not give any details as to how he proposes to accomplish this. He does state that he wants to integrate the global scientific community into the task of fighting global warming. On the side of Do as I Do, it must be noted that Gravel traveled to the last debate by bus, demonstrating that he is willing to let his life serve as an inspiration to others seeking true leadership. Overall, I give Mike Gravel a D+.
Dennis Kucinich, Democrat, OH. Congressman Kucinich received an LCV rating of 100 for the last Congressional session. Although Kucinich does not list mandatory emissions standards or fuel efficiency standards on his website, he has indicated his commitment to these ideas in his speeches, and in his voting record in Congress. His policy puts a heavy emphasis on conservation, and he proposes increased incentives to encourage use of wind and solar power. Kucinich has promised that one of his first acts in office would be to cancel NAFTA, which has had substantial negative environmental impact, not just on energy and global warming, but on many other aspects of environmental protection. He expresses a commitment to ensuring that all trade agreements contain strong environmental standards. He would immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol, but would also begin negotiating a stronger treaty, believing that it is necessary that we go much further than the reductions called for in Kyoto. One of Kucinich’s major proposals is a Works Green Administration, modeled after Franklin Roosevelt’s WPA, which would help provide environmental and civic jobs, and he also would create a Youth Environmental Corps. In addition, Kucinich has stated that we begin to address the role that Global Warring plays in Global Warming, and has called to an end to overthrow of foreign governments in order to secure access to their oil supplies. Kucinich did not take a private jet to the debate. Overall, I give Dennis Kucinich an A.
Barack Obama, Democrat, Illinois. Senator Obama received an LCV rating of 100 for the last Congressional session. Obama does call for mandatory emissions standards, proposing that fuels contain 5% less carbon by 2015, and 10% less carbon by 2020. His policy has a strong focus on biofuels, calling for tax credits for E85 gas pumps. In addition, he advocates the issuance of tradable allowances, a popular market based incentive that is controversial and divisive among the environmental community; in fact, one wag compared it to the selling of indulgences that was once widely practiced by the Catholic Church, and after years of watching the use of emissions permits in many areas, I feel compelled to agree with this assessment. Overall, Obama’s energy policy is light on details, and heavy on business as usual, with the exception that he proposes the taxpayers shoulder the pension costs of retirees for car companies that make hybrids, and that companies receive health care breaks in exchange for investing 50% of the savings into hybrid technology. The policy does not contain any references to conservation or to reduction, and one inquiring soul compared his standards proposal with those of G. W. Bush, and found them identical. In general, the plan lacks the bold, innovative approaches advocated by several of the other candidates, and indeed is just so much business as usual. Overall, I give Barack Obama a C-.
Bill Richardson, Democrat, Arizona. Governor Richardson has not served in Congress, and has no LCV rating. Richardson does call for mandatory emissions standards, graduating by steps from a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 to a 90% reduction by 2050. He proposes raising fuel efficiency standards to 100 mpg by 2020. He proposes signing onto the Kyoto Protocol, and going beyond it, establishing mandatory worldwide limits on global warming gases. He also proposes cutting back on wrongly placed subsidies that encourage reckless, polluting practices, and that continue to help support our addiction to oil. He proposes a multilateral system for protecting the Persian Gulf, and plans to fund this by sale of carbon permits (see above regarding selling of indulgences). Although Richardson demonstrates a commitment to market-based incentives that have not yet been demonstrated to be effective, he does propose to couple this with mandatory standards, and as those who are regular readers of my column know, I am an advocate of using both the carrot and the stick. While not quite as bold or complete as some of the energy policies, there is enough here to indicate that Richardson understands the problem, and is committed to addressing it. Overall, I give Richardson a B+.
Michael Bloomberg, Independent, New York. Although Bloomberg has not yet officially thrown his hat into the ring, there has been enough noise made that I decided to include him in this column. As Mayor of New York City, Bloomberg does not have an LCV rating. Chief strengths of Bloomberg’s stated energy policy include a call to raise fuel efficiency standards (without any specific figure given as to how high), and the call to invest in more wind farms. He has also suggested that it is time to phase out incandescent bulb. In general, his policy suffers by a rejection of mandatory emissions caps in favor of market-determined emissions caps, and a call for more nuclear power plants. No mention is made of conservation. In all fairness, I will note here that since Bloomberg has not yet officially thrown his hat into the ring, he has not made an official statement of his platform, and all the above is culled from his mayoral website; what he proposes for New York City may not be as bold as what he would consider as POTUS. Overall, based on the scanty information, I give Michael Bloomberg a C-.
Sam Brownback, Republican, Kansas. Senator Brownback received an LCV rating of 29 in the last Congressional session. The only thing included in his energy policy is a proposal that we should reduce oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day in 10 years. Overall, I give Sam Brownback an F.
Newt Gingrich, Republican, Georgia. Gingrich has not been in Congress for some time, so I reviewed his LCV ratings while he was there. The last LCV rating he received was in 1994, when he received a 0; in the prior session, he received a 13. Although he was in Congress for several more years, as speaker, he only voted at his discretion, and no rating was given. Gingrich is one of only two Republican candidates with a detailed energy policy listed; it is tempting to sum up his entire policy with the quote that appears on his website: “The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way”; however, this would be the lazy way out, and I will go into more detail, since he did. In the first place, Gingrich has absolutely rejected any mandatory emissions standards. He does propose we optimize energy use in government buildings, and that we develop more renewable energy sources. He has convinced himself, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that hydrogen energy is the best breakthrough, although he admits that is some time away; he gives no acknowledgement of the fact that wind and solar are already being used in many parts of the world, including many areas of the United States. He advocates honest debate about drilling in natural places such as Alaska and off the coast of Florida – it is important to keep in mind when considering his use of the word honest that he is an advocate of drilling in these areas. He also proposes environmentally sound development of fossil fuels, which sounds like perhaps he refers to clean coal. He absolutely rejects the Kyoto Protocol, referring to it as a bad treaty. He sums it up by stating that global warming science is complex and uncertain (I won’t disagree there), and states that it is politically driven mass hysteria, with no scientific proof. Overall, I give Newt Gingrich an F.
Rudolph Guiliani, Republican, New York. Mr. Guiliani was the former mayor of New York City. He has never served in Congress, and has no LCV rating. In addition, he has no energy policy listed on his official website. Overall, I assess Rudolph Guiliani an F.
Mike Huckabee, Republican, Arkansas. Governor Huckabee has not served in Congress, and has no LCV rating. Huckabee does mention conservation in an offhand way, and states that he will achieve energy independence by the end of his second term. He believes we should pursue all avenues of alternative energy, including nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, and biofuels. He calls for more E85 pumps. Huckabee gets high marks for including on his website the following statements: “We might was well be writing checks to Osama Bin Laden every time we pull into a gas station” and “I want to treat Saudi Arabia the same way I treat Sweden, and that requires us to be energy independent”. He proposes to remove the red tape that slows innovation, which sounds suspiciously like removing the regulations that protect the citizens from deadly pollutants in their air and water. He calls for a federal R&D budget to be matched by the private sector for exploration of fossil fuels. He states that as President, the first thing he will do is send Congress his comprehensive energy plan. Overall, I give Mike Huckabee a D+.
Duncan Hunter, Republican, California. Congressman Hunter received an LCV rating of 0 for the most recent session of Congress. He has no stated energy policy. Overall, I give Duncan Hunter an F.
John McCain, Republican, Arizona. Senator McCain received an LCV rating of 29 for the most recent Congressional session. It is worth noting, however, that McCain has co-authored a bill with Senator Lieberman to address emissions standards. McCain has few details in his stated energy policy. He states that he will harness market forces, and bring nuclear power to the market faster. Overall, I give John McCain a D-.
Ron Paul, Republican, Texas. Congressman Paul received an LCV rating of 29 for the most recent session of Congress. He has no stated energy policy. Overall, I give Ron Paul an F.
Mitt Romney, Republican, Massachusetts. The former governor of Massachusetts has not served in Congress, and has no LCV rating. His energy policy calls for increasing efficiency and conservation through technology. He advocates increased use of biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification. Overall, I give Mitt Romney an F.
Tom Tancredo, Republican, Colorado. Congressman Tancredo received an LCV rating of 8 for the most recent Congressional session. He has no stated energy policy. Overall, I give Tom Tancredo an F.
Fred Thompson, Republican, Tennessee. This former Senator has no LCV rating. He also has no stated energy policy. Overall, I give Fred Thompson an F.
Tommy Thompson, Republican, Wisconsin. The former governor of Wisconsin has no LCV rating. His energy policy states that we need to break our reliance on foreign oil, and become more independent in our energy needs. We need greater investments in renewables like ethanol. In addition, he states that we need to come together to deal with our changing climate. Overall, I give Tommy Thompson a D-.
In general, the energy policies of the Democratic candidates are substantially more thorough and more environmentally friendly than those of the Republican candidates. In fact, few of the Republican candidates even have an energy policy, and those that do are mostly more concerned with the economic aspect of dependence on foreign oil than the environmental aspect. On the Democratic side, the front-runners, with the exception of John Edwards, are mostly playing it safe, with bland, business-friendly energy policies that do little to address environmental issues. The best energy policies are those of Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd, and in fact, the ideal energy policy would combine the best of both of their policies. John Edwards comes in next, followed by Bill Richardson. I realize that there are many who will say that the policies advocated by these bold and innovative thinkers are pie-in-the-sky, idealistic, and unrealistic. What could possibly be more unrealistic than keeping your hand in the fire even after you begin to feel the heat? If we are not willing to take bold and innovative actions, our politicians will not be willing to be bold, either. So, do something daring. When the time comes for the primary, vote for Kucinich or Dodd or Richardson. Perhaps the media darlings will understand the message you send (especially if you write to their office, and share your reasoning with them), and incorporate some of their ideas. John Edwards already has. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama incorporate some of the bolder, more innovative ideas, we may begin to see people sitting up and taking notice. Don’t just give a politician your vote – make them work for it.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).