What Does Hillary Clinton Plan to Do About Global Warming?

[Stephanie]

Please tell me, Clinton fans. I'd like to know. There is no more urgent problem. Nothing else matters if we don't solve this one. Where does she stand?

[babylonsister]

1. Good question. She can ask Bill! nt

[Armstead]

2. Form a commission and study it

[SaveElmer]

3. Start here...

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/energy/

Also her Senate website...more fothcoming I am sure...

If you are truly interested...

[Stephanie]

5. "Market-based" "by 2050" "by 2020" "by 2030"

Does she realize this is urgent?

As President, Hillary will:

Reduce Global Warming – Hillary has championed the most aggressive approach to reducing global warming out there. She supports an 80% pollution reduction by the year 2050, an approach that has been called the gold standard of global warming reduction.

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary’s proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary’s proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary’s proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based “Cap and Trade” Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

Adopt a 20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high-carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she’ll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protect Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a “priority list” of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an “environmental health tracking network” that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

[incapsulated]

7. Uh, "market based" is also what Obama supports

Nothing wrong with that. His plan goes farther because he makes everyone pay.

And an 80% reduction in pollution by 2050 is hardly being cautious. In fact, it's a very demanding goal.

[fedupfisherman]

4. Hopefully ban coal fired power plants n/t

[liberalmuse]

6. Well, I did find this...

In the White House, Hillary will lead the charge to stop global warming by investing in clean energy technologies, establishing a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution, increasing our fuel efficiency, and restoring the United States' rightful place as a leader in international efforts to address the problem of climate change. Hillary introduced a plan to Congress to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development, and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels, and more.
We can create the fund without raising taxes by giving oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy themselves or pay into the fund. She would also eliminate oil companies' tax breaks and make sure they pay their fair share for drilling on public lands.

And this:

America is ready for energy independence. Hillary is ready to lead the charge. The choices we make about energy touch nearly every aspect of our lives. Our economy, our national security, our health, and the future of our planet are all at stake as we make a choice between energy independence and dependence on foreign sources of oil. Hillary has championed policies that encourage development of alternative energy technologies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. She has proposed an Apollo Project-like program dedicated to achieving energy independence.

Google is neat!

[jgraz]

11. "clean coal" is an oxymoron

By including clean coal in her plan, she's sending out code to the big energy companies that she's on their side.

[daninthemoon]

8. She's gonna change out all the light bulbs in the White House.

:silly:

[liberalmuse]

10. And she'll throw out the Dim Bulb.

Which will do wonders for the planet.

[daninthemoon]

24. She and Pelosi and Reid and Biden and Obama and Dodd are

supposed to be throwing out the dimbulb NOW. By then, he will be walking out on his own, victorious in having gotten away with all this. The only candidate doing anything to throw him out is Kucinich. The others keep appeasing the chimperor.

[Bitwit1234]

9. First thing if she could shut all the her hate spewers up it would do

away with a hell of a lot of the hot air. Especially on the DU>

[fedupfisherman]

12. Pass a law prohibiting criticism of her?

She could introduce such a bill in the Senate.

[daninthemoon]

25. Throw em all in Gitmo, right?

:wow: :crazy: :eyes:

[JackORoses]

13. She plans to burn Oil, of course

What else would she do with Iran?

[calteacherguy]

14. Probably exactly what Gore would do. nt

[avrdream]

18. Get Gore as her adviser regarding global warming.

Now THAT would be impressive.

[calteacherguy]

55. Head of EPA, perhaps? nt

[Ron Green]

15. If she leaves enough people as cold as she leaves me,

that ought to do it.

[dugggy]

16. What caused the glaciers formed during Ice age to melt

10,000 years ago? The great lakes were formed by melting
glaciers. So there was enormous global warming going on.
My guess is it was the freaking cave man responsible!
He burned too many twigs!!

<Sarcasm ends>

My point is global warming cycles have been going on
every so many thousand years long before man started
burning oil, coal & gas. We may be in the beginning
part of another cycle. If it is a natural phenomena
man may have no way to stop it.

[Stephanie]

20. Are you a caveman?

The science is well-established, why don't you read up on it?

http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/default.asp

[dugggy]

43. Please answer...why did the iceage glaciers melt?

it will save me a lot of research time,
since you already know the answer. thanks.

[kwolf68]

54. no shit

... Because we had global warming in the past, doesn't mean the current phenomena is 'naturally' occuring. In other words, the warming that happened during the Paleozoic that would lead to the end Permian extinctions was largely caused by volcanic activity, global hypoxia. The level of volcanism back then was immense and was the natural cause.

I dont doubt we are currently still coming out of an ice age, however, the rate of temperature increase is unlike no other time in recorded history. Of course, there are plenty of half-bakked models one could conjure up to show a particular viewpoint, but in the end...it's all about the carbon load. the more carbon we put into the sky, the more that has to be removed (not happening). And the more carbon load, the more global warming takes place.

It really is pretty basic if you stop spitting out bullshit statistics and conjectural analysis. We emit far more carbon than the planet can sink = more carbon = more global warming.

[daninthemoon]

26. No, we are witnessing a drastic, incredibly fast change. And the

natural glaciation cycle of the recent geologic past should have us heading back into a glacial period, not warming up. Our two choices are to do something, or do nothing. What else is there to argue about?

[Stephanie]

28. Exactly.

Nothing else matters.

[dugggy]

44. Do you seriously think man can overcome forces of nature?

If yes, why have'nt we outlawed
1. Earthquakes
2. Tsumamies
3. Typhoons
4. Hurricanes
5. Tornadoes

to name a few?

From what I know, earth has been going through alternate warming and
cooling cycles for millions of years. Geological evidence is everywhere.
Human beings are not powerful enough to overcome mother nature's power.

[Canuckistanian]

56. Stop it

You're killing me! :rofl:

[semillama]

61. Don't you have a bridge to be lurking under? n/t

[hatrack]

48. Probably because of Dansgaard/Oeschger events, for glacial periods in general

A Dansgaard/Oeschger event is a rapid change in the strength and volume of the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), which transfers large amounts of heat from the tropics to the northern oceans areound Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. When the area is covered by ice, as it would be during a glacial period, the NADW has a relatively small effect on the prevailing conditions. When a D/O happens, rapid volume increases and powerful warming trends make very rapid changes in the polar seas and in the Earth's climate possible:

"The isotopic temperature records show 23 interstadial (or Dansgaard/Oeschger) events first recognized in the GRIP record < Dansgaard et al., 1993> and verified in the GISP2 record < Grootes et al., 1993>, between 110 and 15 kyr BP. Intensified formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) has been invoked to explain some of these events. NADW forms when waters from the oceanic thermocline upwell to the surface, cool, and sink in the seas around Greenland. Heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere in the process. Partly because these seas were ice covered, NADW formation was generally slow during glacial times. Intensification of NADW formation would cause rapid warmings in Greenland and other land masses adjacent to the North Atlantic, which can explain the impressive magnitude of the climate changes as well as their rapidity. These dramatic climate changes were not restricted to Greenland and nearby boreal areas, as evidenced by the GRIP CH record < Chappellaz et al., 1993>."

EDIT

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node7.html

For the most recent period of glaciation, the Younger Dryas, it seems likely to have been a substantial increase in methane produced through plant decay and biological processes in wetlands and swamps that ended the most recent glacial period - and very quickly, too:

"The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event < Dansgaard et al., 1989> because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 130070 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an 7C rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at 11.64 kyr BP < Alley et al., 1993> (Figure 2). The transition into the Preboreal (PB), the PB/YD transition, and the YD/Holocene transition were all remarkably fast, each occurring over a period of a decade or so < Alley et al., 1993>. Fluctuations in the electrical conductivity of GISP2 ice on the scale of <5-20 years have been used to reveal rapid changes in the dust content of the atmosphere during the same periods and throughout the last glacial < Taylor et al., 1993b>. These rapid changes appear to reflect a type of ``flickering'' between preferred states of the atmosphere < Taylor et al., 1993b>, which provides a new view of climate change. Holocene climates are by comparison stable and warm.

High resolution (mean: 3.48 years/sample), continuous measurements of GISP2 major anions (chloride, sulfate and nitrate) and cations (sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium and ammonium) were used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment during the YD because these series record the history of the major soluble constituents transported in the atmosphere and deposited over central Greenland < Mayewski et al., 1993c>. These multivariate glaciochemical records provide a robust indication of changes in the characteristics of the sources of these soluble components or changes in their transport paths, in response to climate change. A dramatic example is provided by the calcium series (Figure 2) covering the last 10-18 kyr BP. Prominent periods of increased dustiness have been observed in the record, peaking approximately every 500 years (see figures in Mayewski et al. <1993c>): during the early PB at 11.4 kyr BP; throughout the YD at 11.81, 12.22 and 12.64 kyr BP; during the Bolling/Allerod (B/A) at 13.18, 13.65, and 14.02 kyr BP; and during much of the Glacial. Such events have been attributed by Mayewski et al. <1993c> to changes in the size of the polar atmospheric cell and in source regions (e.g., growth and decay of continental biogenic and terrestrial source regions).

The climate change that accompanied the YD was not restricted to Greenland. The record of variations in the CH concentration of trapped gases in the GRIP ice core < Chappellaz et al., 1993> shows that tropical and subtropical climates were colder and drier during the YD and also earlier cold events. The major natural source region of CH is low-latitude wetlands < Chappellaz et al., 1993>; higher atmospheric concentrations are presumably due to the greater areal extent of tropical and subtropical wetlands < Chappellaz et al., 1993>.

The ammonium flux record from GISP2 provides an estimate of continental biogenic source strength < Mayewski et al., 1993a> during the YD. Although at the onset of the Bolling/Allerod ammonium flux levels and outliers rose dramatically, during the YD ammonium flux levels dropped only minimally and the number of ammonium outliers decreased slightly. Since ammonium concentrations are highest near continents < Logan, 1983> and decrease with transport as a consequence of deposition, it appears that continental sources close to Greenland (North America and Europe) were not as dramatically affected during the YD as were low-latitude wetland regions, as evidenced by the CH record. This may indicate the continued importance of ice sheets and permafrost in limiting the growth of vegetation at higher latitudes until the end of the YD. Both low-latitude source CH and ammonium rise at the end of the YD < Chappellaz et al., 1993; Mayewski et al., 1993c"[br />
EDIT/END

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node6.html

Unfortunately for us, the current rapid warming is almost certainly anthropogenic. In addition, the current uptake of CO2 by the world's oceans is approximately 100 times more rapid that CO2 uptake at the time of hte PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum), which was the last really big extinction-level event since the KT meteor extinction that ended the Cretaceous.

For more general information on current climate trends and projections, please see:

http://www.realclimate.org

[avrdream]

57. Reading that made my head spin but thanks for trying to explain.

[Union Yes]

17. Select Al Gore as her Veep!

[wyldwolf]

19. So you accept she will be the nominee and then the President?

[Stephanie]

21. Of course not. And that's a nice bit of McCarthyism.

Are you in charge of the Clnton Loyalty Oaths here at DU?

[wyldwolf]

22. You must. You obviously see her opinion on this matter as more important than anyone elses

I haven't seen you ask it about anyone else.

Oh, and learn what McCarthyism and loyalty oaths mean.

[Stephanie]

27. I know precisely what it means, I know people who were blacklisted.

When you are old emough to travel to New York, I'd like to introduce you to them, so they can explain to you why the politics of intimidation is ineffective.

[wyldwolf]

29. ok. So, anyway, you accept Hillary will be the nominee and President?

[Stephanie]

31. Why do you feel that is an effective argument?

Do you think you are earning votes for Clinton this way?

[wyldwolf]

32. Why do you feel Hillary is the only candidate that owes an explanation?

[Stephanie]

33. Why do you make such assumptions?

Now go away, I'm tired of you.

[wyldwolf]

34. because no one here has seen you ask it of other candidates.

[Stephanie]

36. Perhaps I'm just getting started.

Now go away, you're a bore.

[wyldwolf]

37. you also have a history of being less than happy with Clinton

[Stephanie]

38. Most of us at DU are unhappy with her.

As you know.

[wyldwolf]

39. but most aren't asking these kind of questions about her

[Stephanie]

41. Policy? Most aren't asking what her POLICY is on various issues?

Good grief. Now please call me a basher so we can end this.

[wyldwolf]

42. not to the exlusion of other candidates. You're either trying to produce a "gotcha" moment or...

..you're looking ahead to her presidency.

[bluetrain]

45. Are you keeping files on us?

[wyldwolf]

46. Only on you, bluetrain. Research for a situation comedy I'm writing

Starring you.

[dionysus]

51. wylddouche, you really are a prick.

[wyldwolf]

58. diopenis, you really are a dumbass

[niceypoo]

23. What do Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, etc plan to do about global warming?

???

[waiting for hope]

30. Try this link -

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/4/71218/3740

[trof]

35. Install a global misting system.

That'll cool things right down.

[Totally Committed]

40. Let Al Gore handle it until he figures out a way to have her corporate interests make/keep a profit

from it, then Al is out, and the DLC model of a "market-based"/"tickle down" economy kicks in, and it'll be 2050 before anything is done other than find a way to "save" Manhattan.

TC

[truebrit71]

47. Ask a focus group what people think about it...then check with her DLC/Corporate sponsors..

...and then do very little whilst claiming to have invented the solar panel...

When asked about it at a press conference she will cackle maniacally and do the "scary eyes" thing she does all the time...

[LeftCoast]

49. You hate her. What do you care?

You just want to tear down.

[Stephanie]

50. I want a nominee who is serious about taking the necessary actions to deal with the problem.

It's not personal.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. "Clean coal" and "market based"...

phrases that have no place in aggressive global warming planning. And I say that regarding all the candidates.

[Catherine Vincent]

53. She can appoint Vice President Al Gore to the Global Warming Group. n/t

[Stephanie]

59. She could but she wouldn't..

Not in the best interests of her corporate sponsors.

[Forkboy]

60. What did you get, maybe one half serious answer?

Figures.