I'd really like to support Obama but I'm concerned about his energy/environment policies

[XemaSab]

I'm worried about his stance on energy and the environment. Looking at his website (http://www.barackobama.com) under issues, there's no "environment" selection. The closest thing is "Meeting America's Energy Needs," (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/).

He's got four ideas listed. He's putting forth two good (but fairly innocuous) ideas: raising CAFE standards and encouraging hybrid vehicles. He's also got two problematic ideas: ethanol and so-called "clean coal."

These are the closest things he has to a comprehensive energy/environment platform, and it sounds like business-as-usual to me. Raising CAFE standards and encouraging vehicle efficiency are something that only a cave-dwelling FReeper would be opposed to. Ethanol currently takes more energy to make than we get out of it, and coal is currently an environmentally EVIL option.

Mitt Romney has the following to say about energy:

"We must become independent from foreign sources of oil. This will mean a combination of efforts related to conservation and efficiency measures, developing alternative sources of energy like biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)."

http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Energy

McCain's website says the following:

"John McCain has a proud record of common sense stewardship. Along with his commitment to clean air and water, and to conserving open space, he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore.

America has been blessed with a rich and diverse natural heritage. In the tradition of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt, John McCain believes that we are vested with a sacred duty to be proper stewards of the resources upon which the quality of American life depends. Ensuring clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace - and the faithful care and management of our natural treasures, including our proud National Park System - is a patriotic responsibility. One that must be met not only for the benefit of our generation, but for our children and those to whom we will pass the American legacy.

John McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy. History shows that poverty is a poor steward.

As John McCain said, "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them." He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.

By addressing this problem responsibly, John McCain believes we can meet our obligation to be proper caretakers of creation, in a manner of which we can be proud – by protecting our country, strengthening our economy, and addressing the challenges of our time, rather than leaving a much worse problem for our children."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm

Brownback says under the headings of Agriculture and Energy:

"During my time as Secretary of Agriculture in Kansas, I saw firsthand the issues faced by today’s farmers. Clean air and water continue to be of top importance, as are the costs of fertilizer and other supplies. America must support the efforts of the agriculture industry, so that it can continue to supply a safe and economical food supply. I believe in agriculture innovation and remain committed to efforts that will help enable farmers to embrace the production of biofuels such as ethanol. I will continue to support America’s agriculture industry by bolstering rural communities and the efforts of America’s farmers.

Due to years of neglect and short-sighted domestic policies, America is on the verge of an energy crisis. Our supply of energy has not kept pace with our demand. Today our nation produces 39% less oil than we did in 1970. This leaves us dependent on foreign suppliers, who often do not have America’s best interests at heart. In the last Congress, I co-sponsored the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for America Security Act. This bill aims to reduce our oil consumption by 2.5 million barrels per day in ten years by taking an innovative, market-based approach that relies on advanced technology and an expansion of renewable fuels. I will continue to fight for energy independence.

http://www.t-worx.com/brownback/Issues/tabid/1311/Default.aspx#Agriculture

Giuliani currently does not have an environment/energy section on his website. (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/) Mike Huckabee wants us to know that he was born in a place called Hope (http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.Home) Duncan Hunter is a fascist and I feel dirty after visiting his site.

Sorry to quote so many republicans, but it's a little disconcerting that some of them of them have environment and energy policies that are more strongly worded than what is on Obama's site. I'd frankly rather have a candidate who was vague than a candidate who was pushing coal.

I would never, ever vote for a candidate who I did not think had the best interests of the environment in mind. That is the number one thing I look for when choosing who to vote for. I would never vote for any of the republican candidates, so not to worry.

The two other "corporate" democrats are a little weedy, but neither of them is pushing coal.

Edwards has the following on his site:

Our nation's dependence on oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and jeopardizing our national security. To protect our future, John Edwards believes that Americans must be patriotic about something other than the war. We must act now by investing in clean, renewable energies like wind, solar, and biofuels to create a new energy economy, developing a new generation of efficient cars and trucks, and putting new energy-saving technologies to work in buildings, transportation, and industry.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/

Hillary doesn't have a very developed "Issues" section, but she's got the following text as a way of sparking dialogue:

Ending our country's dependence on foreign oil will take real leadership. Hillary proposed a simple idea to help end the cycle of dependence: put some of the oil industry's windfall profits into a fund that would help develop practical new sources of renewable energy.

What do you think about Hillary's plan? Should we use some of the oil company's record profits to fund alternative energy research? What are some other ideas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/oilprofits/?sc=8

The slightly less prominent candidates also have opinions on the subject.

Biden has the following to say:

Joe Biden's first priority is energy security. He believes we can strengthen security by reducing our oil consumption by increasing fuel efficiency, transitioning to farm-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and expanding the use of renewable energy. But we cannot stop there. Joe Biden would make a substantial national commitment by dramatically increasing investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy.

The United States, as the strongest nation in the world, must return to a leadership role to solve global warming. Containing greenhouse gas emissions within our own borders is a necessary and important start - but it is not enough. Joe Biden has led a bipartisan coalition calling on the President to return to negotiations for a new climate change treaty. Developing countries - China, India, Mexico, Korea and Brazil - will soon be the greatest source of greenhouse gas pollution. They must be a part of the solution.

But we cannot exert pressure on these countries until we take meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions here at home. Joe Biden supports a "cap and trade" approach to regulating emissions and investment in technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/

Richardson's website says this:

Our next President must be able to start reversing Global Warming and making real progress on energy independence and that means making a real commitment to renewable sources of energy. That's what I've done in New Mexico where we're requiring that 10 percent of all energy come from renewable sources and we're moving toward 20 percent, we've provided incentives for solar, wind, biofuels and other renewables, and again that's what I'll do as President. As Energy Secretary I implemented tough efficiency standards that have saved consumers billions in energy costs. Everybody talks the talk on these issues -- I've done it.

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/#environment

Vilsack is positively verbose (but he misspells environment!) :o

Environmental challenges, and the dramatic changes in energy policy they will require, may well be the defining challenges of this century. If America is to maintain the kind of economic and strategic leadership it has enjoyed through the end of the last century, we must aggressively and effectively meet these new and developing environmental challenges and pioneer the new energy technologies of the future.

America can and should show this kind of leadership again. But our own leadership in Washington has let us down. Under the Bush administration, we are regressing, not progressing, becoming more, not less, dependent on fossil fuels for transportation, heating, lighting and industry, even as world markets for these fuels remain controlled by hostile and unstable regimes. After decades of progress, we are also losing ground on air and water pollution, and on controlling toxic substances.

We have to have the courage to create change, and turn our energy and environmental polices around 180 degrees. We must rejoin the global competition for environmental progress, energy security, and clean technologies. If we do so, we can not only address potentially catastrophic problems like climate change, but we can take advantage of new economic opportunities of equal magnitude. And we must retool our domestic policies across the board to make that happen, breaking through the special-interest-dominated gridlock on the energy and environment that has persisted for many years.

In particular, we should move immediately to impose a cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and businesses, and create a market-based system of tradable credits that rewards investments in innovative clean energy technologies. At the same time, America must undertake a national push for public and private investment in clean and renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, and biofuels, and in the technologies that can make them affordable and readily available.

The Vilsack Energy Security Agenda sets out a strategy to dramatically reduce U.S. reliance on foreign energy and to cut our nation’s carbon emissions. It also calls for replacing the Department of Energy with a new Department of Energy Security, to oversee and redefine the federal government’s role in energy policy. The reorganized department will act as an institutional advocate for innovation in energy policy, and will ensure accountability as the nation works towards achieving its energy security goals. Through this new department, America’s overriding objective in energy policy will be to make America the unquestioned leader in clean energy, enhancing our national security and our economic strength.

We can do this, with the courage to create change.

http://www.tomvilsack08.com/pages/energy_and_enviromental_security

Chris Dodd is even wordier:

Chris Dodd has a deep commitment to creating an energy policy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution that threatens the future of our planet, and create millions of good jobs for Americans in the 21st century global economy.

For decades, America’s leaders have mostly talked about the need for reform of our nation’s energy policy. As a consequence of too much talk and too little action, our dependence on foreign oil has grown enormously, our environment has grown dangerously polluted, and our economy has endured threats to its continued vitality. In Chris Dodd’s view, the time for talk has long passed. It is time to act to create a safe, clean, reliable, and affordable supply of energy for America’s businesses and consumers.

Dodd’s vision of a clean-energy future for America is, in his view, not only necessary, but highly realistic. If America’s leaders act with boldness and vision, we can begin to create positive change within a few years.

There are a number of steps that can and should be taken to move America forward. One is to improve our efforts to conserve energy. Every barrel of oil saved by a smarter, more careful, more efficient use of energy is one less barrel we have to import from an unstable region of the world, or take from drilling in an environmentally sensitive area of our own country. America’s consumers and businesses have already started to conserve energy in the last few years. In fact, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, the United States today used 47% less energy per dollar of economic output than it did three decades ago. That has lowered energy costs for America’s businesses and consumers by about $1 billion per day. It has also saved America from having to import millions of barrels of oil, and saved the planet from hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Dodd believes our nation now needs to take even stronger steps to increase the energy efficiency of our cars, appliances, homes and offices. These steps include expanding our research and development of new energy-efficient technologies, subsidizing and incentivizing the purchase of energy-efficient products for homes and offices, and improving energy efficiency standards for our automobiles, appliances, factories, and other products.

Chris Dodd also believes our nation needs to lead the way in expanding our investment and use of renewable sources of energy. By increasing our use of wind energy, solar energy, hydrogen, and biofuels like ethanol, we can make huge strides toward creating good jobs, a cleaner environment, and reduced dependency on imported energy. To achieve greater use of renewable fuels, Dodd supports a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that 20% or more of our electricity needs come from renewable sources. This should not be too difficult a standard to meet; indeed, at least 22 states already require their electric utilities to meet some form of renewable portfolio standard. The states have been laboratories of innovation in this area. It’s time for the federal government to learn from them and build on their beneficial policies.

One of the biggest impediments to the use of ethanol in our vehicles is the shortage of filling stations that sell it. Currently, only a small fraction of filling stations in the country offer fuels containing ethanol or biodiesel. Sen. Dodd supports tax incentives that will encourage filling stations to convert at least some of their pumps to provide biofuels like E85. He also supports giving retailers a tax credit on the sale of biofuels. In addition, he believes the federal government should invest in expanding the number and capacity of refineries that make biofuels.

Ultimately, by using energy more efficiently, and by using more clean and renewable sources of energy, Sen. Dodd believes that we should be able to lead the world in reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. In his view, it is high time that the United States re-join the commitment made by industrialized nations in Kyoto, Japan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Britain has already met its Kyoto targets. It is time for the United States to accept its responsibility to cap and ultimately reduce emissions. In doing so, we will be able to lead other industrial nations in creating the kind of energy future that can create a stronger economy, a healthier environment, and a more peaceful world.

http://www.chrisdodd.com/issues/energy_and_environment

In the interests of conserving bandwidth, I'm not going to bother posting Kucinich's stance on the issue.

So with this group of candidates, why should an environmentalist support Obama? :shrug:

[hippywife]

1. Kucinich probably has the most

comprehensive environmental statements of them all!

http://kucinich.us/issues

Scroll down to links on the right side under Environmental Issues. Nicely broken down and quite lengthy. He's given these issues lots of thought.

[TahitiNut]

6. But heaven forbid we waste bandwidth.

After all, why present the "gold standard"? (Republican crap is so much more important.) :eyes:

[XemaSab]

7. Hello? That was a joke?

The EPA under the Bush Administration has stood for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We as a nation must turn our efforts towards the great work of restoring our air and our water and our land. We must view our natural resources as the common property of all humanity -- even more, as the commonwealth of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection, which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival.

I am not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests or pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability.

I have a long and consistent record of working for protecting the environment. I was active in helping draft the first environmental law protecting the air, as a member of the Cleveland City Council 30 years ago. I led the effort in Ohio challenging nuclear power as being unsafe, unreliable, and unsustainable, and I'm still leading the effort in challenging it. And, most recently, I was at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies.

As a peace advocate, I hope to launch a major renewables effort so that Middle East oil fields do not loom so large as strategic or military targets. There has to be a renewable energy portfolio of 20% by 2010. And that means introducing wind, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, biomass, and all of the options that must be available and need incentivizing. That also means withdrawing incentives for the production of nonrenewable energy. I'm not talking about building new hydro dams; I'm not talking about damming up more rivers and streams.

We need to subsidize the development of new energy technologies. And I'm willing to do that through NASA, which has been of singular importance to our economy by developing technologies for propulsion, for aerospace, for materials, for medicines, and for communication. We need to fund NASA in, among other areas, a mission to planet Earth.

The United States should lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments -- and I have been speaking out on these issues across America. I will also continue to lead in fighting for clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water -- which is an emerging global concern. Over the years, I have worked hand in hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. I've won honors from the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the League of Conservation Voters.

In the summer of 2002, I was one of the few U.S. officials at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. To repair the earth, America must lead. We must reverse course on most Bush Administration policies and support the Kyoto Treaty that Bush rejected. We must strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters. We should provide tax and other incentives to businesses that conserve energy, retrofit pollution prevention technologies, and redesign toxins out of their manufacturing processes. Nontoxic, safe substitutes for hazardous chemicals must become permanent.

I would initiate a "Global Green Deal" to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home, increase our independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

The League of Conservation Voters has compiled extensive information on my environmental record: http://www.lcv.org/Campaigns/Campaigns.cfm?ID=93

I have a 100 percent rating on the environment from the Public Interest Research Group: http://www.pirg.org/score2002/ohio.html

http://kucinich.us/issues/environment.php

[SPKrazy]

10. I Thought It Uncalled For

you posted a variety of information

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

12. And I knew that DK's platform on the environment would make Obama's

look totally pathetic in comparison. :P

[SPKrazy]

2. Al Gore!

08

:shrug:

Gore/Clark

:woohoo:

[XemaSab]

4. Well yeah...

:D

[SPKrazy]

5. ...

:thumbsup:

[Buzz Clik]

3. We'll find out soon enough...

... there are many months before we have to weigh out his policies.

Regardless, I'm relatively sure that his environmental policy will turn out real close to every Democrat who's every walked.

[burrowowl]

8. Richardson is pretty Green too

he has protected Otero Mesa from Bu$hco and is into development of solar power, etc.
I think a Richardson/Kucinich ticket would be GRrrrreat!
You are right about Obama, I think he is a bit DLC around the edges. I was discussing with some friend this afternoon and we all thought that the nomiation of either Obama or Hillary, as much as we would like to see a Black or a woman running, would more or less keep the status quo the US is at with maybe a slight shift to a tad of social betterment.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. This may help....Just a few things of interest:

Obama's environmental activism stretches back to his undergrad days at Columbia University, during which he did a three-month stint with a Ralph Nader offshoot organization trying to convince minority students at City College in Harlem to recycle. Later, when he worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he fought for lead abatement in the Altgeld Gardens neighborhood.

After getting a law degree from Harvard, Obama became a civil-rights lawyer and then in 1996 was elected to the Illinois state senate, representing the 13th district on Chicago's South Side, where he distinguished himself as a leader on environmental and public-health issues. In 2003, Obama was one of six state senators to receive a 100 Percent Environmental Voting Record Award from the Illinois Environmental Council.

His efforts on behalf of the environment have been so consistent and comprehensive, in fact, that LCV and the Sierra Club endorsed Obama in his bid for Congress this year over half a dozen other Democrats competing in the primary. Last month, the LCV named him a 2004 Environmental Champion, one of 18 sitting and prospective members of Congress to receive the award.

Obama is "by far one of the most compelling and knowledgeable politicians on the environment I've ever sat in a room with," Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president for political affairs at LCV, told Muckraker. "I've been playing national politics for more than 20 years and I quite literally can't remember one person I've met -- even on a national level -- who was more in command of facts, more eloquent, and more passionate on these issues than Sen. Obama."

Obama's commitment to environmental protection has a personal component: His six-year-old daughter, Malia, has chronic asthma, a fact he often cites when defending the long list of initiatives he has pushed to clean up smog and air pollution in his state. And many of his constituents suffer from the same condition. "More people die from asthma attacks in Chicago than anywhere else in the country," said Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs for the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago. "And Illinois has the highest African-American death rate from asthma in the country -- four times the national average."

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/08/04/griscom-obama/


http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/lcv-names-barack-obama-as-environmental-champion.html

http://www.environmentillinois.org/newsroom/energy/energy-program-news/environment-illinois-commends-senators-durbin-and-obama-for-taking-action-on-global-warming


http://www.environmentillinois.org/uploads/ah/pt/ahptHFQq5SkwH79P8NCO-w/Durbin_Global_Warming_Letter.pdf

When Appalachian Voices asked Senator Obama about MTR, and whether he supported or opposed strip mining, he said:


Strip-mining is an environmental disaster!

The telegenic Presidential hopeful did not stop there. He went on to adress mountatintop removal by saying:


We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal, than simply blowing the tops off mountains.

This is a Senator from a state that contains a LOT of (high-sulfur) coal. The fact that big fish like Obama are trending our way is fantastic.

Lets hope that this leads to some leadership on specific legislative proposals to end mountaintop removal in America by someone in the Senate. A presidential candidate opposing mountaintop removal represents the ideals of the Appalachian people. And the Appalachian people represent a potential of 51 electoral votes. That as much as Florida, Ohio, and New Hampshire combined.

http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/frontporch/blogposts/obama_says_that_we_must_find_a_way_around_mtr/

[Redbear]

11. Great post.

I think you are right to be a little concerned,

The issues that get presented first are those the candidate or at least theit team is most interested in.

My two favorites are Edwards and Clark for similar reasons.

[XemaSab]

13. Thanks

Has Clark indicated he'll run? :shrug: