Ryan Chartrand
On Thursday evening, the Democratic presidential candidates convened in South Carolina for their first debate.
Unfortunately, when I arrived home, I realized that I had altogether missed the program. But, seeing as they are the 24-hour news networks, when I tuned in, the talking heads were debating the finer points of the importance of each candidate’s attire; definitely a vital issue. Sarcasm aside, I went online to watch the debates, most of which focused on national security and the occupation in Iraq. So I decided to check out each candidate’s Web site (with the full realization that most of the content is glorified propaganda), and discern their environmental and energy policies. For the three major Democratic candidates, they are as follows:
Barack Obama
The oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for one-third of our nation’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Obama’s plan will reduce carbon in our fuel supply by establishing a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The standard would require that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S.contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020.
Taken from a New York Times editorial on Jan. 30, 2007: “There’s a way Congress can get moving. Sen. Barack Obama plans to reintroduce a bill that would set a 4 percent annual increase in efficiency as a target…given the long congressional stalemate, the Obama bill could be an important first step. It commands some bipartisan support, and unlike Mr. Bush’s approach, it promises real as opposed to hypothetical results.”
Obama led a bipartisan effort to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy fuel economy standards, which have remained frozen for 20 years because of congressional gridlock. He developed an innovative approach to gradually increase CAFE standards while protecting the financial future of American automakers. The resulting Obama-Lugar-Biden bill would establish concrete targets for annual CAFE increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets.
Obama introduced legislation encouraging automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by helping the companies shoulder the health care costs of their retirees. Domestic automakers would get health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. Walter McManus, director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute’s Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, said this: “(Healthcare for Hybrids’) stroke of genius is in connecting the dots – decreasing oil consumption is clearly a top national priority but it will not happen without a national investment.”
The American Prospect had this to say about the plan: “Obama has come up with an audacious proposal that has won the backing of enviros and the United Auto Workers (UAW), and should win the support of both the cash-strapped auto industry and motorists suffering from sticker shock. . . . Obama’s proposal may be characteristic of his work, finding support across class (and other) lines.”
Hillary Clinton
The New York senator had this to say: “We have a big decision to make. We have two paths we can pursue. We can continue to allow our energy needs to hamstring our national security. We can continue to watch as the impacts of global warming mount. We can sit back and wait for the terrible potential of a terrorist attack to hit a pipeline, to hit a terminal, wreaking havoc on the economy and increasing energy costs for families and businesses. Or we can choose a different, better path based on performance and the facts – not partisanship and ideology. We can choose a path based on a long-term strategy to secure our economy, to free our hand to protect our security, and to keep faith with our values. As a nation, it is time we take the giant leap in energy innovation we desperately need and that is exactly what the Strategic Energy Fund will do.”
Sen. Clinton’s legislation will create a Strategic Energy Fund to help pay for the clean energy transition. The legislation eliminates oil company tax breaks and ensures that they pay their fair share of royalties for drilling on public lands. The legislation also places a temporary fee on major oil company profits that exceed a 2000-04 profit baseline. The fee would be in place for two years, and companies could offset their fee by investing in alternative energy technologies such as ethanol and wind power. The Strategic Energy Fund would raise $50 billion to fund research, development and deployment of energy technologies that will reduce America’s oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. The Strategic Energy Fund will:
Provide $3.5 billion in tax incentives and grants to build five clean coal plants that can capture and store carbon dioxide and reduce global warming.
Move America towards the goal of producing 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by extending the production tax credit for generating electricity from wind and other renewable sources for five years.
Put more efficient vehicles on the road by quadrupling consumer tax breaks for hybrids, clean diesel, and other advanced vehicles, creating incentives for auto manufacturers to retool their facilities, and putting $500 million towards advanced battery research to speed development of “plug-in” hybrid vehicles.
Extend the ethanol tax credit until 2012, and speed the development of cellulosic ethanol by providing loan guarantees for the first billion gallons of commercial production capacity, and providing $2 billion for research.
Increase incentives to make homes and offices more comfortable and cheaper to operate by improving energy efficiency.
Accelerate energy research by creating a $9 billion “Advanced Research Projects Agency” for energy.
Joe Biden
The Delaware senator believes that domestic energy policy is at the center of U.S. foreign policy and economic policies.
Biden states that his first priority is energy security. He believes that America can strengthen its security by reducing our oil consumption, by increasing fuel efficiency, by transitioning to farm-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and expanding the use of renewable energy. Biden claims he would make a substantial national commitment by dramatically increasing investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that the United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy.
The senator 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. He believes that they must be a part of the solution. But, likewise he states that, “We cannot exert pressure on these countries until we take meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions here at home.” Biden supports a “cap and trade” approach to regulating emissions and investment in technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But the most important question still remains: Which candidates will actually follow through and bring about the sweeping changes that are so desperately needed in this country? Who will see to it that “American energy independence” becomes a reality instead of remaining a cruel farce? Who will walk the talk? Well, I guess we’ll all have to find that one out the hard way. Stay tuned.
Ben is an architecture sophomore, a Green Spot columnist and a member of the Empower Poly Coalition.