There are a lot of reasons to vote for a President, including issues outside the environmental platforms we are going to cover here. While I have very strong opinions on politics and on who I am going to vote for, this article will attempt to simply summarize the candidates’ stances on environmental issues, as taken directly from each candidate’s campaign web site. I’ll then comment on some those stances.
I will start off by saying that there is no one on the ballot for either party who is even close to my ideal candidate. But these are the candidates that we have to choose from this time around and they are the ones we will cover.
In alphabetical order by last name:
Hillary Clinton:
According to her website, Hillary Clinton has a comprehensive plan that includes a “cap and trade system.”
The candidate’s plan calls for increased auto standards including a mandated 55 mpg standard by 2030. To ease the burden on manufacturers, the government will make available 20 billion in “green vehicle bonds” for the retooling and research.
Clinton’s goals include a greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Environmental Research would be encouraged by a 50 billion dollar strategic energy fund and doubling basic energy research. Green building industry will get a boost by the modernization of 20 million low income homes.
The plan also calls for a two thirds reduction from 2030 projected levels of imported oil.
In addition, there will be a requirement that all federal buildings designed after 2008 be zero emissions buildings.
You can find more about Hillary Clinton’s energy plan here:
Lots of good ideas, but of course no real indication of how these things will be paid for. I think we can do better in a shorter time, but improvements are not going to happen overnight.
Mike Huckabee
No environmental issue on his list of issues. The closest was energy independence, and no specifics were given.
Mike Huckabee’s page on energy is here:
John McCain
About the closest thing on the website to an environmental plan is this statement. Since it’s brief, I’ll just quote it. On the list of issues environmental issues were towards the bottom of the list
“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.”
John McCain’s site is here
When politicians talk about using market forces to accomplish something as vital as environmental and energy reform I get rather skeptical. The fact that so little is really said on his website shows how much of a priority it is for the candidate; despite the paragraph or two about how important it is.
Barack Obama
According to the Barack Obama campaign web site, his plan requires reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This will be accomplished by a cap and trade system. Revenues generated by auctioning the carbon allowances will be used for research into clean energy and assisting displaced workers affected by the policy. In addition, incentives will be given for reforestation of land.
Under the plan, the government will invest 150 billion over 10 years in renewable and alternative energy. Research funding will be doubled for alternative energy projects.
Money will be made available to manufacturers to aid in the conversion to green products
By 2025, 25% of electricity will be produced by green sources.
Develop clean coal technology.
Encourage development of Cellulosic Ethanol
Create incentives for farmer-owned biofuel refineries
Establish a carbon limit on fuels reducing carbon content by ten percent by 2020
Require double the current fuel economy within 18 years with funding and loans going to domestic auto makers.
Barack Obama’s site is here:
Much the same as the other democratic candidate, with the disturbing addition of “clean coal” to the mix. New solar technology is very close to or as cheap as coal plants, so why are we even wasting our time on this?
Mitt Romney
Environmental issues weren’t even on the list, but I found this under ending energy dependence:
The candidate wants to increase government spending on research to increase our supply, our efficiency, cleaner usage of fossil fuels, and bringing to market renewable and nuclear.
Mitt Romney’s site is here:
More about clean coal, and little about anything else.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Photo courtesy of ibeginz at Flickr.com.
Did you know that there are hundreds (and maybe even thousands) of underground coal fires burning out of control? These fires can occur naturally, but most of them are caused by mining activity or industrial accidents near coal seams. These coal fires can cause dangerous subsidence, air pollution, and poisoning of the water table, all while consuming a valuable natural resource.
Concern and action is needed… because of the environmental impact — especially of mega-fires burning in India, China and elsewhere in Asia. One coal fire in northern China, for instance, is burning over an area more than 3,000 miles wide and almost 450 miles long.
Photo courtesy of njbruder at Flickr.com.
Underground coal fires are extremely difficult to put out once they start burning. They burn so hot that even pouring water on them will feed the flames (at extreme temperatures, water breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen gas). Coal is inherently unstable and will self ignite - that means that old abandoned mines are time bombs waiting to go off and all the tunnels act as a ventilation system!
Photo courtesy of radialmonster at Flickr.com.
Uncontrolled coal fires are a worldwide problem and they produce significant amounts of greenhouse gas:
Estimates vary, but some scientists believe that anywhere from 20 million to 200 million tons burn [in China] each year, producing as much carbon dioxide as about 1 percent of the total carbon dioxide from fossil fuels burned on earth… India, where large scale mining began more than a century ago, accounts for the world’s greatest concentration of them.
Underground coal fires happen in the US too - check out this video about Pennsylvania coal mining. In Centralia, PA, underground fires have been burning since the 60’s! If you can come up with a way to put these fires out, I suspect that the MacArthur Foundation will come and knock down your door!
Popularity: 8% [?]
9 Jan 08 |
Photo courtesy of Faelyn at Flickr.com.
Have you ever been in a confined space with a lot of other people and felt the temperature rising? Rather than give into claustrophobia, a Swedish company is going to convert body heat into energy. The heat will be used to reduce energy costs at a building near Stockholm’s Central Station. There’s no word on whether the Swedish Bikini Team will have an office yet, but imagine the electricity they could save!
Photo courtesy of Blackpepper eye at Flickr.com.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Photo courtesy of efo at Flickr.com.
Coal Liquefication is a controversial technology that turns coal into a high carbon liquid. The resulting fuel can be substituted for gasoline in cars, trains, and planes. It’s controversial because the process that produces liquefied coal is energy intensive and it releases a lot of carbon dioxide during production and again when it’s burned. All told, a gallon of liquified coal has about twice the carbon footprint of a gallon of gas.
To put it another way, a Prius burning liquified coal will release as much carbon as a Hummer burning regular gasoline. Many environmental groups oppose Coal Liquification. If liquid coal replaced gasoline at the pump, the American auto fleet would have to become twice as fuel efficient just to maintain current CO2 emissions. Increased coal use could also accelerate environmental damage from coal mining.
Yet, there are reasons why Coal to Liquid (CTL) conversion is getting a lot of attention. As the price of oil hovers around $100 a barrel, there’s intense pressure to develop alternative energy sources. Coal mining employs a lot of people (~80,000 in the United States) and creating an industry that converts coal to fuel could create a lot of new jobs at a time when the US economy is sluggish.
Another reason why CTL is getting renewed attention - liquefied coal is a domestic energy source. Every gallon of liquid coal would replace a gallon of gasoline - and you may have noticed that we’re having trouble with several oil producing countries. There are balance-of-trade concerns that reinforce energy independence - lately our trade deficit has been one factor driving down the value of the US Dollar. The buying power of the petrodollar has experienced a sustained decline since 2003.
At the beginning of 2003, one euro bought one US dollar. Eighteen months ago, it bought $1.20. Now it is pushing $1.50, and there is no reason to think that it will stop there.
Despite climate concerns and technological hurdles, the US Air Force is already flying some planes using liquefied coal. And the technology is supported by some surprising faces:
Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Photo courtesy of rollerboogie at Flickr.com.
Popularity: 9% [?]