Global Warming Guide to the 2008 Presidential Candidates
Today is Independence Day in the United States, and as Americans celebrate the 232nd birthday of the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the Climate Blog would like to honor the occasion by thinking forward to the 2008 election, which could potentially be a turning point in American energy and climate policy. To that end, I bring you the Global Warming Guide to the 2008 Presidential Candidates! I've taken the top three candidates for the Democrats and Republicans (to be realistic), outlined their policies on energy and climate, and given each candidate their own Climate Blog Grade.
Obviously, voters will consider a wide range of issues when assessing presidential candidates, and global warming is just one of many. When I began this exercise, I didn't know very much about the platforms of the individual candidates, and was in fact surprised that the one with the highest grade was not the one that I had been supporting.
HILLARY CLINTON (D) - The Clinton website spins the issue as one of energy independence:
"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 chouice between energy independence and dependence of foreign sources of oil."
She supports both alternative energy expansion and independence, and carbon emission reductions. According to her website, as president, Clinton would invest in clean technologies, establish a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution, increase fuel efficiency, and help the US emerge as a global leader on the issue. The plan is clearly stated, but a bit vague, and lacks in detail.
Last February, Clinton introduced a plan for a "Strategic Energy Fund", which provides $50 billion for the research and development of renewables, fuel efficiency, "clean coal," ethanol, and biofuels. Oil companies would be forced to invest or pay into the fund, and "pay their fair share for drilling on public lands."
Good: Hits the major themes, and in a way that most Americans can identify with. Has done some work in the past as a Senator, and her husband Bill is a world leader on the issue.
Bad: Clinton's plan focus on problematic solutions like biofuels, lacks a detailed strategy for reducing emissions, and focuses on the issue as one of national security. Too generic and vague. Lacks a solid, clear, goal-oriented strategy.
Grade: B-
----------------------------------
JOHN EDWARDS (D) - For Edwards, the issue is also one of energy independence, but also of American jobs and moral responsibility:
"Our generation must be the one that says, 'we must halt global warming.' Our generation must be the one that says 'yes' to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won't b easy, but it's time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
Edwards' plan is heavy on biofuels and ethanol, and he projects the creation of 1 million American jobs and the revitalization of the American family farm. Has the most ambitious plans of any candidate, for the reduction of energy use by 20% in 2020 and by 80% by 2050. He projects that by 2025, the US could import 7.5 billion less barrels of oil per day, and would produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol and biofuels annually, predicting a reduction of 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. He also supports a pollution credit program, with permits auctioned off for a $10 billion New Energy Economy Fund to support these programs.
Good: His plan is industry-based like other candidates, but in a more proactive way that puts money in the hands of citizens rather than corporate executives. Emissions reduction goals are the most ambitious of any candidate. Plan is detailed and well-thought-out, though the emphasis on biofuels is overly optimistic.
Bad: Edwards' plan focuses largely on biofuels and ethanol, and his figures on carbon emissions probably don't include indirect emissions created by the solutions themselves (through land use change, etc.). As currently practiced, agricultural biofuels are actually more detrimental, both environmentally and socioeconomically, and this would have to be addressed. Would like to see more provisions for protecting biodiversity and public health, and not just economic concerns (the same is true for all candidates, but since Edwards has the most detailed platform on this issue, the criticism is best stated here).
Grade: B+
----------------------------------
BARACK OBAMA (D) - Obama also focuses on global warming as an energy issue ("Meeting Energy Needs"). He proposes a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which would reduce the carbon content of all fuels by 5% by 2010, and 10% by 2020. He emphasizes the role of market forces to determine the best track for fuel efficiency or alternative technology, and supports ethanol and biodiesel. He has worked in the past on the CAFE standards bill (which was recently passed), and supports trading health care credits for auto industry retirees as an incentive for companies to develop hybrids. Wants to expand E85, a fuel that's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."
While not included on his website, Obama has gotten some heat from environmentalists recently for his support of the Coal-to-Liquid Act of 2007. Some see this as a concession to Illinois coal industry after he drew heat for his support of alternative energy.
Good: Obama's work on the CAFE standards bill shows he supports fuel economy, and he has some innovative ideas that could actually encourage some market-driven benefits. As with many issues, Obama has some excellentand compelling talking points and soundbytes on global warming, which helps to spread awareness of the issue.
Bad: Obama tends to think too small. Carbon Fuel goals are small and short-term, and by emphasizing carbon content of fuels, the total carbon budget of fuel production isn't taken into account. Market-driven progress is unrealistic, because the market may not have incentives to change. Website is several months out of date on this issue, which suggests it's not a top priority. Not all vehicles are compatible with E85 fuels, and because of the volatility of ethanol when mixed with gas, it increases smog. Too quiet on the coal-to-liquid plan, which causes some concern.
Grade: C
----------------------------------
REPUBLICANS
RUDY GUILIANI (R)- Guiliani has nothing on his campaign website about global warming or energy issues. He has been quoted as saying global warming is happening, and that there's some uncertainty of the cause, though he does quote the scientific consensus about anthropogenic warming. Has been publicly critical of Al Gore as an "alarmist" and for not offering solutions, like nuclear power.
"I do believe there's global warming, yes.''
Good: He admits there's a problem.
Bad: He evidently doesn't think his job as president would have anything to do with prevention or mitigation. Supports nuclear power as a clean alternative.
Grade: F
----------------------------------
JOHN McCAIN (R)- "Environment" is low on the list of issues, but it is there. McCain has long been known as the "environmental Republican," often citing Teddy Roosevelt as one of his heroes. He has a history of calling the nation to action on global warming, has been critical of the Bush Administration's stance on the issue, and led Congressional hearings on the subject. In 2003, he co-authored the Climate Change Stewardship Act with Lieberman, which was voted down but reintroduced in 2007.
"Even if, despite all the evidence, one chooses to remain a skeptic on climate change, taking action today -- as an insurance policy -- is the only wise course of action. As the mercury rises, so does the need for a creative solution. We're offering one."
McCain's presidential platform on global warming is the same as the Climate Change Stewardship Act, which proposes to cap 2010 emissions at the level of 2000, and introduce a greenhouse gas trading allowances.
Good: McCain has the best record of any Republican when it comes to global warming, and has been the most vocal and interested among Democrats or Republicans for the longest (assuming Al Gore doesn't run). Has a conservationist perspective on the issue.
Bad: His presidential platform isn't different from the bill he's introduced as a Senator. It's also not enough, focusing too much on credit trading and generic "American innovation."
Grade: C-
----------------------------------
MITT ROMNEY (R)- Romney's website has little to say on the issue of energy, and he seems to have ignored the issue of global warming in general, except to dismiss Kyoto as being too unilateral and therefore devastating to the American economy.
"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, ehtanol, nuclear, coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)."
Good: Supports energy efficiency and conservation.
Bad: Doesn't admit that global warming is an issue, doesn't support mandate-based initiatives, supports drilling in ANWR and dirty energy initiatives like coal gasification. Platform includes no goals or plans.
Grade: F
----------------------------------
The Verdict? With the most detailed, diverse, and goal-oriented plan, John Edwards gets the highest Climate Blog Candidate Grade, with a B- in spite of his emphasis on ethanol and agricultural biofuels (which may help the US economy but come with the burden of their own environmental impact).
Obviously, voters will consider a wide range of issues when assessing presidential candidates, and global warming is just one of many. When I began this exercise, I didn't know very much about the platforms of the individual candidates, and was in fact surprised that the one with the highest grade was not the one that I had been supporting.
HILLARY CLINTON (D) - The Clinton website spins the issue as one of energy independence:
"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 chouice between energy independence and dependence of foreign sources of oil."
She supports both alternative energy expansion and independence, and carbon emission reductions. According to her website, as president, Clinton would invest in clean technologies, establish a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution, increase fuel efficiency, and help the US emerge as a global leader on the issue. The plan is clearly stated, but a bit vague, and lacks in detail.
Last February, Clinton introduced a plan for a "Strategic Energy Fund", which provides $50 billion for the research and development of renewables, fuel efficiency, "clean coal," ethanol, and biofuels. Oil companies would be forced to invest or pay into the fund, and "pay their fair share for drilling on public lands."
Good: Hits the major themes, and in a way that most Americans can identify with. Has done some work in the past as a Senator, and her husband Bill is a world leader on the issue.
Bad: Clinton's plan focus on problematic solutions like biofuels, lacks a detailed strategy for reducing emissions, and focuses on the issue as one of national security. Too generic and vague. Lacks a solid, clear, goal-oriented strategy.
Grade: B-
----------------------------------
JOHN EDWARDS (D) - For Edwards, the issue is also one of energy independence, but also of American jobs and moral responsibility:
"Our generation must be the one that says, 'we must halt global warming.' Our generation must be the one that says 'yes' to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won't b easy, but it's time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
Edwards' plan is heavy on biofuels and ethanol, and he projects the creation of 1 million American jobs and the revitalization of the American family farm. Has the most ambitious plans of any candidate, for the reduction of energy use by 20% in 2020 and by 80% by 2050. He projects that by 2025, the US could import 7.5 billion less barrels of oil per day, and would produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol and biofuels annually, predicting a reduction of 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. He also supports a pollution credit program, with permits auctioned off for a $10 billion New Energy Economy Fund to support these programs.
Good: His plan is industry-based like other candidates, but in a more proactive way that puts money in the hands of citizens rather than corporate executives. Emissions reduction goals are the most ambitious of any candidate. Plan is detailed and well-thought-out, though the emphasis on biofuels is overly optimistic.
Bad: Edwards' plan focuses largely on biofuels and ethanol, and his figures on carbon emissions probably don't include indirect emissions created by the solutions themselves (through land use change, etc.). As currently practiced, agricultural biofuels are actually more detrimental, both environmentally and socioeconomically, and this would have to be addressed. Would like to see more provisions for protecting biodiversity and public health, and not just economic concerns (the same is true for all candidates, but since Edwards has the most detailed platform on this issue, the criticism is best stated here).
Grade: B+
----------------------------------
BARACK OBAMA (D) - Obama also focuses on global warming as an energy issue ("Meeting Energy Needs"). He proposes a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which would reduce the carbon content of all fuels by 5% by 2010, and 10% by 2020. He emphasizes the role of market forces to determine the best track for fuel efficiency or alternative technology, and supports ethanol and biodiesel. He has worked in the past on the CAFE standards bill (which was recently passed), and supports trading health care credits for auto industry retirees as an incentive for companies to develop hybrids. Wants to expand E85, a fuel that's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.
"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."
While not included on his website, Obama has gotten some heat from environmentalists recently for his support of the Coal-to-Liquid Act of 2007. Some see this as a concession to Illinois coal industry after he drew heat for his support of alternative energy.
Good: Obama's work on the CAFE standards bill shows he supports fuel economy, and he has some innovative ideas that could actually encourage some market-driven benefits. As with many issues, Obama has some excellentand compelling talking points and soundbytes on global warming, which helps to spread awareness of the issue.
Bad: Obama tends to think too small. Carbon Fuel goals are small and short-term, and by emphasizing carbon content of fuels, the total carbon budget of fuel production isn't taken into account. Market-driven progress is unrealistic, because the market may not have incentives to change. Website is several months out of date on this issue, which suggests it's not a top priority. Not all vehicles are compatible with E85 fuels, and because of the volatility of ethanol when mixed with gas, it increases smog. Too quiet on the coal-to-liquid plan, which causes some concern.
Grade: C
----------------------------------
REPUBLICANS
RUDY GUILIANI (R)- Guiliani has nothing on his campaign website about global warming or energy issues. He has been quoted as saying global warming is happening, and that there's some uncertainty of the cause, though he does quote the scientific consensus about anthropogenic warming. Has been publicly critical of Al Gore as an "alarmist" and for not offering solutions, like nuclear power.
"I do believe there's global warming, yes.''
Good: He admits there's a problem.
Bad: He evidently doesn't think his job as president would have anything to do with prevention or mitigation. Supports nuclear power as a clean alternative.
Grade: F
----------------------------------
JOHN McCAIN (R)- "Environment" is low on the list of issues, but it is there. McCain has long been known as the "environmental Republican," often citing Teddy Roosevelt as one of his heroes. He has a history of calling the nation to action on global warming, has been critical of the Bush Administration's stance on the issue, and led Congressional hearings on the subject. In 2003, he co-authored the Climate Change Stewardship Act with Lieberman, which was voted down but reintroduced in 2007.
"Even if, despite all the evidence, one chooses to remain a skeptic on climate change, taking action today -- as an insurance policy -- is the only wise course of action. As the mercury rises, so does the need for a creative solution. We're offering one."
McCain's presidential platform on global warming is the same as the Climate Change Stewardship Act, which proposes to cap 2010 emissions at the level of 2000, and introduce a greenhouse gas trading allowances.
Good: McCain has the best record of any Republican when it comes to global warming, and has been the most vocal and interested among Democrats or Republicans for the longest (assuming Al Gore doesn't run). Has a conservationist perspective on the issue.
Bad: His presidential platform isn't different from the bill he's introduced as a Senator. It's also not enough, focusing too much on credit trading and generic "American innovation."
Grade: C-
----------------------------------
MITT ROMNEY (R)- Romney's website has little to say on the issue of energy, and he seems to have ignored the issue of global warming in general, except to dismiss Kyoto as being too unilateral and therefore devastating to the American economy.
"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, ehtanol, nuclear, coal gasification, and finding more domestic sources of oil such as ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)."
Good: Supports energy efficiency and conservation.
Bad: Doesn't admit that global warming is an issue, doesn't support mandate-based initiatives, supports drilling in ANWR and dirty energy initiatives like coal gasification. Platform includes no goals or plans.
Grade: F
----------------------------------
The Verdict? With the most detailed, diverse, and goal-oriented plan, John Edwards gets the highest Climate Blog Candidate Grade, with a B- in spite of his emphasis on ethanol and agricultural biofuels (which may help the US economy but come with the burden of their own environmental impact).