Q: Other than Gore, which candidates are fighters against global warming?

[theHandpuppet]

This is a truly serious factor in determining who I will support in the presidential primary.

Said candidate must have a track record of taking a strong stand on this issue and have a plan that is not just for show. No cosmetic solutions.

Make your case. I'm listening -- truly.

[Clark2008]

1. Wesley Clark

Read this on his discussion with Barbara Boxer about Climate Change: http://securingamerica.com/printready/boxer_clarkcast42306.htm

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: And, you know, the other thing is I think we also…I hope we'll be able to do more in the way of climate research because there are still people who don't fully appreciate what's happened to the climate. There's still a 'well, you know it's hot every year and cold every year and every year is different' and they don't see it. There's a wonderful movie made by the Discovery Channel called Miracle Planet - three one-hour segments that talk about earth's climate and the changes. You've probably seen this and it…

Senator Barbara Boxer: I haven't seen it but I have to tell you, it ought to be required for our kids and required for senators. I think you're right; we have to explain this. People think global warming is just about warming. It's also about extremes of weather…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Exactly…and energy in the atmosphere and…

Senator Barbara Boxer: Energy in the atmosphere which triggers these storms and so on and so forth. Look, I'm not an expert in it, that's for sure. I'm doing my best to learn. I have wonderful people that teach me, but I think what we need to say to people sometimes, instead of saying “global warming,” I think call it a “climate crisis” and it's going to impact us. How? It's going to cause snow to melt and we won't the polar bears anymore, we won't have skiing anymore…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Plus our insurance programs for businesses and so forth, our government-backed insurance program is bankrupt after Katrina as I understand it. So we've got to put more money in…

Edited to add: I don't think Clark has done as MUCH as Gore regarding this issue. This has been a pet issue of Gore's since he was my senator, but I think Clark understands its importance and the need to address it in a realistic fashion. I don't think anyone has done as much as Gore, however.

Clark or Gore are my only two REAL choices for president in 2008 because I think they're the only two honest, intelligent men who really care about this country (and not their own interests) who also could win against any given Republican, based on the necessary demographics needed to pull in Electoral College votes.

[globalvillage]

2. According to Al Gore

That would be John Kerry.

"For example, he had the best record of protecting the environment against polluters of any of my colleagues bar none. "
-Al Gore at Dem Convention

http://tinyurl.com/wbbnn

[NYCGirl]

5. Here's my favorite part of Gore's speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention that

you reference above. Who said Al doesn't have a sense of humor?:

I’m going to be candid with you. I had hoped to be back here this week under different circumstances, running for re-election. But you know the old saying: you win some, you lose some. And then there’s that little-known third category.

But I didn’t come here tonight to talk about the past. After all, I don’t want you to think that I lie awake at night counting and recounting sheep. I prefer to focus on the future, because I know from my own experience that America’s a land of opportunity, where every little boy and girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/26/politics/campaign/26TEXT-GORE.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=b32305d46d9f50e7&ex=1167022800

[globalvillage]

7. Gotta love Al.

That's excellent. I think he has a great sense of humor.

[Mabus]

25. Kerry was one of the sponsors for the AIT house parties last weekend

:patriot:

[MasonJar]

3. John Kerry is a big environmentalist, but I believe that Gore is the

only one for whom it is a first priority.

[karynnj]

12. Gore was clearly the biggest proponent for explaining global warming

but as Al Gore himself said at the 2004 convention, no Senator had a better record than John Kerry.

Kerry has been involved in clean air, clean water, and anti- pollution initiatives since the early 1980s. He also worked on legislation that dealt with coastal erosion. Many things he recommended , that were rejected by commercial interests were things that were described as part of what needed to be done after Katrina. After seeing Al Gore's movie in my community last fall, we were led in a discussion of what could be done by a person trained by people connected to Gore's movie. One of the main things she spoke of was "carbon trading". The idea was that if a plant produced more carbon than allowed they needed to either change their processes, which was often non-economic or "buy" carbon credits from a plant exceeding the standard. This made the cost of building a "too clean" plant lower, making it more economic.

Carbon trading was based on the mechanism used in the Clean Air act, passed under GHWB, to reduce the components of acid rain. The impetus for including this in the Clean Air act was that the NE governors had used this method successfully to deal with acid rain. John Kerry, as lt Governor, had read about the problem of acid rain and had found that the problem had developed earlier in Europe which was industrialized earlier. With Dukakasis' approval, Kerry met with German and French environmental officials (one of whom was Kerry's first cousin) and learned of this method that they were using. He then came back and sold the idea to the New England governors.

Kerry did not devise the methodology - European economists and environmentalists did. He was key in getting it used in the US. This was a very major accomplishment and is a small part of the key to dealing with global warming.

Kerry actually spoke in Boston - as one of many speakers - on the first Earth Day in 1970 - before he spoke against the war. He was brought up by a mother who was concerned by environmental issues. This has been an issue he has been involved with all his life. It also is what brought him Teresa - they met when she was at the Rio conference (a precursor of Kyoto) as a non-governmental delegate because of her own environmental work.

[karynnj]

15. John Kerry was the first nominee to make and play ads

on solving environmental issues.

I think that Gore is clearly the man who was able to teach people about global warming. His movie and his tour take a complicated scientific issue and transform it into something that anyone can get. This is extremely difficult to do.

The environment as an issue is bigger than global warming - there is air and water pollution, costal erosion, and other issues. Kerry has led the fight against drilling in ANWR. He also had the best lifetime record as far as the LCV was concerned.

In 2004 and 2008, international problems - terorism, war and diplomacy - has to be as big an issue as the environment. I assume if Gore had run in 2004, it would have been mostly on those issues and global warming.

I think it better to give everybody credit for what they have done. No one will ever be able to speak of the fight against global warming without mentioning Gore - Kerry in his Faneuil Hall environment speech refered to Gore as visionary. Gore in his 2004 speech referred to Kerry as having the best record in the Senate. If they can credit each other and accept that it takes more than one person to lead on this (or any) issue, we should do the same.

[NYCGirl]

23. What about this ad from 2000? This certainly pre-dated Kerry's ad:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CrOrZPNUoWY

[karynnj]

26. You are right - I had not seen that ad and had read otherwise

I assume that - as in 2004 when I saw most of the Kerry ads only on his web site - these ads didn't play (or play much) in blue states.

Sorry

[Island Blue]

4. Ditto - John Kerry

Read and/or watch a speech he gave at Faneuil Hall earlier this year dealing with the issue.

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=9

Kerry has been a fighter for the environment since the early 1970's, before he even began his political career. (Likewise, his wife Teresa is also a champion of the environment.)

[globalvillage]

6. Gore and Kerry

This is from just before Sen Kerry's recent trip to the ME.
I just love seeing these two great environmentalists working together.






http://tinyurl.com/yhk9nu

[DrRang]

8. Bill Richardson has pushed New Mexico farther toward sustainability

than I would have thought possible. He was Sec. of Energy and like Gore, has the chops to understand the breadth of the problem.

[karynnj]

17. The Clinton record on energy

was not that great. It was better than under W, but one of the missed opportunities of those years was that nothing substantial was really done on conservation or alternative fuels in that time frame. It was during that time period when the true mile per gallon fell - SUVs were not counted as cars under the regulation and it was during this time when SUVs were purchased to replace cars and minivans. At this time, there was no energy crisis - so the impact on the environment, the predictable future shortage of a finite resource, and the dependence on the troubled middle east were ignored.

The best parts of the Clinton environmental record were mostly Presidential orders made in the last year of his Presidency - most of which were revoked by Bush.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Obama - he's very strong on this issue.

Here's a partial transcript from April ->

Chicago, IL
The Associated Press' Annual Luncheon

In April of 2005, Elizabeth Kolbert did a series of articles for The New Yorker about climate change. In one of those articles, she tells a very interesting story about some of the effects we're already seeing from global warming.

About fifteen years ago, in the furthest reaches of Alaska, the people of a small, thousand-year-old, oceanfront hunting village noticed something odd. The ice that surrounded and protected the village, which is only twenty feet above sea level, began to grow slushy and weak. Soon, it began to freeze much later in the fall and melt much earlier in the spring.

As the ice continued to melt away at an alarming pace during the 1990s, the village began to lose the protection it offered and became more vulnerable to storm surges. In 1997, the town completely lost a hundred-twenty-five-foot-wide strip of land at its northern edge. In 2001, a storm with twelve-foot waves destroyed dozens of homes. And finally, in the summer of 2002, with the storms intensifying, the ice melting, and the land shrinking all around them, the residents of Shishmaref were forced to move their entire town miles inland - abandoning their homes forever.

The story of the Village That Disappeared is by no means isolated. And it is by no means over.

All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.

READ MORE AND WATCH VIDEO AT --> http://www.barackobama.com/2006/04/03/safety_of_our_planet.php

[theHandpuppet]

11. What has he done besides talk about it?

I'm still listening.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Pushed the issue and pressured others, including *, to act now.

Not a whole lot policy-wise that a junior senator can do in a repuke-controlled congress.

Still, he's received acclaim from enviro-friendly groups --

For Immediate Release:
6/29/2006 For More Information:
Contact Rebecca Stanfield
[phone], ext. 213

Environment Illinois Commends Senators Durbin and Obama for Taking Action on Global Warming

CHICAGO—Forty U.S. Senators, led by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, sent a bipartisan letter today to President Bush calling for stabilizing global warming emissions within 10 years, which leading scientists say is needed to avert the most devastating and irreversible impacts of global warming, such as a substantial rise in sea level that would inundate coastal areas. The letter was also signed by Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

“For a change, science is informing the direction of public policy on global warming in Washington,” said Rebecca Stanfield, Director of Environment Illinois. “Senators Durbin and Obama took a stand today, supporting scientists’ calls for real reductions in global warming pollution within a decade,” she continued.

The senators’ letter states, “Today, we are writing to express our continuing concern about the threats posed by global warming and our support for a mandatory program that would reduce emissions from today’s levels within 10 years.”

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

Also, i think he joined Gore and others in the "virual march to end global warming" this past Spring.

I'm sure there are more Obama-action-oriented items out there ...

[Radical Activist]

28. He was named an environmental champion by the League of Conservation Voters

for his work in the Illinois State Senate. He has a long record of supporting the environment throughout his career.

[pretzel4gore]

10. I think any democratic party member(?)

i was truly impressed by President Gore in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'....and surely if Al knows this stuff, the enormity of it, it would have to be gospel for the rest! in canada, steve harper, a rightwing fundy/xian phony 2 bit whore bastard who somehow sits in the 1st minister office has suddenly become aware that enviro 'nazism' may well be the new normal - humanity does have a survival instinct and them ratfreaks knowit! (a super enviro politician, Stephane Dion, won the liberal party leadership recently; the writing's on the wall for the political class regards hot winters/hotter summers etc)
The litmus test of the environment is good, but in the movie, the President only referred in passing to the organised liar campaign which is hamstringing any effective action regards carbon terrorism. The sight of 'sen inhofe' whoever the hell that is, saying 'this is the greatest hoax ever etc' and oldbush calling President Gore 'crazy' in 1992 only points up that these guys are still active, still conspiring against the public good, and nothing seems any different. There are vast interests at stake, and much like the tobacco lobby, they will finance confusion or doubts about the truth of the matter, no matter how well proven - and if that isn't terrorism i don't know what is! IOW, there can't be an easy way to remove the carbon gangsters from dividing/conquering society, though electing democrats is a start....

[RestoreGore]

13. Who are the candidates?

So far only Vilsak, Kucinich, and Gravel have declared they are running. Shouldn't we at least wait to ask that question until we have candidates? Far as I know Al Gore is not a candidate for office, but he most certainly is waging a great campaign now to help save this planet that we as well could be helping along.

[theHandpuppet]

16. Then let me rephrase that if you like

"Potential candidates".

[Infinite Hope]

18. Those behind a candidate will rationalize how their candidate is great on this issue, but

speaking independently, those with a overall strong record on environmental issues are Gore, Kerry, Lieberman (perhaps Kucinich, but I don't know for sure).

For the record, only Gore, among those I listed, is in my top 5.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Clark has very legitimate credentials on environmental issues

and in particualr on Global Warming, you should not have left him off your list regardless of who you support.

From the Clinton Global Initiative Conference:
(reposted with permission from SecuringAmerica.com)
http://securingamerica.com/node/1172

"Promoting Prosperity with Climate Change Policy"

Climate Change Policy in the United States
September 16, 2005

PRESIDENT JOSÉ MARÍA FIGUERES: General Clark, your leadership is widely recognized in many, many fields, and of course one in which you are an absolute expert is in the field of national security. What are the linkages between climate change and national security? And if we were to continue on the course on which we now are, what would be the unintended consequences in terms of a national security policy?

WESLEY GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, thank you very much for the question, President Figueres. Let me just say how pleased I am to be here in this group and on this panel, especially with Senator Clinton. We go back to the 1980s in talking about the Mediterranean Basin. And I remember ecological discussions there.

But President Figueres and I ... when you were the President of Costa Rica and I was the Commander in Chief for the Southern Command (1996-97), we had a conference down in Bariloche, Argentina. And I flew down on an aircraft one afternoon with Senator Bob Graham and his wife. And we flew down the ... we landed in Peru, we refueled and we flew down the coast. And we looked at the Andes Mountains from the west as the sun was setting. It was absolutely spectacular.

And you know, the Andes are very, very high. Much higher than the Rockies. They're 18, 19, 22,000 foot peaks. And then, we noticed that most of these peaks had no snowfall. None. And we were just coming out of the southern hemisphere's winter. And that's when I first began to take very seriously the discussions of global warming. Because before you see it, it looks academic.

We were at conferences. We went around South America which seems to have been affected more quickly, even than North America. And we learned about the impact of global warming and the ozone hole and the ultraviolet radiation in places like Uruguay, where people were warned not to be on the beach during daylight, during noon, between 11 and 2 p.m., because of extreme ultraviolet due to the movement of the ozone hole over Uruguay.

And when you see these things, you realize that man made conditions do impact the environment and how we live. So I take global warming very seriously. And if you look at all the scientific projections on where it's headed, you have to view the consequences of it as potentially so severe, it has to be considered a national security problem. There's just no other way to deal with it.

And we've probably discussed this in previous panels, but there are two possible scenarios. There's a gradual change and there's the abrupt change scenario. But one of those two scenarios is almost certain to happen, because carbon stays suspended in the atmosphere for a hundred years or more. And so even if the United States right now were to adopt to something akin to Kyoto, we would have the effects with us and carried forward for a century or more.

So global warming is not likely to be reversed ... the question is, through the right policies, can we slow its pace? Can we cause it to be more gradual and can we avoid an abrupt climate change which results in something like the thermohaline circulating current in the North Atlantic shutting down and plunging western Europe into much colder and dryer weather conditions?

So whether you subscribe to the slow and gradual model or the abrupt change model, there are profound implications that you can see coming our way. And I look at three of them. First of all, there's displacement. If water levels rise in the gradual model over the next hundred years by less than a meter, a hundred million people living in low lying areas around the world are going to have to move. They're going to be affected.

And if you consider that the rise in ocean temperatures with global warming affects the severity of storms, then you get some appreciation that it's much more severe than simply gradually each year, the water goes up a half inch. These are catastrophic storm potentials the likes of which we're just starting to experience. So Katrina would be not a once in a hundred years storm, but a once in five years storm. And it wouldn't be just on the gulf coast of the United States. It could be in the Pacific. It could be in southeast Asia or elsewhere. So it's the displacement of people.

Gradual warming also means that rainfall patterns change. So the Pacific northwest gets drier. In Alaska, there are forest fires. Agriculture suffers. People can't ... especially in the lesser developed countries, they can sustain the traditional living patterns. They're going to move. So populations shift and move. That causes national security concerns for governments.

Then beyond the displacements, you have the potential for these catastrophes like Katrina. Now, we had to pull troops out of Iraq to come home to help. National Guard troops. And it wasn't just the numbers of the troops. It was these two brigades, Mississippi and Louisiana brigades ... those brigades had practiced for the kinds of civil emergencies that actually occurred, and then they were in Iraq, so the state didn't have their leadership.

It wasn't can you produce another 4,000 troops. You could have. But you couldn't produce the command control and the experienced leadership that had been through this. So when you have a catastrophe, the first thing you need is command and control. And that command and control is extraordinary. It's not what you have every day in place because nations can't afford it. And the place you get it is from the armed forces.

And you need manpower. And you can't have standing levees of people who are waiting for disasters. At least we haven't found it affordable to do so. And the place where you get them, then is the National Guard and the reserves. And this impacts national security.

And if you want to do this right in the recovery from a catastrophe, you have to prepare for it and practice for it and exercise for it. And so it means you've got to devote the same kind of attention to this response that in the Cold War, we might have had the President and the Secretary of Defense exercising what would happen if there was a sudden alert and there was a warning that Russian missiles were on the way to the United States.

Wouldn't it have been better if President Bush and the Homeland Security Secretary and the Secretary of Defense and maybe the Secretary of State had sat together and presented this scenario and run through these experiences, and say, "Well, how do we get in touch? How do we call the Governor? Watt does the Governor need? How do we know how much the Governor needs? How does the Governor know that? How do we communicate with him? How many hotlines do we have? Does it need to be secure? What public affairs pronouncements do we have?"

This all has to be worked out not on paper in advance by young staff people. It has to be worked out by experienced leaders who are going through practical exercises. It's the way we built the United States Armed Forces, the Department of Defense. It's the way we do our planning for national security. And what I'm suggesting is if we don't do this in preparation for climactic catastrophes like Katrina, we're always going to be disturbed by the response. It takes the right organization and structure and it takes dedicated exercise. And you can't get it unless you call it a national security problem. And the third thing ... and it is a national security problem, because it takes national security resources.

And the third thing, of course, is as a consequence of global warming, whether it's gradual or abrupt, you will change agriculture. You'll change fisheries. You'll change water flows. Nations will find they have different resources available. And those resource needs and migrant flows and other things will cause tensions and changes in alliances and border controls and problems and issues.

So we've got to work these impacts of climate change as national security problems. I'm all in favor of trying to prevent climate change. But I guess the bottom line of my message would be that it's going to be with us no matter how much we do. We can ameliorate the impact, but we've got to start right now thinking about it. And so you've got to promote sustainable development.

You've got to organize internationally so you can smooth out international flows. And you've got to take in the United States a national security approach to dealing with the consequences of climate change. Thank you."

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. See my post above about Wes Clark. Also this:

When Wes Clark attended this year's Yearly Kos, he was a featured member on the Science panel, where he impressed everyone present talking at length without notes on a range of science and environmental issues. Wes Clark knows his stuff on the environment.

Here is a portion of Clark's Statement on a Clean Air Plan, taken from a speech delivered in New Hampshire on December 9, 2003. Link provided contains full text:

"...Today, I want to talk about the environment: Under President Bush, our industries have had free reign to pollute America. As a result it's projected that by 2020, 100,000 people will die prematurely. We're going to turn it around. I will put environmental policies in place that will save lives not destroy them.

My career has been devoted to national security. When I was a boy, growing up in Arkansas, national security had only one meaning - readiness to deal with threats posed by other nations, principally the Soviet Union.

What wasn't clear then-and what we must acknowledge now-is that environmental threats imperil American's security as well. Currently, 175 million Americans live in areas where the air pollution is so severe that it is considered to be a health hazard. Our environment is crucial to our health, our economy and our well-being generally.

Today I would like to focus on one element of our environment - the air we breathe.

Our atmosphere sustains life. Though the atmosphere seems cast from the Earth's surface it's actually quite thin. If you walked ten miles, you will have walked the expanse of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, throughout most of our modern history, we have treated our atmosphere as a dump for airborne industrial byproducts.

America's efforts to address air pollution are in many ways a great success story. In 1970, concerns about the health toll of air pollution led to the passage of the Clean Air Act. It was a landmark legislative achievement and a product of bipartisan cooperation, pushed by Democrats in the Congress and signed into law by a Republican president.

Under the Bush administration, the bipartisan cooperation that led to this landmark achievement has broken down. We lack the leadership necessary for such an outstanding environmental achievement. Instead, the President is moving relentlessly to dismantle environmental protections and undo a generation of progress.

His so-called "Clear Skies" legislation, for instance, would weaken public health protections against dangerous soot, smog pollution and toxic mercury.

Airborn mercury eventually settles in water, enters the food chain and is ingested by people. It attacks the brain and nervous system, poses special risks for pregnant women and damages the immune and cardiovascular systems of adults.

If Bush has his way, there will be five times as much of this stuff in the air as there would be if we simply enforced existing provisions of the Clean Air Act..."
http://securingamerica.com/speeches/2003-12-09


Wes Clark supports StopGlobalWarming.org
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_marcher.asp?2724

Their statement:

There is no more important cause than the call to action to save our planet. This is a movement about change, as individuals, as a country, and as a global community. We are all contributors to global warming and we all need to be part of the solution. Join the 556,661 supporters of the Stop Global Warming Virtual March, and become part of the movement to demand solutions to global warming now.

Top 10 Marchers
Laurie David (128,603)
David Whiteside (5,493)
Leonardo DiCaprio (5,185)
General Wesley Clark (4,394)
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (4,030)
Andy Stern (2,162)
Reverend William Sinkford (1,939)
Roger Barnett (1,520)
Gary Hirshberg (1,363)
Jon Fishman (917)


Clark's statement at StopGlobalWarming.com:

"After thirty-four years as an officer in the United States Army, I know something about marching. From West Point to the West Wing, it has been an honor for me to march shoulder-to-shoulder with the men and women who make up the backbone of our nation's security. Many people do not understand that global warming and environmental policy are indeed national security matters because it's hard to see with the naked eye. We can see the impact of global warming on our lands, skies and waters. However, we have to look harder to see its effect on the geopolitical paradigm. As the average temperatures continue to rise around the world, the ice caps melt leading to reduced salinity levels in the ocean; higher sea levels; harsher winter weather, reduced soil moisture, more intense wind conditions. These conditions lead to drought and food shortages, decreased access to fresh drinking water and less secure access to energy supplies. The pressure caused by this phenomenon is a destabilizing force in global politics that could lead to civil unrest and international conflict.

So, stopping global warming is not just about saving the environment for the hunters, fisherman, hikers and the other outdoor enthusiasts of today and tomorrow. Global warming is a matter of national security. Will we live in a world where we must fight our neighbors for fresh water and food? Or will we take the lead now and leave to our children and grandchildren a world better off than the one we inherited from our parents?

Shoulder-to-shoulder, let's march together to save what God loaned us, so our children and their children will live in a world we would recognize a hundred years from now. No excuses. No apologies. Take the first step today. We can't do it without you."


Wes Clark also released three podcasts concerning the environment this year. A list of his podcasts ("Clarkcasts") can be found here, most include transcripts if you don't want to download the audio:
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/22

Here is part of the transcript from Clarkcast #5 from April 9, 2006:

"...What does it mean? Well, it means that as the planet grows warmer, there will be geopolitical implications. Global warming will thin Arctic ice sheets, raise sea levels and ultimately it could dislocate as much as 100 million people currently living in coastal areas. There are three major scenarios for global warming that I have seen. First is a sort of gradual warming scenario that says temperatures might rise as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit on average around the globe over the next 95 years. If that happens and the Greenland ice pack melts, the glaciers melt in Greenland and some of the Antarctic glaciers melt, well each one of those could raise sea levels by 20-25 feet so you could be looking at 40-50 foot cumulative rise in sea level over this century if they were to completely melt. Maybe they won't.

Another impact would be that as the Greenland ice cap melts it shuts down something known as the ocean conveyor, what we used to call the gulf stream, which brought salty warm water out of the Caribbean, up the coast of the United States, past Bermuda and over to warm the climate in northwest Europe. As the Greenland ice cap melts, the freshwater from that ice cap flows into the north Atlantic, it reduces the salinity, that in turn impedes the flow of the saline water coming up out of the Caribbean and shuts off…or shuts down the gulf stream. There's already been evidence to indicate the gulf stream has slowed down significantly and we believe that the impact of that will be cooling in northwest Europe so this could be a problem that in some way leads to actually a loss of agricultural land and livelihood for millions of people who are still dependent on agriculture and farming and generally moderate weather in northwest Europe.

The third implication might be…and this one is the most far-reaching and to my view frightening. This has to do with methane which is trapped in the Arctic tundra and under the ocean. It's locked up in mineral formations called methyl clathrates and at a certain rise in temperature, these formations can break down and methane can be released. Now, methane is a poisonous gas, it's also spontaneously combustible. It will basically poison anybody who's, or any animals that are in the vicinity but it also if it bursts into flame will consume huge amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere. This methane gas has been locked up for millions…hundreds of millions of years in these Arctic formations and if it were to be released, it would definitely have a very bad impact on us.

So, these are the big three concerns but even if the gulf stream basically remains in place and the methane never comes which is certainly what we hope, just the warmer weather and the raising of the sea levels and the greater temperatures in the ocean will bring stronger and more frequent storms. It means storms like Rita and Katrina might occur every 5 years instead of every hundred. It will mean changes in rainfall patterns that will force people and nations to compete for land and food and water. And just these minimal effects may not imperil American security but it will certainly push other nations, the less well-off nations into strife, pulling to the limits treaties, traditions and relationships between and among nations..."


Also Clark's own web site sponsored an important 5 part series of educational discussions on Global Warming put together by a team of Clark supporters and posted on the Clark Community Network. This is an excellent resource, I urge people to use it. It is the first 5 entries gathered together here:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/realscience

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Clark's answers to the League of Conservation Voters Questionaire from his 2004 race

Part One:

League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire

Introduction
This questionnaire is designed to elicit your responses and your ideas regarding what environmental groups consider the most important national environmental issues of the day. In some cases, we refer to certain bills or environmental positions, which are before the Congress or the Executive at this time. Where you may differ with the position as stated or implied by the question, please give us your views on these goals. If you have an environmental record, please cite examples of your past accomplishments. LCV is, however, looking for your vision of leadership on these key issues, in addition to your record.
This questionnaire is due by close of business on Monday, August 4. If you have questions, please contact Betsy Loyless at 202-785-8683. LCV’s fax number is 202-835-0491. Thank you.

Natural Resources and Public Lands

1. Public Lands
This nation’s 630 million acres of public land are a resource enjoyed by Americans today, and are a natural heritage legacy for future generations. These public lands include America’s parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Wilderness areas are protected within all four management systems.

1a. Would you support designating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area, to put it permanently off limits to oil and gas development?

Yes. We should pass this pristine wilderness on to our children just as we found it.

1b. Would you support the moratorium on new road construction and logging in the roadless and undeveloped portions of our national forests?

Yes. Wild places should stay wild. Building new roads in the undeveloped portions of our national forests makes no sense economically or environmentally.

1c. Do you support more snowmobiles, jetski and ORV use in our parks?

No. I think we should ensure diverse recreation opportunities for all Americans on our public lands. Decisions about which lands are suitable for different uses should be supported by environmental impact analyses and full public involvement.

1d. Would you reverse the Bush administration’s decision to deny future wilderness consideration of BLM land?

Yes. The Bush administration policy does not even permit land managers to analyze whether wilderness is the best use of the land. It is an unbalanced and myopic approach.

1e. What policies would you institute to protect communities at risk from forest fires?

I would instruct the Forest Service to thin fire-prone forests and underbrush near homes and communities. I would help communities and homes most at risk by increasing fire fighting capacity and helping people fireproof homes. I would insist that Congress provide adequate funding to accomplish these steps. I would not allow logging of older, larger trees (which tend to be more fire resistant), particularly when those trees are located miles from homes and communities. I would also explore ways of using my National Civilian Reserves Plan to send volunteers who have been properly trained to assist in fire prevention and fire suppression.

1f. Do you support continuing protection for offshore areas from oil and gas drilling?

Yes. These continuing protections exist for important reasons, including the protection of coastal ecosystems and the concerns of those living in coastal areas with respect to oil and gas drilling.


2. Wildlife
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, provides protection for threatened and endangered species of plants and animals. The law preserves these species for their own sake, and serves to maintain the overall health of larger natural systems necessary for the preservation of other species. Critics claim the law unduly restricts private property rights and interferes with reasonable economic development of land. Some observers believe the ESA should provide incentives, like tax breaks, for private landowners to encourage them to help save imperiled species.

2a. Do you support the goal of this law? Do you believe that current efforts are sufficient to recover our declining plants and wildlife?

I strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act – to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements. While I believe the ESA has been quite successful in the 30 years since its enactment, more needs to be done to stem the tide of extinctions. We should once again pursue multi-species habitat conservation plans over wide landscapes. These plans protect species, as well as the economic interests of landowners. As Professor E.O. Wilson has said, allowing species to go extinct is the folly future generations are least likely to forgive us.

2b. How, if at all, would you propose to modify the law in regard to its application to private landowners?

I would not be inclined to seek changes in the law from the current Congress or any similar future Congresses. Instead, I would focus on administrative reforms. The current law – through administrative efforts such as habitat conservation plans, streamlined processes, candidate conservation agreements, and “no surprise” assurances – can readily protect species and address private landowner concerns.

2c. Would you support additional exemptions from the ESA for the Department of Defense?

No. Additional exemptions aren’t needed. I spent a lot of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.


3. Oceans
Conservation of the ocean’s living resources, particularly fish populations and the marine ecosystems they support, has never achieved the same priority as other environmental initiatives. Management of living resources within the United States 200-mile exclusive economic zone is the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Act was amended and the conservation provisions strengthened by Congress in 1996, but NOAA Fisheries has been slow to implement the changes necessary to protect declining fish populations and threatened marine ecosystems.

3a. Do you support rebuilding fish populations that have been overfished in order to protect marine ecosystems and preserve long-term economic benefits, even if this results in adverse short-term economic impacts?

Many fish populations, especially commercially fished populations, are classified as “fully fished.” This not only threatens our fragile marine ecosystem, but also threatens the American fishing industry. Currently, declining fisheries are producing far below their potential at a cost of billions a year. Yet, government estimates show how managing our marine ecosystems in an environmentally sustainable manner could generate many thousands of new jobs. If this results in some adverse short-term economic impacts, we must provide support and assistance to affected individuals and communities. Significantly, in many places around the world overfishing can be addressed by phasing out costly government subsidies for overcapitalized fishing fleets. However, the long-term economic and ecological benefits make these adjustments imperative. I believe we need to manage our marine ecosystem in an environmentally sustainable manner to ensure healthy marine life and a plentiful supply of fish for generations to come.
Protecting the environment is necessary for a healthy economy and healthy citizens. The human side of the story is in the fishing communities themselves. We want to help preserve the culture of these fishing communities, and if conservation is not enhanced and over-fishing continues, these communities will be devastated.


4. Mining
Right now, mining on public lands for metals like gold, copper and silver is given preferential treatment over all other uses of the land. This type of mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry, and has polluted 40% of the stream reaches of Western watersheds, according to the EPA. Metals mining has also contaminated water with acid and heavy metals, destroyed landscapes and wildlife habitat, and damaged public spaces. The 1872 Mining Law is one of the major culprits in this story – the antiquated law contains no mining-specific environmental or cleanup standards, and allows companies to mine on public lands with virtually no return to taxpayers.

4a. Would you support changes to the law to allow other uses of the land, such as hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, to be weighed equally against mining when determining uses of public lands?

I would support such changes to provide additional clarity in this area, although I believe that current law in fact allows federal land managers to treat hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting, and fishing the same as mining in determining uses of public lands. With wise management and strong enforcement of current laws, we can achieve a balance in our use of public lands that has been absent under the Bush administration.

4b. Would you support changes to the law to require environmental and cleanup standards that apply specifically to mining?

I would support appropriate changes. However, I believe that existing laws -- properly administered -- are sufficient to compel cleanups for existing mines. We need sound management and strong enforcement of current laws.

4c. Would you support a royalty system for metals mining comparable to what the oil and gas or coal industries have to pay for mining and drilling on public lands?

Yes. It makes no sense that the gold industry, for example, pays nothing to take minerals from the federal taxpayer.
Global Warming; Energy, Transportation, and Land Use


5. Global Warming
Global warming is caused by pollution that comes mostly from cars and power plants and builds up in the atmosphere trapping heat like a blanket. Global warming is the most far-reaching environmental problem our civilization has ever faced. The hottest 10 years on record have occurred since 1980 culminating in 1998, the hottest year ever recorded. The world’s leading scientists warn that if the nations of the world fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we are likely to commit the world to massive irreversible damage—rising sea levels, crop damage, heat-related deaths, mass extinction of species and the spread of infectious diseases.

The U.S., with 4% of the world’s population, is the largest emitter of gases that cause global warming; it is responsible for contributing over 23% of world carbon dioxide emissions. Two- thirds of the U.S. carbon dioxide pollution comes from transportation and energy generation. We have the technology and know-how to lead the world in energy efficiency and clean energy, while creating good-paying jobs here at home and strengthening America’s economy.

Virtually all of the other industrial nations have already committed themselves to start acting to reduce their own carbon pollution. We cannot stop global warming unless all important contributors to this pollution problem do their fair share. But, the average American is responsible for 10 times as much global warming pollution as the average Chinese, and 20 times as much as the average Indian. We have the know-how and the resources to lead the way forward to new clean technologies that produce energy without pollution.

5a. Do you support a reduction in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide? Do you support a mandatory cap on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?

Global warming is a problem we can fix. America leads the world in the know-how and the technology to start cutting global warming pollution immediately, while at the same time, enhancing our quality of life. However, President Bush has failed the test of leadership and stewardship on this issue. He says we should rely on the coal and oil industries as well as on the power and auto companies to police themselves. He opposes any limits on carbon dioxide pollution. He even refuses to call it “pollution.” Under his do-nothing plan, global warming will just keep getting worse.
Solving this problem requires real accountability. As president, I will reduce global warming pollution from our power plants, factories, and vehicles using the market-based “cap-and-trade” approach that has worked so successfully to combat acid rain. I will take action under our current clean air laws and work with Congress to enact new ones that curb all major pollutants from our power plants and reduce global warming emissions from the industries that contribute to this problem.

5b. Do you support U.S. participation in a binding international treaty that caps emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?

Global warming is a global problem. While we must begin to clean up our own emissions, we cannot safeguard the American people from the dangers of global warming solely by action here at home. We need the cooperation of all nations that contribute significantly to this problem, and American leadership in this regard is essential. But President Bush unilaterally walked away from the global warming treaty talks without proposing any alternatives.
As President, I will re-engage with other nations to craft a fair, effective, and enforceable international treaty that uses the free market to cap and reduce global warming pollution at the lowest possible cost. And I will work to ensure the engagement of all critical nations in a framework that safeguards our environmental security, protects the global environment, and advances economic growth and development for all.


6. Energy efficiency
Automobiles are responsible for 20% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. One way to reduce this pollution is for our vehicles to use fuel more efficiently. Because of an exception in the current vehicle fuel efficiency laws, light trucks such a minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which account for nearly half of all new cars sold, are permitted 25% lower fuel economy standards (20.7 miles per gallon) than passenger cars (27.5 mpg). Fuel economy standards have not been significantly modified since the 1980’s.

6a. Would you support legislation sufficiently increasing fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs, mini-vans and other light trucks? What goals and timetables would you set?

America’s oil dependence is a grave threat to our national security, our economy, and our environment. Americans send more than $100 billion overseas each year to pay for imported oil. We already import more than half our oil, and if nothing changes, imports will increase to two-thirds by 2020. Our dependence on foreign oil limits our freedom to pursue other goals, including the war on terrorism. Also, emissions from our cars and SUVs worsen global warming.

We now have the know-how and technology to make cars and SUVs that go twice as far on a gallon of gas by using more efficient engines and transmissions, including hybrid cars that use both gasoline and an electric motor. As President, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others, I will set new standards to raise the fuel economy and reduce the emissions of cars, SUVs, and light trucks. The choice of specific goals and timetables will depend on a careful analysis of the existing data on technology, trends, and emissions from this sector as well as policy approaches to help industry meet those goals. We can clearly achieve a great deal in this area. With better, cleaner cars, we can fight global warming, reduce our oil dependence, and strengthen our economy.

6b. What additional means of reducing transportation-related
emissions would you support?

First, we need to provide tax incentives to get hybrids or other highly efficient vehicles into the marketplace and out on the road. With currently existing technology we can make great strides in reducing emissions. Second, I will put a stop to President Bush’s interference with California’s pioneering program to cut global warming pollution from new vehicles. Third, my Administration will lead an aggressive effort to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which hold great promise for the future. Fourth, I will increase support for better public transportation and other measures to clean the air in new highway legislation.

6c. Would you support a renewable energy standard that would achieve 20% renewable energy by the year 2020?

Renewable energy has an enormously important role to play in our energy future, because of the opportunity it presents to reduce pollution, clean the air we breathe, and mitigate climate change. I endorse the standard supported by Senate Democrats for inclusion in the energy bill. A 20% standard by 2020 is aggressive, but it's the kind of goal we should set our sights on and then work with Congress to devise the right kind of policies to achieve.


7. Power plants
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Our power plants emit 40% of all U.S. carbon pollution – 10% of all carbon pollution in the world. They also release other dangerous air pollutants that cause up to 40,000 early deaths each year, as well as thousands of asthma attacks and hospitalizations.

7a. Would you support legislation that controls all four air pollutants that come from power plants including carbon dioxide, does not weaken current law, maintains safeguards for national parks and prevent local pollution increases?

President Bush has proposed new legislation – mis-named “Clear Skies” – that actually would weaken current clean air laws and let the nation’s power plants continue to pollute at unsafe levels. For this President, environmental policy is all about rhetoric, not action. His plan would be much worse for the health of our children and all Americans -- especially those at risk for respiratory illness -- than enforcing current clean air laws. His plan does nothing to curb the carbon pollution that causes global warming.
President Bush has also weakened long-standing clean air standards. He has let power plants, oil refineries, and other big factories undertake huge expansion projects without modernizing their pollution controls – increasing dangerous pollution in neighboring communities – simply by mis-labeling their projects as “routine maintenance.” We have already given polluters a free pass for thirty years since the passage of the Clean Air Act by not requiring them to use the best available technology to control their pollution unless they build new plants. And now that the time has come for them to install the appropriate technology – technology that was developed in the United States and installed on nearly every power plant in Germany and Japan – the Bush administration wants to change the rules of the game. Not only is this bad for the environment and the health of our community, but it is also bad economic policy. We need a level playing field: one that is fair to the utilities and refineries that have complied with the law as well as those to which this administration has sold out by changing the laws.

We have the technology and the know-how to do better. As President, I will carry out our existing Clean Air Act fairly and firmly, and I will work with Congress to enact legislation that curbs all four power plant pollutants that threaten our health and cause global warming. I will maintain safeguards for local communities and for our treasured national parks. We can do this. We will save thousands of lives and create thousands of jobs by doing the right thing.


8. Nuclear Materials
The U.S. has had a policy in place against reprocessing nuclear fuels since the Ford administration. One of the greatest security threats to the United States today, and of paramount concern to American citizens since September 11th, is that nuclear weapons-usable materials will be stolen, seized or secretly diverted from nuclear facilities. It would then used by terrorists to develop and deliver a crude nuclear explosive device, or by a hostile proliferant state to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons.

8a. Would you oppose the U.S. reprocessing nuclear fuels? Would you support exporting nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies?

I believe reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates serious environmental and security risks without securing us a reliable, safe energy supply. It is critical that the U.S. maintain its 25-year opposition to reprocessing. Commercial reprocessing fuel creates bomb-grade nuclear material; I believe that we should be working to reduce, not increase, the supply of such material. I oppose changing U.S. law to support the reprocessing of nuclear fuels to produce plutonium either at home or abroad.
I also believe we should stop focusing on the power supplies of the 20th century, such as nuclear, coal, and oil power, and instead develop the energy supplies of the 21st century, such as hydrogen, wind, and solar energy. These sustainable energy supplies will advance our national security interests, create sustainable jobs, and facilitate the development of our renewable resources.

8b. How would you improve security at the places nuclear materials are now stored, both internationally and at home?

Secure storage requires, at a minimum, physical protection, material tracking systems, detection capabilities, and rapid response plans. Where these are missing or in doubt, we must work to establish and maintain them. Our nation's nuclear power plants are potential terrorist targets, and thus, we must do everything we can to prevent the devastation that a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would cause. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts mock assaults on our nation's nuclear power plants, they tell the power plants beforehand. The Commission also allows the plants to have extra guards for the day of the drill--guards that would not be on hand in the event of an actual attack. I would insist on surprise drills of our nation's nuclear power plants, so that we can get a more realistic assessment of the plants' preparedness level. If terrorists ever attack our nuclear power plants, they won't give advance notice, and so neither should our regulators. In the years ahead, international co-operation and additional resources will be needed to improve security measures and protect against sabotage. I would show international leadership and work with our allies to enhance security at all of the world's nuclear power plants, because this is a global problem.


9. Nuclear waste
Nuclear waste, whether low-level, transuranic, or high-level, is lethal. Environmental groups believe that federal nuclear policies must be based on science and that protection of public health and the environment are paramount. The current administration is aggressively preparing a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada and making efforts at Department of Energy (DOE) sites nationwide to either relax nuclear waste cleanup standards or void regulatory obligations. As an example, and despite a pending court challenge, DOE is planning top abandon significant amounts of high-level radioactive waste in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York.

9a. Do you oppose weakening of environmental and public health laws regarding nuclear waste disposition?

Yes.

9b. How would you propose to deal with high-level radioactive waste in leaking storage tanks presently in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York?

As a general matter, the government must take responsibility for protecting its citizens from dangerous waste created as part of our weapons production programs. I would need to review the specifics with respect to each of the storage sites involved to determine in detail the proper action to be taken at the site. The action, obviously, should be based on the best available science and untainted by politics. The workers at these sites and their families living in the area have already made sacrifices for our national defense by virtue of their work on these weapons. It would be highly irresponsible to apply less rigorous environmental and scientific standards to these areas by virtue of this commitment to our national defense.


10. Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants now supply about 20% of U.S. electric energy. While the nuclear industry argues that nuclear power should be seen as a solution to global warming, the entire nuclear fuel cycle (from uranium mining, milling and enrichment to waste disposal and reactor decommissioning) is (1) a potential source of material for nuclear weapons or terrorist activities; (2) inherently subject to serious accidents (and fully dependent on taxpayer funded safety net in the event of such a serious accident); (3) damaging to land, water and air (e.g., the uranium enrichment process in this country has significant carbon emissions); (4) produces radioactive waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years; and (5) cannot compete in the energy marketplace without significant federal subsidies for existing reactors and for research and development.

10a. Do you support the current administration’s $400 million in subsidies to the commercial nuclear industry for research and development in new nuclear reactors?

No.

10b. Should issues such as environmental impacts, cost-efficiency and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats be considerations in deciding whether nuclear power remains a viable energy option?

Yes. Issues such as environmental impacts (here including waste disposal as a critical issue), cost-efficiency, and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats should always be part of the equation in deciding the makeup of the country’s energy portfolio.


11. Sprawl
Many Americans now consider suburban sprawl -- low-density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of service and employment areas -- to be a fast growing and obvious threat to their local environment. Suburban sprawl is contributing to the loss of farms, forests, wildlife habitat, wetlands, open space and water quality. Longer commutes and increased traffic congestion causes air pollution. State and local governments are beginning to pursue sprawl-fighting, smart growth strategies.

11a. What role should the federal government play in helping communities address this fast-growing threat to their quality of life and environment?

Smart growth is not synonymous with no growth. Although land use planning is ultimately a local choice, the federal government can ensure that local communities have the resources and expertise to protect their communities, and that federal policies do not encourage sprawling development. The federal government should support mass transit and other measures that would mitigate runaway sprawl.

11b. Would you support changing federal policies and funding priorities that contribute to or encourage suburban sprawl? For example, would you support providing a greater portion of the Highway Trust Fund for transit and alternative transportation choices rather than highway construction and expansion?

I believe the federal government should review its policies and funding priorities to ensure that they do not encourage sprawl. One example is to spend less on highways and more on mass transit.

11c. Would you support federal tax incentives to help local communities set aside open space, protect water quality, and clean up abandoned industrial sites in urban areas? What other measures would you support to address these problems?

Yes. Tax incentives are a powerful and effective tool to help local communities protect the environment and improve quality of life. In partnership with the federal government and state governments, local communities should be given every tool they need to preserve parks, ball fields, trails, and other open space in their neighborhoods, as well as cleaning up their water and any abandoned hazardous sites. When we protect our environment, all Americans benefit.
International


12. Global Population
World population is increasing by 77 million people per year. Continued human population growth aggravates virtually all environmental problems including deforestation, extinction of species through habitat loss, land degradation, global warming, air and water pollution, and freshwater scarcity. With these problems increasingly challenging the governments of developing and developed countries alike, slower population growth and eventual population stabilization are critical to environmental sustainability. Through its assistance for family planning services, the U.S. government has contributed significantly to the fertility decline that has occurred in developing countries since the 1960s. By law, no U.S. foreign assistance funds may be used to provide abortion services.

12a. Do you support increased funding for the U.S. portion of international population assistance necessary to achieve universal access to contraception by the year 2015?

Yes. The U.S. should increase its funding for international population assistance, which advances U.S. foreign policy goals by promoting sustainable population development and health. This funding supports family planning and related reproductive health services through programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Such programs directly benefit tens of millions of couples each year, improving both maternal and child health and contributing to slower population growth rates. Despite the fact that the United States is the largest bilateral funding source for population assistance programs, the United States is still not contributing its fair share of the funds needed. From the perspective of national wealth, the United States is dead last among donor nations in overall development assistance, contributing only 0.1% of its wealth. As President, I support giving women all over the world access to information they deserve to make crucial personal health decisions -- decisions that ultimately affect the ability of our planet to sustain healthy populations.
Increasing our funding for international population assistance reflects my vision for a New American Patriotism and shows our willingness as an international leader to address the needs of developing nations.

12b. In 2002, the United States withdrew its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports family planning programs in over 150 countries. Do you support reinstating a U.S. contribution to UNFPA with safeguards to ensure that no funds provided by the United States are used by UNFPA for abortion or in China?

Yes. The United States needs to reinstate its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund. While the United States should always reserve the right to ensure funds contributed by American taxpayers are spent on programs representative of American values, the UNFPA is a program that deserves our support. The UNFPA works to promote reproductive health in the world’s poorest countries, helping to ensure the safe delivery of healthy babies, even in unsafe environments. Through educational programs and contraceptives, UNFPA aggressively fights the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as reduces the need for abortion. As a result, UNFPA saves thousands of women and children’s lives every year. Officials at the UNFPA estimate that the $34 million contribution from the United States prevents two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths.
Additionally, as anti-American sentiment grows, we could help mitigate this trend by continuing our commitment to international organizations, especially aid organizations. Supporting UNFPA shows the U.S. is committed to addressing health issues facing developing countries.


13. Trade
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization restrict domestic and international law in order to promote international trade and investment. Dispute panels under these agreements have ruled against a number of environmental and health laws, including clean gasoline standards, sea turtle protections, and food safety standards. In order to comply with the rulings, governments may be forced to weaken laws or regulations. In other instances, the U.S. government has proactively weakened environmental standards to comply with international trade rules. For example, the U.S. has established weak standards to control imported tree and fruit pests in order to avoid trade conflicts.

13a. What steps would you take to prevent international trade bodies and international trade agreements from weakening public health and environmental laws?

I believe in free and fair trade. I believe that, properly negotiated, trade agreements can open markets for U.S. products while ensuring that U.S. environment and public health laws remain the strongest in the world. While efforts to open markets can provide important mutual benefits to both countries, its critical that we work to ensure that trade agreements are always designed to raise all boats and never lead to a race to the bottom on either labor standards or the environment. I think that it is critical that prior to the conclusion of any trade agreements the United States should undertake a full environmental impact assessment. In order to be certain that U.S. laws are protected, we need to make the dispute mechanisms in NAFTA, WTO, and other agreements less secretive and more accountable. NGOs, including environmental groups, should be allowed to present their case in front of NAFTA chapter 11 tribunals and other trade dispute bodies. We will work to address the unintended negative consequences of NAFTA chapter 11 so that foreign investors do not have special standing to challenge U.S. public health and environmental laws. Future free trade agreements must contain similar built-in controls that ensure the environment will not suffer as a result. As President, I'll make sure these protections are central to all future trade agreements. With these steps and others, we make sure that a fair and open trading system promotes economic growth while improving the environment around the world.

13b. Would you increase congressional oversight and public involvement in trade negotiations to better ensure that future trade agreements protect public health and the environment? How would you do so?

Congress and the public have an important role to play in crafting trade agreements. As President, I'll work with Congress and environmental groups closely on trade. I'll improve the current practice of conducting environmental reviews of trade agreements, promote openness and transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements,f and push to open trade dispute processes to the public (for example, by allowing non-governmental organizations to file amicus curiae briefs in cases involving the environment).


14. Biodiversity
There is a consensus among the world’s leading scientists that one of the greatest long-term threats to human welfare is the loss of species and their natural habitat, collectively resulting in the massive loss of biological diversity. The international Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiated in 1992 to help provide for a coordinated international effort to deal with biodiversity loss problems. The Convention has been ratified by 187 countries—nearly every country on earth. In spite of the fact that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations overwhelmingly approved ratification, the United States (along with Iraq and Somalia) is one of only seven countries that has not joined this important treaty.

14a. Will you work to persuade the Senate to ratify the Convention?

Yes. Loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. U.S. participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity would help make the treaty a more powerful for meeting this important challenge.


15. Participation in international environmental agreements
The biodiversity and climate change conventions are only two of the many multilateral environmental treaties to which the United States is not a party—including important agreements on persistent organic pollutants, hazardous chemicals and wastes, the law of the sea, environmental impact assessment and public participation. The consistent failure to participate has transformed the United States from a leader to a laggard in global environmental cooperation, jeopardizing not only our shared environment but also our ability to influence new international rules in these areas.

15a. What will you do to speed ratification of important environmental agreements and restore the United States to its historic leadership role in global environmental issues?

Nowhere is the failure of President Bush’s unilateralism more clear than on questions of global environmental security. America is not an island. There are no barriers that separate us from the global atmosphere or the oceans. Our health is protected and our economy prospers when we engage and lead in international efforts to protect the earth’s shared atmosphere, oceans, and living resources.
As President, I will work with the leaders of the Senate to rebuild the consensus for U.S. participation in critical environmental agreements that have languished under this administration. I will reach out to re-engage with other nations on the global environmental dangers we all face.

Environmental leadership is also an important component of American leadership for democracy around the world. Our own environmental laws are models of open government, public access to information, and participation of those with a stake in their government’s actions. As the leader of the free world, we can, and should, be a strong voice for these values abroad.


Pollution and Public Health
16. Clean Water
The Clean Water Act has been the foundation of clean water protections for over 30 years, protecting rivers, streams, lakes and ponds from pollution and destruction. Small rivers, intermittent streams, and so-called “isolated” wetlands play a crucial role in maintaining water quality. Efforts are underway to limit the ability of the federal government to protect up to 60% of the nation’s waters. Also under development are regulations to limit the ability of the state and federal governments to control runoff from farm fields, animal feedlots and city streets.

16a. Would you support and promote legislation to reaffirm the historic scope of the Clean Water Act to protect all of the nation’s waters?

Yes. All America’s waters need to be protected and a clean environment is of the highest importance to the long-term future of the American people. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in its 2001 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, when it overturned the federal government’s power to protect wetlands, streams, and other waters that may be considered isolated. The Administration has contributed to the damage caused by this decision by failing to issue guidance interpreting the court’s ruling. These actions have endangered the ecological balance in significant portions of our nation’s wetlands. Consequently, I support the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2003, which would clarify that the Clean Water Act of 1972 applies to all of the waters of the United States, and would delete the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act. All waters of the U.S. need to be protected, not simply ones deemed navigable. I would support legislation that extends Clean Water protection to all United States waters to the full extent constitutionally permitted.

16b. How would you act to assure that sources of polluted runoff are appropriately controlled?

I believe that polluted runoff is one of our nation’s most pressing environmental problems because it is the single largest source of water pollution. It is crucial that we ensure strict control in this area. The fact is we cannot meet water quality standards if we don’t address runoff, particularly from stormwater. Here too the Bush administration is moving in the wrong direction by weakening EPA’s capacity to control water pollution. I believe the Total Maximum Daily Load program (TMDL) that was established as part of the 1972 Clean Water Act to control the amount of both point source and non-point source pollution should be continued and strengthened. The Bush administration’s proposed rulemaking would make the EPA’s responsibility to intervene when TMDL standards are not being set by states optional instead of mandatory. Therefore, I oppose the Bush Administration’s attempt to rewrite these rules. In addition with tax incentives, I would support state and local land use planning efforts to address runoff. Ensuring all Americans have clean water to drink, clean water to swim in, and clean water to fish in is not subject to political bargaining.


17. Wetlands
Wetlands - the marshes, bogs, bottom land hardwoods and estuarine areas where water meets land – act as nature’s water filters and as sponges that help prevent flooding. Our nation has lost over half its original wetlands and continues to lose over 100,000 acres of wetlands each year.

17a. How would you act to reverse the steady erosion of this natural resource?

My administration would begin immediately to enforce a “no net loss” policy. I would ensure that all wetlands, including isolated and seasonal wetlands, remain subject to the protection of the Clean Water Act. I would ensure that the Corps of Engineers and the EPA maintain regulations to protect these waters of the United States and I would call on Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water Act with these protections in place. I would ask Congress to regulate drainage and conversion of wetlands under the Clean Water Act.


18. Clean Air
According to the American Lung Association, at least 137 million people live in areas where it is unhealthy to breathe the air due to ozone or smog pollution. During the 2001 smog season, there were more than 4600 violations of EPA's health standard for smog in 42 states across the country. The elderly, children and people with asthma are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Scientists estimate that up to 40,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of fine particle pollution, or soot.
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Electric power plants produce one third of the nitrogen pollution that causes smog, and two thirds of the sulfur pollution that forms fine-particulate matter, acid rain and haze. And they produce 40% of carbon pollution, the heat-trapping chemical that causes global warming. Power plants are the largest sources of mercury emissions, which contaminate fish in our lakes and streams. The current administration has announced a “Clear Skies” proposal that purports to deal with this pollution, but would actually increase harmful emissions and air pollution compared to effectively enforcing the Clean Air Act and this proposal completely ignores global warming pollutants from this industry.

18a. What measures would you take to protect public health from air pollution?

President Bush has weakened clean air standards and programs that are supposed to protect Americans from soot, smog, and toxic pollutants like mercury. My first act to clean the air will be to restore requirements that big polluters install modern pollution controls when they expand their plants and increase their pollution. Every American has the right to breathe clean air. As President, I would roll back the Bush Administration’s effort to allow older power plants to continue polluting at high rates even as they undertake massive expansion. I think the so-called “Clear Skies” initiative is similarly misguided and shows a callous disregard for the health of all Americans, particularly those in lower-income communities.

I would support a cap-and-trade system, to reduce four major pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide. (Some areas such as those within close proximity to national parks would be subject to strict limits and might not be eligible for the trading program.) Further, as President, I would work with the EPA to set realistic and enforceable timetables to phase out and/or upgrade the dirty obsolete coal-fired power plants grandfathered by the Clean Air Act. I would also provide federal support to help develop cleaner safer energy alternatives.
My EPA will work together with the states to meet health protection standards for soot and smog, as required by law. And I will set tough new standards to curb the mercury emissions from power plants and other industries that are contaminating lakes and streams in nearly every state.

18b. Do you support comprehensive efforts to address ozone, mercury, particulate and carbon pollution?

Yes. Phasing out old plants and passing a four-pollutant cap and trade law (see 18a.) will make a large dent in both carbon and nitrogen oxide—the precursor to ozone. In addition to these measures, I'll push to close the "SUV loophole" in fuel economy standards and improve fuel efficiency. Simultaneously, the federal government should assist to develop clean and sustainable energy technologies. As part of the job plan outlined under “New American Patriotism,” the United States can be a leader in sustainable energy technologies. Not only can these technologies help the environment, but they will also provide sustainable jobs to this country. Finally, we need to re-engage with the international community to address carbon emissions and global warming more broadly. Whether it's rejoining Kyoto or finding other multilateral approaches, we have to address this global problem with global leadership. And global leadership is environmental leadership.

18c. What efforts would you support to address issues, such as acid rain and regional haze?

The most important step to combat acid rain and restore visibility is to enact comprehensive power plant legislation (see answer 7a). I will also carry out and strengthen new vehicle emission standards and limits on sulfur in fuel. Together with measures to improve energy efficiency, these measures will help restore the health of our lakes and forests and bring back the magnificent vistas that make America uniquely beautiful.


19. Food Safety/ Pesticides
In 1996, Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act to assure that America’s food supply is safe from dangerous pesticides.

19a. Do you support implementation of this law to assure that children and other vulnerable people are fully protected from dangerous pesticides contaminants?

Yes. Chemical contaminants have no place in our nation’s food supply, and FQPA’s new standard for regulating pesticides --- reasonable certainty of no harm --- imposes the proper level of protection. While I am mindful of the difficulty involved in implementing this new standard, I believe that the EPA can and should do more to meet the statutory deadlines for various regulatory actions mandated by this important legislation. As President, I will work with the EPA to ensure that every effort is made to implement the FQPA.

19b. Would you oppose efforts to delay the food safety requirements of this important law?

Yes I would. The American people are entitled to enjoy the full benefits of this important, seven-year-old legislation.

19c. Do you believe all pesticides that may remain on food products should be comprehensively tested for safety, and that, where data is not available, conservative assumptions should be applied to assure public health protection?

I support full implementation of the provisions of the FQPA regarding the review of the safety of pesticide residues on food (known as tolerance reassessments). I also support the review of the safety of existing pesticides and their uses according to the most up-to-date science as part of the ongoing EPA re-registration process. Environmental decisions such as these should always be made on the basis of the best available scientific information. When data are lacking, conservative assumptions should be used where supported as a generally accepted scientific practice.
I also believe in “right-to-know” laws. Food producers have the obligation to ensure that the produce provided to America’s consumers and their children is healthy and safe. When the produce industry fails to establish and adhere to internal standards for safety with regard to pesticides on its produce, laws and a mechanism to enforce them must exist to protect the health of the consumer.


20. Toxics, Right to Know, Preventing Toxic Exposures
In the last 50 years, chemical manufacturers have flooded society with tens of thousands of chemicals, but weak laws haven’t kept pace with industry production. Of 80,000 chemicals on the market, approximately 90% lack even basic publicly available information on potential health effects. Manufacturers are only required to report industrial pollution for fewer than 700 of these chemicals. There is no law providing disclosure of toxic chemicals contained in consumer products. And finally, the government’s ability to restrict or phase out known hazardous chemicals is extremely limited (resulting in a judicial repeal of EPA’s ban on asbestos).

20a. Do you believe that the public has a right to know about the full range of toxic chemicals in foods, drinking water and consumer products?

I believe that the public has both a right and a need to know about such chemicals, subject to the practical limitations on making such information available. We have learned over the years that many of the chemicals to which we are exposed on a daily basis can have harmful impacts on many Americans. It is imperative to our individual health and the nation’s health care system that information be available concerning exposure to chemicals in foods, drinking water, and consumer products.

20b. Would you support legislation to require manufacturers to disclose the potential health effects of chemicals to which they expose the public?

I would enthusiastically work with Congress in fashioning such legislation.

20c. Do you believe that chemicals with known links to serious health effects should be phased out where there are safer alternatives?

I believe we should reduce or eliminate exposure to chemicals with serious health effects when there are realistic alternatives that are shown to be safer.


21. Toxics
The Superfund program was steadily increasing the rate of site cleanup through the 1990’s - with over 85 sites completed each year in 1997 - 2000, with the rate now slowing to about 40 sites per year. Under Superfund’s “polluter-pays” liability system, polluters have directly paid for cleanups at more than 70% of Superfund sites. In addition, the liability structure has created strong incentives for pollution prevention and better waste management. However, the program of polluter-pays taxes that support the program expired in 1995, and Superfund cleanups are increasingly paid for with taxpayer funds. In fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that 79% of EPA's cleanups with be paid for by taxpayers. Critics of the program, however, assert that cleanups are unduly expensive because they too often involve treating wastes rather than simply trying to contain them, and that litigation has been excessive.

21a. Do you support reinstating the Superfund tax?

Yes. The Superfund tax preserves an important principle of environmental policy: namely, that polluters should pay to help clean up environmental hazards. As a result of the failure of Congress and the Administration to support reinstatement of the Superfund tax, the Superfund trust fund is now going bankrupt. This unfairly allocates the full cost of these cleanups to the U.S. taxpayer and removes an important enforcement tool that could be used to make responsible parties pay their full share of cleanup costs.

21b. What measures would you support to accelerate the pace of clean up at Superfund sites?

First, I will appoint an administrator to head the agency who would be committed to increasing the pace of clean up at Superfund sites across the country. The Clinton administration recognized the unacceptable length of time that it was taking many of these sites to be cleaned and made the cleaning up hazardous waste sites a national priority and challenged EPA regional administrators to work hard with states to get the job done. Second, I will seek to reinstate a Superfund tax so that the program’s trust fund would have sufficient resources to permit the federal government to step in to take action when responsible parties are unwilling or unable to act on their own. Third, I will request additional resources for the program based on a review of the number and kinds of sites that still need to be cleaned up, taking into account their size and complexity. Finally, I will expedite the speed of cleaning up these sites as part of my support for making Superfund sites both protective of the public health and more attractive to redevelopment as a way of attracting private investment.

22. Environmental Justice
Environmental problems -- from toxic pollution to loss of biodiversity -- affect all of us. Some communities, especially communities of color and poorer communities, are likely to suffer disproportionate impacts from environmental degradation. Evidence of environmental disparities includes: higher incidences of childhood lead poisoning among African-American children and among lower-income children; higher exposures by people of color to air pollution and higher penalties for violations of federal environmental laws levied in white communities compared to minority communities. Other areas where environmental disparities can exist include the siting of waste management facilities, access to clean drinking water and food, job-related exposures to toxic chemicals, access to well-maintained public parkland, and the availability of transportation options.

22a. What is your vision for insuring equal access to a clean and healthy environment?

Equal access to public goods is one of America's most deeply held values. No American should have to live or work in conditions that threaten their health. Environmental health hazards are too often borne by the most vulnerable among us -- the children, the elderly, and low-income communities. Critics often say that environmentalism is an issue that is only a concern for the well-to-do, but in fact just the opposite is true. The affluent are more likely to have the means to protect themselves from exposure to unsafe living conditions like lead, asbestos, hazardous waste, polluted air, and dirty water. The government must protect disadvantaged communities from these dangers.

22b. Would you support and strengthen compliance with Executive Order 12898, the President's Order on Environmental Justice (2/11/94), which mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations?
Yes. The Federal government affects the environmental health of Americans in many ways, through its own activities, programs, and policies. With Executive Order 12898, President Clinton recognized that we have to look closely not only at the total amount of pollution, but also at where that pollution falls. No single racial or ethnic group should bear the burden of excess pollution. I will ensure that all federal agencies perform their activities in such a manner as to identify and eliminate the potential for any disproportionate impacts.

22c. Are there other ways you would address this issue?

I will tap the creative energy of all groups involved in environmental issues. Too often we fall into the trap of doing things the way they have always been done. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice could be more effective in promoting environmental justice. My Administration will not be afraid to try new approaches, to work with diverse parties, to promote unique solutions and partnerships between industry and affected communities, and when necessary, to use its enforcement and compliance powers to ensure that my commitment to a clean and healthy environment for all Americans is achieved.



Environmental Process and Procedures
23. Budget/Environmental Funding
Federal spending for Natural Resources and the Environment budget category (Function 300) has declined substantially since 1980. Environmentalists believe that the management needs of national parks, wildlife refuges and other federal lands and clean water and clean air programs as well as programs that protect wildlife continue to increase.

23a. Would you support a reassessment of federal spending priorities and restoration of an equitable portion of the federal budget to natural resource and environmental programs and agencies?

Yes. These programs have been critical to the preservation and continued maintenance of the land and water resources that are so much a part of our American character and so vital to the public health. I fully support an appropriate allocation of each year’s federal budget to these programs. Also vitally important for these programs is a predictable and consistent level of funding on a multiyear basis. An important step toward this goal was taken in 2000 in the enactment of the Conservation Trust Fund, a commitment made that has not been fulfilled in recent years. I would support not only increased funding levels for these programs, but also a mechanism that would make consistent funding available each year.

23b. What are your top funding priorities for national parks? Do you support more funding for national parks?

Yes, I support more funding for our national parks. The national parks are a unique American treasure and provide an unparalleled opportunity for families to enjoy nature and engage in recreation. Our top priority should be to maintain the resource base essential to preserving each park’s special experience, including its plants, wildlife, and cultural artifacts. We should also pay more attention to maintaining and modernizing in suitable ways the facilities and transportation systems in each of our parks.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was authorized by Congress at $900 million each year with revenue derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and production. Congress has regularly failed to appropriate the authorized amount. The unappropriated balance in the LWCF account now exceeds $11 billion.

23c. Would you support full funding for the LWCF at $900 million each year and limiting its use to the purposes for which it was originally established?

Yes. This program provides vital funding to federal agencies as well as state and local entities so that they can protect open space and important natural resources.

In 2000 Congress established an historic Conservation Trust Fund intended to provide guaranteed funding for LWCF and other programs to protect wildlife, open space and marine and coastal areas. But Congress is now backing away from that commitment.
23d. Would you support efforts to fully fund and maintain the historic Conservation Trust Fund established in 2000?
Yes, I would support efforts to maintain and fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund or to adopt other methods that accomplish the same funding mission through the use of the budget process. The Conservation Trust Fund was a monumental achievement based on a bipartisan consensus. However, the Bush administration has allowed Congress to erode the program to the point that its future viability is now in doubt.


24. Takings/Property Rights
Zoning and various environmental protections at all levels of government protect property owners who may find themselves downwind or downstream from harmful activities. Recently, there have been efforts in the courts, the Congress and in state legislatures to expand the application of the Fifth Amendment’s so-called “takings clause” in the name of protecting property rights. These efforts have the effect of paying polluters not to pollute.

24a. Do you support legislation that would reject the case-specific approach the courts now follow, redefine “property” or otherwise expand the Constitution’s takings clause?

No. There is no need to fix what isn’t broken. The Constitution has served our country and our people well and doesn’t need to be tinkered with.

24b. Do you support legislation to allow private interests to challenge local land use decisions in federal court, bypassing local and state procedures?

No. Land use decisions are local decisions and the proper place for them to be challenged is in state and local venues.


25. Legislative Riders
In recent years, Congress has increasingly relied upon the insertion of unrelated anti-environmental provisions into budget bills, appropriations, and other legislation to bypass regular legislative procedures and avoid presidential vetoes. Environmental groups believe this procedure avoids public scrutiny and debate over new laws, which roll back environmental protection.

25a. Do you believe that changes in environmental laws should be subject to open debate and recorded votes in the Congress?

Yes. Free and open debate is an essential feature of democracy. Too often in recent years, legislative proposals to weaken environmental protection have been agreed to as appropriations riders literally in back rooms or under cover of night, without the public review that such changes deserve.

25b. Would you, as President, veto budget bills or other measures that include unrelated provisions weakening environmental programs?

I would seriously consider vetoing any budget bill containing unrelated provisions that weakened environmental protections.

26. Regulatory Reform
For the past 30 years, most environmental protections for public health have been set based on health-based or technology standards. Critics of many environmental laws and regulations claim that the regulatory process should place a much greater emphasis on the costs of compliance to business. They claim that the regulatory process does not adequately consider costs of compliance to business.
26a. Under what circumstances should human health standards be lowered set based on the cost of compliance to industries?
Different statutes mandate different criteria for determining environmental standards. Under parts of the Clean Air Act, for example, the cost of compliance is explicitly excluded from consideration, while other environmental laws allow costs to be considered when determining standards. While it makes sense for statutes to have their own particular criteria depending upon the nature of the problem being addressed, generally speaking, it is best to set standards based on the level needed to protect human health or on the availability of control technology, and to take costs into account in choosing the most efficient approach to the implementation of the standard. Even the Bush administration admits the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules.

26b. Would you support legislation or executive action to require more detailed assessments of costs and benefits than currently undertaken by federal agencies before new public health or environmental regulations are put in place?

An executive order already requires a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of federal regulations, and a federal statute requires the Administration to report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations on an annual basis. No further assessments should be necessary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Part II Clark's answers to the League of Conservation Voters Questionaire from his 2004 race

26c. Would you support an adjustment that lowers the estimated benefit in saving someone’s life by his/her age or remaining life expectancy? Explain your views.

When estimating the benefits of saving human life, the government should not discriminate against older Americans based on their age. The value of the life of all adults should be treated the same and should not be lowered simply because one person has lived longer than another. To do so is an insult to our senior citizens. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration proposed using a calculation that would reduce the value of the life of a senior citizen by 37%. As President, I would prevent the use of this or any similar calculation based on age.

26d. Would you support elevating EPA to a cabinet agency? Would you insist that any legislation to do so be free of additional provisions that weaken environmental protection or change the agency’s mission?

Yes, I would support the elevation of the EPA to a cabinet agency, but only if the legislation were free of extraneous provisions that weakened the agency’s ability to protect the environment. Unfortunately, for more than a decade, the EPA cabinet bill has been used as a vehicle for attempted changes to the agency’s authority and mission, sinking the legislation in a sea of controversy. However, even if legislation were not adopted to make EPA a cabinet agency under my administration, I would give the EPA the same status as any other cabinet department.


27. Environmental Oversight
Many observers believe that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the so-called Magna Carta of environmental law, is currently under an “attack of one thousand cuts.” This law provides two essential elements to government decision-making, including public participation and review of the impacts of a proposed decision. In proposal after proposal, concerning issues ranging from highway construction and logging in our national forests to oil drilling on federal lands and conservation of oceans and marine mammals, NEPA is at the center of efforts to weaken the protection of our environment and natural resources.

27a. What would you do to ensure that NEPA’s promise of meaningful public participation in government decisions is fulfilled?

NEPA has done more than any other law in the past 30 years to bring openness and transparency to federal decision-making. However, federal agencies’ reliance on environmental assessments (rather than the more open environmental impact statement) has been eroding this transparency, and the Bush Administration’s propensity for secrecy in government has accelerated this trend. I would direct CEQ to issue new guidance on the use of environmental assessments and ensure that the mitigation promises made by the government are kept. The federal government under my leadership would consult with communities before taking action that may affect them. Monitoring reports should be public documents.

27b. What would you do to ensure that information is collected about the actual impacts of federal decisions on natural and cultural resources and that federal agencies respond to this information?

Too often, federal agencies predict impacts and then put the analysis on the shelf. This process costs taxpayers too much and gives communities too little protection. I would direct CEQ to issue new guidance on monitoring, mitigation, and adaptive management.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has repeatedly sought exemptions to five environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund. DOD has a long-term plan to get even more exemptions from environmental laws. This is unacceptable. Government agencies including the DOD should have to follow the same environmental and public health laws as everyone else. Moreover, many of these laws already contain broad exemptions that DOD could invoke on a case-by-case basis. DOD is not using the exemptions currently available.

27c. Do you support or oppose giving the DOD exemptions to our environmental laws?

I support current environmental laws that provide case-by-case waiver or exemption procedures in the event of a genuine conflict between environmental and national security concerns. I oppose efforts to open broad new exemptions from environmental laws for DOD in the name of national security. In all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.


28. Judicial appointments
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have a major influence over the direction of environmental policy in our country. Federal judges are appointed for life and can shape policy for many years.

28a. Would you consider a judicial candidate’s environmental opinions and record in vetting their appointment to the federal bench?

Yes. I would consider judicial candidates’ entire records, including environmental opinions, in determining qualifications for the federal bench.


Economic policy and environmental protection

29a. Please describe what the relationship between strong environmental protection laws and strong economic performance would be under your administration. Do present environmental laws need to be modified (without necessarily reducing the present level of environmental protection) in order to achieve or maintain a strong economy?

A good life for the American people requires both a clean environment and a healthy economy. Each supports the other. Technology development that makes it economical to use solar energy or hybrid cars creates new industries and jobs while reducing the gases the cause global warming and air pollution. Rural economies that have been left behind by declining agricultural prices and mining efficiencies can develop new economic opportunities that come from living near exceptional landscapes. In my administration, we will adopt policies that encourage the development of technology and entrepreneurship to keep our environment and our economy healthy. We do not need to change our laws -- we need a change in the administration executing those laws.


Environmental Priorities
30a. At the end of your first term, what specific environmental accomplishments will you have achieved? LCV will re-print verbatim the first 300 words of your response.

America’s natural resources – our air and water, seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, forests, prairies and wilderness – are among the glories of this nation. They are a legacy passed down by those who have come before and one we are honor-bound to preserve for the generations ahead. Those who would sacrifice our natural gifts for short-term gain forsake this legacy, and at the same time, undermine America’s long-term economic strength. The choice between a strong economy and a clean environment is a false one.

In truth, environmental protection is a character issue. Just as I took care of the soldiers and their families while serving in the U.S. Army, I feel it is my obligation to protect the health of our citizens and take care of the resources our children will inherit. George Bush’s environmental record is a showcase of his Administration’s duplicity. He has betrayed the public trust and is mortgaging our children’s future. Contrary to their rhetoric, the President and his staff of special-interest lobbyists, not their opponents, are the true environmental radicals. Conservation of land and resources is truly a conservative value.

As President, I will immediately halt the Bush Administration’s unprecedented assault on the environment. I will launch programs to safeguard the health of our children and families by cleaning our air, water, and soils, protecting our public lands, restoring U.S. leadership on global environmental issues, and building a new, broad-based coalition for environmental protection. This is an issue that should bring us together on the strength of our shared values.

Specifically, as President, I want to work with the American people to:
• reverse failed Bush administration policies on clean air, water quality, forests, wilderness and more;
• advance comprehensive "four pollutant" legislation to keep our air clean, including binding limits on emissions of carbon dioxide;
• strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry and others;
• protect our nation's wetlands by enforcing a "no net loss" policy, and restore budgets for sewage plants and stormwater controls;
• codify and enforce the “Roadless Rule," which bans new road building on millions of acres of national forest;
• promote environmentally-friendly technologies with tax incentives and federal procurement;
• re-enter the international negotiations to address global warming; and
• increase funding for fighting deforestation and protecting biodiversity around the world;
These steps are just a start. To ensure a healthy environment for future generations, we must take responsible action today.


30b.What priority issues will your administration focus on in its first six months, first year?

First, I will reverse failed Bush Administration policies on clean air, water quality, forests, wilderness, and more. Second, I will enforce the environmental laws of this land -- from day one. Third, I will develop and begin to implement a plan for energy security that includes policies to enhance the energy efficiency of our cars, power plants, equipment, and appliances, and to promote the use of renewable energy. Fourth, I will begin to re-establish America's global leadership on environmental issues, and will start by re-engaging in the international negotiations on climate change.

30c.What environmental accomplishments, initiatives or actions are you most proud of?

As a commander in various units throughout my career in the US Army, I was proud always to pass EPA inspections. I worked hard with troops under my command to meet high standards of environmental excellence. During my time as Commanding General of the National Training Center in Southern California, we successfully met the challenge of preserving habitat for threatened desert tortoises while maintaining military readiness. We addressed such issues as waste oil from Army vehicles with professionalism, commitment -- and results. I am proud of the U.S. Army units I commanded. They were good stewards of the land and natural resources. In an era when environmental threats such as the loss of our protective ozone layer threaten our collective survival, military security and environmental security must each be considered an integral part of our national security.

Ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of our environment is central to my campaign. To achieve this vision, we must develop technologies that allow us to decrease emissions and reduce global warming pollution. I believe that America’s great technological prowess holds the key for meeting the environmental and energy challenges of the future and will help us recover many of the good American jobs that we have exported abroad during this Administration. I was proud to serve as chairman of the board of WaveCrest laboratories -- a company that is developing innovative new technologies that can help protect the environment and enhance our energy security.

30d. Do you plan to campaign on environmental issues? What level of visibility and exposure will you give to environmental issues in your campaign? Explain your views.

Yes. Respect for the environment will be a cornerstone of my campaign. For example, my first major speech on the economy included a significant discussion of the importance of protecting our environment. It is impossible to address economic growth without discussing environmental protection. In my campaign, I will expose the false dichotomy of jobs versus the environment and explain how a healthy environment is in fact necessary for a healthy economy.
This Administration has betrayed the public trust. George Bush attacks “radical environmentalists” while claiming to be a “conservative,” but in fact, he and his appointees have engaged in the most radical, wasteful, and destructive environmental agenda in the history of our nation. From Bush’s first day in office, he has attacked the environmental and conservation protections authored by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and even his own father. According to the non-partisan League of Conversation Voters, “George W. Bush has compiled the worst environmental record in the history of our nation.” He has eliminated protections that keep our air and water safe, left taxpayers with the tab for toxic waste cleanups, and walked away from efforts to ensure our nation’s environmental security. Conservation is conservative: Conserving what is left of our nation’s natural heritage is the truly conservative thing to do.

We must preserve for future generations the historic legacy of this country and its incredible landscape and resources. Our well-being, and the well-being of our grandchildren, depend upon our ability to meet the extraordinary environmental challenges of this century. I will continue to fight ceaselessly and passionately for these issues throughout my campaign.

[Mabus]

24. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

He's stepping up on global warming.

Schweitzer to form global warming panel

HELENA -- Concerned with high energy costs and continued drought, Gov. Brian Schweitzer wants to form an advisory council to find ways of dealing with global warming in Montana.

Schweitzer sent a letter last month to Richard Opper, head of the state Department of Environmental Quality, asking him to form a Climate Change Advisory Board. The panel, to be composed of Montanans selected from throughout the state, is expected to come up with concrete ways to reduce greenhouse gases produced in Montana by 2007.

"The more oil we consume, the scarcer and more expensive the resource becomes," Schweitzer wrote on Dec. 13. "At the same time, the more oil we consume, the more greenhouse gas emissions we produce."

more at: http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/01/19/news/state/45-warming.txt

[LWolf]

27. Kucinich.

Read speech from house floor: "Global Warming: How Bad Does It Have To Get?"

http://www.kucinich.us/node/280

And more from the "environment" page of his website:

<snip>

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

Personally, I think he and Gore would make a great team on this issue.

[Radical Activist]

29. Edwards, Kerry, Kucinich, Obama

We have a number of people who are great on this issue.

[karynnj]

33. Edwards had a somewhat lack luster record on the

environment as a Senator. There is nothing he has really done since then on the issue.

The fact though is that ANY Democratic canddiate will be on the right side of this - in terms of having a real long term committment to this issue - it's Gore and Kerry. (and per another poster - Obama, from his work in IL.

This will however be a Democratic issue - and I assume that Gore, if not the candidate will be given a role to play here in 2008 in support of any Democrat.

[theHandpuppet]

30. Thanks for all of the replies

Ideally, I believe I would like to see Gore run again. Although I'm aligned most politically with Dennis Kucinich, on a practical level I don't think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I like what I've read about Wes Clark but I still have serious concerns about some other candidates who, I suspect, support environmental issues solely for political expediency. I have to believe they'd do more than just talk. I'm pretty well convinced Gore and Clark could make those hard and even politically unpopular decisions. Thanks!

[babylonsister]

31. Lieberman is, isn't he? And Boxer? nt

[H2O Man]

Great question !

Interesting thread on an important topic. Thank you!

[H2O Man]

32. Dupe .... but I will take

the opportunity to again say that this is a topic that we should all be paying close attention to. It has to be more than merely paying lip service to the subject. I'd like to see personal connections -- such as Al Gore's close association with RFK Jr.

[ProSense]

34. Senator Kerry was on of the original

delegates during the Kyoto negotiations, and before that at the Earth Summit:

In other words, thirteen years ago we recognized climate change as a global problem in need of a global solution. We defined a global goal. And we set a path for future negotiations. It was a small step, but it was a first step, and it was progress.

It was then only a few years later that President Clinton started to build on the foundation laid at the Earth Summit. In Japan, Argentina and the Netherlands, I watched and worked with American delegates as they hammered out the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.

Thanks to the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the Protocol sets the first-ever binding targets to reduce pollution and incorporates a distinctly American approach to a global challenge by creating a market for pollution credits that can drive efficiency, savings and innovation.

Let me emphasize: We knew at the time, the Kyoto Protocol was a work in progress after its initial negotiation. I counseled the President against submitting it to the Congress without more progress on developing nations. We knew there was work to do.

link

John Kerry on Energy and Global Warming

John Kerry advocates a responsible, forward-looking energy policy that would reduce our dependence on oil; increase the energy efficiency of our buildings, homes, and appliances; increase the amount of clean, renewable energy used to create electricity; and make our cars and trucks go further on a gallon of gas. He has championed and introduced legislation on a number of measures to improve fuel economy and to require the use of more clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Kerry has been a champion in leading the fight to defeat the Bush Administration's polluting energy bill, which was hatched in secret by the Cheney Energy Task Force in 2001. In addition, Kerry has been a leading voice for the need to take immediate significant steps to combat global warming. He was a participant in the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and a delegate to the 1997 Kyoto and 2000 Hague climate talks.

link

He strongly advocated for U.S. participation in the Kyoto accords and other international environmental initiatives, and personally participated in many major world environmental summits, including conferences at Rio di Janiero, Kyoto and the Hague.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/about/record.html

H.Con.Res. 83
The 2001 Senate Budget Resolution, passed in the nature of a substitute for language in H.Con.Res.83, included S.Amdt. 249, sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, to restore funding for programs related to global climate change to the funding level of $4.5 billion over 10 years, primarily for existing programs. Among the purposes identified by the amendment were “....to provide increased funding to ensure adequate U.S. participation in negotiations...pursuant to the Senate-ratified U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change...” and other purposes. (Passed by the Senate April 6, 2001. See Congressional Record p. S3641.)

PDF

Here is a speech on global warming delivered by Senator Kerry in October 1997:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week, representatives from over 160 nations are meeting in Bonn, Germany, for the final negotiating session prior to the climate change conference scheduled in Kyoto in December. It is a critical meeting, the culmination of several years of international cooperation on this extraordinarily important global issue.

Over the past several months I have had an opportunity to discuss global warming with scientists and representatives from the United States and abroad and, indeed, we have had one brief discussion on the Senate floor in the context of the Byrd-Hagel amendment.

Last week, I met in London with a number of officials of the Government of Great Britain, but most importantly on this subject with Foreign Minister Robin Cook, to discuss our mutual concerns about the climate change problem and how best to address this issue from a global perspective. As our U.S. negotiators continue their work in Bonn and the President finalizes the U.S. position for the Kyoto conference, I wanted to share with my colleagues some views on the science of global warming, on the international process, the U.S. role, and the next steps that the United States and others should undertake to address this issue in a responsible manner.

Last July, I joined with Senator Byrd and others in the Chamber to discuss global warming and to debate Senate Resolution 98 which addressed some of the Senate position on the Kyoto treaty. The Byrd-Hagel resolution called for the United States to support binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases only if: One, all nations, developed and developing, participate in addressing this global problem; and two, if the commitment did not adversely impact the U.S. economy. In addition, the resolution created a bipartisan Senate observer group of which I am pleased to be a member. Our task is to continue to monitor this process.

I supported the Byrd-Hagel resolution, Mr. President, which passed the Senate 95-0 after we worked out in colloquy some of the interpretations of definitions contained therein. I supported it because I believe that there has to be a universal effort to tackle this ever-growing problem, and that the United States, while taking a lead role, need not jeopardize its economic viability in order to meet our international obligations.

The resolution language, in my judgment, provides enough flexibility to address the concerns of growing economies of the developing world even as we encourage them to join in this global effort.

The resolution was silent, however, as to the science of global warming. It addressed only the U.S. role in the Kyoto negotiations. During the debate over the resolution, there was some discussion by a few Senators over their interpretation individually of the science. But there was no broad debate about the science, and there was certainly in the resolution no judgment by the U.S. Senate whatsoever as to the foundations of science which might or might not be applied to the negotiations in Kyoto . From the statements in the Record by the resolution's chief sponsor, Senator Byrd, it is clear that he agrees, as I and others do, that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis is beyond debate, and that there are many adverse impacts that can be anticipated as a consequence of those theories in fact being found to be true. We are joined by many of our colleagues in thinking that there is sufficient scientific consensus that human activities are exacerbating climate changes.

The vast majority of scientists and policymakers who have examined this issue carefully have concluded that the science is sound and that it is time to take additional steps through the established international theory to address this issue in a more systematic way. A small but extremely vociferous minority continue to assert that the science is not yet convincing. They advocate a wait-and-see approach. They believe that continued review and inaction is best for the U.S. economy and for Americans in general.

Given the money that the very vociferous minority has been expending in trying to promote their view, and given the fact that shortly we will be engaged in some discussions based on the factual foundations of this issue, I would like to address the issue of science for a few moments on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, the vast majority of the scientific community--the vast majority of those who have taken time to make a dispassionate, apolitical, nonideological determination based on lifetimes of work, and certainly on a lifetime-acquired discipline in their particular areas--the vast majority of consensus of those who have been so engaged is that the science regarding global warming is compelling and that to do nothing would be the most dangerous of all options.

In the late 1980's, a number of our Senate colleagues--among them Vice President Gore, State Department Counselor Tim Wirth, Senators John Heinz and Fritz Hollings--and I, and a few others became increasingly concerned about the potential threat of global warming. It was at that time that I joined as an original cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill, the National Global Change Research Act, which attracted support from many Members still serving in this body, including Senators Stevens, McCain, Cochran, Inouye, and Gorton. After numerous hearings and roundtable discussions, this legislation to create the global change research program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration became law in 1990.

As a Senator from a coastal State I take very seriously parochial implications of global warming. As a United States Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am also concerned about the crafting of a workable international response that treats all parties--including the United States --fairly.

I have stated that I would be happy to engage any of my colleagues in the debate on the science of climate change here on the Senate floor, or elsewhere. And I have sought on numerous occasions--as yet not successfully--to try to get an adequate airing of the science within the Senate observer group. And it is my hope that, before that group reports to the Senate, a broad-based review of the science will be undertaken in a bipartisan, nonpolitical way.

But, Mr. President, before we even proceed further with that

analysis, I want to take this opportunity to at least lay out some precursor truths with respect to the science as we know it.

Whether by nature or experience, we know that scientists are a fundamentally cautious group of people. That is why I find it particularly compelling that over 2,000 scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the most comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed assessment of any environmental problem ever undertaken--concluded that global climate change is currently under way. The 1995 IPCC report concludes that the Earth has already warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that `the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.' The IPCC estimates that the global surface air temperature will increase another 2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. Their `best guess' is that we will experience warming of about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That would be a faster rate of climate change than any experienced during the last 10,000 years of the history of this planet. And we have to recognize that the human history as we have recorded it and, therefore, understand its impact on ourselves and current human endeavor is within a span of about 8,000 years.

The conclusion that the observed warming trend is not simply a natural fluctuation is affirmed by the research of several institutions. Basing their conclusions on climate model calculations, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, concluded that the warming of the Earth over the past 30 years goes far beyond natural variations. Indeed, there is a judgment that there is only a 1-in-40 chance of that variation being natural. So we are dealing with a 1-in-40 prospect in terms of odds.

The United States and other governments have been collecting at ground-based and ocean-based sites global surface temperature measurements since the year 1880. Remarkably the 11 warmest years this century have all occurred since 1980, with 1995 the warmest on record.

Some will argue that there are discrepancies between our long-term surface record and recent satellite observations. But that fact--by again nonideological dispassionate and nonpolitical scientists--has been determined to be not surprising at all because the two techniques--measurement at the surface and measurement by satellite--are entirely different. They measure temperature at different parts of the Earth's system--the surface and various layers of the atmosphere. In addition, other factors, such as the presence of airborne materials from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo volcano, affect each record in a very different way.

The natural `greenhouse effect' has made life on Earth possible. Without it, our planet would be about 60 degrees colder. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, trap the solar heat, and they slow the loss of that solar heat by the reradiation back into space. That is a natural process.

But with industrialization and with population growth, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have consistently increased. Anthropogenic climate changes, most importantly the burning of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas--and deforestation, have tipped the very delicate balance of nature. We all know that the forests of the planet play a critical role in the recycling of carbon dioxide. The forests in the Amazon, all through Central and Latin America, and all through Asia have been disappearing in entirely measurable and discernible ways. As we have seen by satellite photography over the last 15 or 20 years, all of the areas of the Earth's green are beginning to shrink in those satellite photographs; we understand that we are diminishing our capacity to do the recycling of the CO2.

Therefore, more gas is trapped. More gases have the impact of diminishing the amount of reradiation that takes place. This natural climate variability alone, including the effect of volcanic

eruptions and solar variability--that is, sunspot activity--would not have changed carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. However, the manmade addition, presently about 3 percent of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed what is known to be the balancing effects of `carbon sinks.' As a result, carbon dioxide is gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until, at present, its concentration is 30 percent above preindustrial levels. Existing data of other greenhouse gases show increasing concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons over recent decades. While ice core data show that concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide have increased in the past few centuries, after having been relatively constant for thousands of years, chlorofluorocarbons are absent from deep-ice cores because they have no natural sources and were not manufactured before 1930.

So I want to emphasize for those who try to doubt the science, for those who come and say there is no indicator of this change and that we have only been recording the temperature since 1880, the fact is that both in the Arctic and the Antarctic we have accumulations of thousands of years--tens of thousands of years--of ice. And we have to be able to bore down into that ice. In the bores that we bring out--just as we have tested and found geological formations which have allowed us to drill for gas--we have been able to come up with ice cores. And as the scientists look at those ice cores, they have been able to measure the degree of carbon dioxide that was trapped in those ice cores. By measuring that, and, indeed, by measuring the absence of chlorofluorocarbons, we have been able to trace thousands of years of climatic activity and change that we otherwise would not have knowledge of.

That is what has given us this capacity to make a determination about the rapidity with which changes are taking place today relative to what we knew or can discern was taking place thousands of years ago.

While we have no control over sun spots or volcanoes, we, obviously, can control human activities.

Then the question will be, `Well, why should we do that? What is the showing that somehow this really represents a danger sufficient to require a response from Government?' Well, the essential issue here, Mr. President, is one of compounding emissions over time. We know that the emissions we put into the atmosphere today have a life that goes on and on and on. It is like nuclear material that has a half-life. So does this material have a half-life. And the fact is that, even if we were to stop our activity today, what is already in the atmosphere will continue to do the damage that it does. And the models have to measure the rate at which we might be able to reduce today in order to guarantee that you have turned off the spigot sufficiently to be able to control what will happen in the future. But anyone who follows the stock market or even your back account, obviously, understands the miracle of compounded interest. It means that a small amount set aside becomes a big amount over time.

That is what is happening to the Earth's accumulation of greenhouse gases. Many of these gases reside in the atmosphere for years to come--hundreds to thousands of years. Even constant emissions of the gases can cause atmospheric concentrations to build up rapidly.

So, unlike the stock market, when it comes to emissions, the small amounts don't necessarily bring a miracle. But they could bring enormous calamities.

So why would we care if the Earth warms a few degrees? I have actually heard people say it really doesn't matter that much if all of a sudden North Dakota or South Dakota became a little more attractive, and they don't have as long a winter, or somehow you have a longer hiking season in a particular State. Well, Mr. President, it isn't that simple. It just isn't reduced to that kind of simplistic judgment about the overall impacts.


The IPCC scientific assessment of climate change estimated that the average surface temperature will increase by 1 to 3.5 degrees with an associated rise in sea level of 6 to 37 inches. These changes are projected to lead to a number of potentially serious consequences with incidence of heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme events affecting human health and natural ecosystems.

Americans will experience more health problems and there will be an increase in health-induced deaths from future warming. Heat waves of the type in the 1995 Chicago heat wave which killed 465 people will occur more frequently, and increased warming will exacerbate existing air quality problems such as smog that aggravate asthma and allergic disorders, especially in children and the elderly. Warmer climates breed diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fevers, encephalitis, and cholera due to the expansive range of mosquitoes as a consequence of increased warmer climates and other disease-carrying organisms.

One key aspect of climate change that is important to remember is the slow capacity of any corrective action to have an impact. Harvard professor and member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Dr. John Holdren, shared his analogy at the White House Round Table on Climate Change. He said:


GPO's PDFThe world's energy-economic system is a lot like a supertanker, very hard to steer and with very bad brakes * * * and we know from the science that the supertanker is heading for a reef * * * it's a bad idea to keep on a course of full speed ahead.

The oceans are going to continue to expand for several centuries even after the temperatures stabilize. We are currently dealing with rising sea levels that are already eroding beaches and wetlands, inundating low-lying areas and increasing the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding from storm surges and intense rainfall.

We know how costly droughts, flood control, and erosion mitigation efforts can be to the taxpayers. We constantly, every year, are facing requests from one community or another to do a beach-erosion project or to undertake some kind of erosion mitigation, and we spend literally millions of dollars in insurance as a consequence of those anticipated problems already.

Damages from the southern plains drought of 1996 were estimated at $4 billion; the 1993 Mississippi River flood damages were $10 billion to $20 billion; the Pacific Northwest floods of the winter of 1996-97 were $3 billion; the 1997 Ohio River flood was nearly $1 billion; and the 1997 river flood in the Northern Plains was another $2 billion. And this is just the impact of the changes perceived in the United States in the last few years.

Scientists have not definitively said that any one of these events I just listed is absolutely tied to global warming. And I am not going to suggest that that is in fact true if they are not willing to suggest that that there is that linkage. But the scientists have issued a warning. The scientists have issued a warning--not the politicians, the scientists. And their warning is that these disasters collectively show precisely what we are likely to see if we do not reverse the current trend lines of global warming. And we will see them with greater frequency, with more destruction under global warming.

The areas of greatest vulnerability are those where quality and quantity of water are already problems such as the arid and semiarid regions in the United States and the world. If warming trends were to continue, then water scarcity in the Middle East and Africa will become even more pronounced, exacerbating tensions among countries that depend on water supplies that originate outside of their borders.

Another key area of concern will be the dramatic alteration of geographic distributions of vegetation. The composition of one-third of the Earth's forests would undergo major changes as a result of a doubling of preindustrial carbon dioxide levels. Over the next 100 years, the range of some North American forest

species will shift by as much as 300 miles to the north, far faster than the forests can migrate naturally. For example, in my region of the country, New England, we could lose the most economically important species, the sugar maple.

Other areas of the country would be hit economically as well. The tourism industry, for instance, surrounding the Glacier National Park could literally evaporate along with glaciers which we already know have receded steadily for decades. Since the park's founding, over 70 percent of the glaciers have already melted. Model projections indicate that all of the park's glaciers will disappear by the year 2030 unless temperatures begin to cool. One-third to one-half of the world's mountain glacier mass could disappear by the year 2100, thus eliminating a natural reservoir of water for many areas.

Let me give an example. In Lima, Peru, the entire water supply for 10 million people depends on the annual summer melt from a glacier that is now in rapid retreat. These are just some of the predictions, predictions made by scientists, predictions made by various models where they have taken the data which scientists have agreed on--not speculated about, but agreed on.

The facts about global warming are beyond reasonable scientific doubt, and they ought to be beyond reasonable policymaking doubt.

Mr. John Browne, CEO of British Petroleum, in a recent speech at Stanford University said:

The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point.

That is the CEO of British Petroleum saying that they have reached the point of concluding that linkage exists.

Efforts to rein in and reduce manmade contributions of such emissions are now warranted. Worst case scenarios under current business-as-usual practices are catastrophic.

So let me turn for a moment to the international efforts and the role of the United States at this point.

In 1992, it was precisely because of those scientific conclusions that I have just enumerated that President Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio signed a climate-change agreement, and it was ratified later that year by the Senate. That agreement pledged that nations would reduce their gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Regrettably, the vast majority of nations, including the United States, have failed to achieve this goal. Today, the United States has increased emissions about 8 percent above 1990 levels. Much of that increase has been tied to our economic expansion.

However, it should also be noted that industry during this remarkable growth period was also engaged in a voluntary program to reduce emissions. While not achieving its objective completely, the voluntary effort did meet 70 percent of the original targets at a time when the American economy grew and wherein the American jobs machine was rolling along at as high a rate as we have seen in recent years. The relative success of voluntary industry effort ought to encourage confidence that more comprehensive efforts under a global regime can result in greater progress at far less cost than Cassandras allowed for.

However, the question is now for all countries, developed and developing, to step forward to support binding commitments to reach an acceptable level of human-induced emissions. That is why the United States is engaged in negotiating a legally binding climate-change agreement to be finalized in Kyoto this December.

Our challenge is to shape an agreement which sets tough, realistic global emission standards and goals while harnessing the market forces to lower costs, foster technological development, and ensure economic growth.

The climate change problem is global. It requires a solution, obviously, that includes a global response--participation from

all nations, industrialized countries and those countries in the developing world. The best approach is to establish a global economic incentive program in which the free market and not Government intervention is driving the reductions.

The goal of universal participation via an international treaty with binding commitments ought to be undertaken now, not with delay, not with an effort to try to have subterfuge diminish what we can accomplish in Kyoto . The United States, with 22 percent of global emissions, is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And today the industrial world comprises nearly three-quarters of all of the global emissions. But that does not mean that we are the only ones who should deal with this problem. The reason for that is clear. China is currently the world's second largest emitter, and it is expected to displace the United States as the largest emitter by the year 2015. Over the next few decades, 90 percent of the world's population growth will take place in the developing world. Given the projected economic and population growth statistics of China and other quickly developing countries such as India, Mexico and Brazil, the developing world will exceed the industrialized world in emissions by the year 2035.

Universal participation, therefore, does not mean we have to all begin at the same time. It does not mean you have to embrace the exact same commitment at the exact same implementation moment. Clearly, if one country is doing more than another, there is room for us to be able to negotiate an agreement where we all meet at the appropriate point. But it does mean that it is quite reasonable for the industrialized nations, those nations that have put most of the greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere, initially to take the lead, as long as in so doing they do not simply fall into a trap of disadvantaging themselves economically. A scenario where the industrialized world acts alone will not be enough to prevent the costly implications of global warming in the future.

I want to emphasize that. The developing nations cannot go to Kyoto and suggest that it is up to the developed world simply to bear the burden of reductions, because even if we reduce to the greatest degree possible, we cannot alone avert the problems that will come from global warming. It is absolutely essential that China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries join in the effort with an understanding that we are moving down this road together.

Currently, many of these developing nations are not inclined to join in an international treaty. Some believe it is not in their immediate economic interests to do so. Others believe that as long as the biggest contributors to the problem, the industrialized nations, are not taking sufficient effective steps to cut back on greenhouse pollution, it is not in the interest of their nations to do so either. One could well understand how they would make that kind of determination. Some of them cite the language of the 1995 `Berlin Mandate,' calling on the Annex I countries, the developed countries, to be the ones to complete a treaty with binding commitments by December 1997 but to leave excluded the developing world from an established binding reduction target.

Let me say that in my reading of the `Berlin Mandate,' I do not believe that we are precluded from proceeding to Kyoto in an effort to come up with a two-stage arrangement which would have the developed countries enter into an agreement while simultaneously bringing the developed countries along.

I don't believe it is in any nation's interest to thwart international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in as expeditious and as economically feasible a manner as possible. The remaining option is the option of doing nothing, and nothing would, in most people's judgment, be ultimate mutual devastation.

The only viable solution is a global treaty which provides economic incentives for all nations. I believe such a treaty can be crafted, one that would include all nations but permit flexibility in the targets and flexibility in the timing of compliance for developing nations, while at the same time requiring all countries to agree to make legally binding commitments by a date certain. If the United States signs such a treaty, it would be reasonable for the President to refrain from transmitting that treaty to the Senate until the developing world signs its binding commitments. In that way we can make Kyoto a success, coming up with the binding agreements necessary but still maintain and keep good faith with the approach we have thus far deemed to be the roadmap to the achievement of this treaty.

In this Chamber I previously shared my concerns with a component of the European proposal as it currently stands. The Europeans continue to argue for a treaty that would enable the European Union to secure an exclusive bubble emissions policy. This is tantamount to a regional emissions trading program. They want Europe to be contained under one bubble, whereby they can trade their emissions within the European bubble, a license, in effect, to increase emissions in some European countries by relying on the trendline decreases that are already in place in others. Such a posture is helpful only to the European Union. It fails to address the essential need to engage those rapidly growing economies of the developing world, and it excludes other industrialized countries which could be left to meet target reductions in a more costly manner.

The European proposal would provide the Europeans with a competitive advantage over the United States by creating this collective emissions cap as opposed to country-by-country reduction targets. Some European countries could actually increase their emissions by up to 40 percent. This approach, coupled with their opposition to joint implementation with developing nations, seems to be aimed almost exclusively at beating the United States out of economically sensible emissions reduction activities in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Far East, and elsewhere. I think they should know that is not acceptable under most people's definition of fairness.

Therefore, it is my feeling that we should approach Kyoto in the following way. I believe President Clinton and his advisers have been developing a U.S. position for these negotiations that moves mostly in the right direction. I have shared views with the administration over the course of these last months and in recent weeks, and there are a number of different options that are currently rumored to be under consideration by the President. It is my hope the President will announce a U.S. position that is aggressive in curbing the projected business-as-usual trendline.

I believe the President ought to press for a proposal that will seek at least a target of 2010, rather than the outyear options of 2020 or 2030 that we have heard discussed. The Europeans, given the protection of their European bubble proposal, have proposed a 15 percent reduction below the 1990 levels by the year 2010. Perhaps without the bubble this level may prove to be too ambitious to achieve without significant harm to their economies. However, I believe it is realistic for the United States and other nations to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010, remembering, of course, that our original goal was to do so by the year 2000. With additional economic incentives such as early credits for reductions and joint implementation and a market-oriented emissions trading system, perhaps additional reductions could be undertaken.

I believe also that the centerpiece of the U.S. negotiating position should be a worldwide emissions trading

program. Emissions trading is an important market mechanism that will benefit all countries including the United States. But it is not only advantageous to U.S. businesses. It will provide developing countries with incentives to sign up to binding legal commitments that are absolutely essential to a workable treaty.

The market-based approach of emissions trading is a sensible one that helps businesses lower costs by promoting emissions reductions and by giving the industry flexibility to decide how they will go about reducing pollution. We know an emissions trading system could reduce the cost of emissions controls dramatically, afford American industry great opportunities to do what we do best, which is to innovate, to develop cheaper, better ways of getting the job done. And, if the system includes joint implementation with developing countries, providing jobs here at home in the well-paying technology export sectors that serve the booming demands in rapidly industrializing nations, we would be well served.

Experiences in States such as Massachusetts or California or Texas or Florida, States which have invested in technology and which have built on their combined technology bases and education bases--those experiences have proven where we invest in technology in order to solve some of these problems, we inevitably not only create jobs for Americans but we wind up creating an export capacity, because we are the leading, cutting edge of technology and we wind up greatly reducing the costs that the original estimates are based on.

If you look at the SO2 reduction programs in this country, I remember the automobile and other industries arguing it was going to be upward of $1,000 per ton to reduce. In fact, because of the technology advances, the costs have come in around $90. Therefore, the opportunity, by virtue of pushing our technology and advancing our capacity to transfer that technology to the developing countries, can assist all of us in the effort to create jobs and to provide for the gains necessary to be able to meet these targets. The United States should contain in this effort, along with the rest of the industrialized countries, a significant technology transfer component in order to assist in achieving this treaty and its goals.

Economically, the best time to establish an international trading program is now. Many developing countries are currently investing in long-term energy programs. By excluding any discussion of joint implementation with developing countries and early credits for reductions prior to implementation of such a system, important incentives to encourage developing countries to begin shifting their development trajectory to a cleaner path would be lost. U.S. industry and U.S. competitiveness are the winners of an international trading system, wholly apart from any environmental gains.

Environmentally, we need to get the trading program going as soon as possible, and world events are escalating the seriousness of the problem. The terrible fires in Indonesia and the havoc that that conflagration continues to wreak on the people of South Asia are additional testaments to an urgent need for a global framework that provides powerful market incentives for environmentally friendlier behavior. Emissions from these fires are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and destroying forests that could be protected and harvested in a much more sustainable manner. A Kyoto protocol that provides credits for protecting forests that sequester carbon dioxide, and an income stream that would potentially be available to those who husband the forest, would be an important step for the nations and the peoples of the worlds.

A model for such a regime is the SO2 trading program contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act. That program, as I mentioned a moment ago, really contradicted what had been predicted by the industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, some initial industry estimates for those SO2 reductions were $1,500 per ton but which actually came in at $90 per ton, which was 6 percent of the original doom forecast of the industry.

I would like to emphasize one point about the sulfur program that is key to its success. In the sulfur trading program, the Government has resisted the temptation to intervene in the market and provide price props or cushions, or to print new allowances and sell them at a set price. I understand that one option before the President is exactly such an approach. I believe other Senators would join me and strongly urge him to resist such intervention here. When the Government intervenes in market trading it inevitably drives those prices up.

My recommendation to the President would be that any proposal that would make companies pay the Government for additional carbon permits is likely to be regarded--in this institution, anyway--as a thinly veiled tax, and would, frankly, not receive favorable reception. I urge the President to let the market for greenhouse emissions reductions do what the markets do best, which is to spur companies to develop better products at a lower cost. I am very optimistic that the President will ultimately make a judgment that would be opposed to that alternative, significant intervention in the marketplace.

A second goal should be a framework that brings all countries into this effort at the beginning while allowing for the developing countries to initiate their reduction efforts at a different rate than the industrialized world. I think this is an essential component of any realistic approach to this effort. Even without a universal emission reductions program, the Montreal Protocol, signed by President Reagan during his second term, called for the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons. As with the SO2 estimates, the CFC reduction costs were grossly exaggerated by certain industry sectors. Market-type mechanisms in the Montreal Protocol and the U.S. domestic implementation program drove prices down, with the result that companies were spurred to bring online CFC substitutes that proved cheaper and cleaner. A more inclusive treaty, covering all greenhouse gas emissions, sources and sinks would produce even more economic and environmental progress.

A final goal is to recognize the opportunity presented by technology to help in this effort. The United States is now a world leader in the high tech industries of pollution prevention, abatement and control. With a global emissions reduction treaty, the faster we invest in new pollution prevention and energy conservation technologies, the faster we will achieve emissions reductions and the quicker we will gain market share in the international arena. This means more jobs for U.S. workers and more revenues for U.S. companies. If we don't, then someone else will.

I would simply cite the example of what took place in the two decades ago. At the end of the 1970's, President Carter had made a commitment to alternative and renewable fuel research. Regrettably, when the Reagan administration arrived in 1980, support for the institute in Colorado was withdrawn. So it was that over a 10-year period of time the great lead that the United States had built up in photovoltaics and in alternatives and renewables was lost.

Today, as the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe come online in their effort to try to reduce the grotesque pollution that is one of the longest legacies of the Communist rule, they are turning to the Japanese and to the Germans for the technology where we once were the leader. But since we withdrew our own investment, we ceased to be that leader.

So I believe there is, in this effort, an enormous economic opportunity for the United States for the future. At home, we need to consider ways to leverage our technological leadership through domestic tax provisions, such as a zero capital gains tax rate, or a specifically targeted investment tax credit for companies that invest in pollution prevention and energy conservation, or quicker depreciation of investment in such technologies. I repeat, a zero capital gains tax rate or faster depreciation for those companies that invest in energy saving, energy conservation and pollution prevention.

I anticipate, Mr. President, that following the announcement the President makes regarding a U.S. proposal, regardless of what that proposal entails, there will be a number of colleagues on the floor of the Senate denouncing it, arguing that the science is not yet there or that the economic assumptions are unreliable. Some will argue it is unnecessary and too costly for the United States to participate in an international treaty.

On the contrary. I believe the evidence from scientists is overwhelming, that it is far too costly to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Mr. President, 2,500 leading economists, including 8 Nobel laureates tell us:

For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may, in fact, improve U.S. production in the long term.

I believe that if we heed the warnings, if we plan for the future now, if we avoid allowing this to become the political football that it might, if we seek the involvement of all nations, we can secure a healthy planet for ourselves and for our children and for future generations, and we can exercise our responsibility as U.S. Senators in the way that we ought to. I yield the floor.

Senator Kerry's environmental record is more than 30 years strong, dating back to the first Earth Day in 1970.

[karynnj]

35. Attending the first earth summit in Rio, was likely one of most important events in Kerry's life

He met a non-governmental delegate who was attending because of her own standing as an environmentalist - Teresa Heinz.

Their genuine interest in the environment is what brought them together.