Hillary, Obama, and Edwards on the environment

[Stop Cornyn]

Here is a link to the League of Conservation Voters scorecard: http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/lcv_chart.pdf

Here is Grist's analysis:

Hillary Clinton dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change and energy independence, seeing the former as a way to reach young people and the latter as a way to sound tough. She's been somewhat vague on the details. Her distinctive contribution is the notion of a "Strategic Energy Fund" financed by repealed tax breaks and royalties from oil companies. Where she mentions specific solutions, she tends to focus on "clean coal" and ethanol. She signed on to the Sanders-Boxer climate bill, the most ambitious climate bill in the Senate, but only in May, after Edwards had endorsed bold emissions targets. On these issues, Clinton is studious and solid, but not out front.

Barack Obama's take on energy and climate is, well, Obaman: the rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental. With the exception of showy gimmicks like his "Healthcare for Hybrids" bill, he's largely been a follower, signing on to multiple cap-and-trade bills and copping Schwarzenegger's low-carbon fuel standard. His main splash in the energy world happened when he came out cheerleading for liquified coal, which coal barons (especially in his home state of Illinois) loved but plenty of other folks hated; he later "clarified" his way back to safety. On these issues, Obama is largely platitudinous and reserved.

John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three front-runners. He's stumping for 80 percent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and fleshing that goal out with detailed proposals for a renewable portfolio standard, big boosts in fuel efficiency, changes to the energy grid and efficiency standards (the only front-runner to emphasize these), a green-jobs program, and more. On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails.

http://grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/06/candidates/

[quinnox]

1. They all will be better than Bush

I'm not sure who is the best on the environment but they are all going to be a lot better.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Went to a MoveON houseparty last night...

with the candidates all environmentally pontificating and answering a few questions sent in.

My feeling about the whole thing is that every one of them was simply full of campaign bullshit-- all paid lip service to environmental causes, and all would be better than the President-like object we now have, but none really had concrete and workable ideas.

Lotta good campaign slogans, though.

[Tejanocrat]

4. The differences among the candidates aren't all talk; substantively, the candidates differ on CAFE

standards (Hillary wants to set a goal lower than the other candidates and lower than the LCV advocates), they differ on new coal plants (Edwards supports the conditional ban which the LCV advocates, Obama and Hillary don't), and they differ on liquid coal (Edwards supports LCV's opposition to coal liquefaction, but Hillary and Obama support limited coal liquefaction).

Source: http://pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/lcv_chart.pdf

[jsamuel]

5. plus one of Edwards' main campaign themes is to create a "new energy economy"

where poverty is lessened by the creation of millions of jobs for renewable energy research and development.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Sure, but "workable" is the key, and...

I thought by now everyone understood that "programs" put out by all candidates on all issues are simply talking points and rarely have any chance of passage as proposed.

I'm not listening to talk of specific programs or standards, but for a deeper understanding of the problems and the depth of commitment from the candidate. That's the sort of thing that's difficult for even the best of them to get across because the main point in campaigning now is not how many people you can impress with your vision, but how few you manage to piss off.

I'd say Edwards and Richardson are closer to my own ideas, from what I saw the other night, but I doubt they could get much through for the foreseeable future. And they ain't perfect by a long shot. One of them talked about all government cars getting 40 mopg, which sounds good until you realize the largest government user of fuel is the military, which, like Homeland Security, will be exempt from any such controls.

Now, who do we think is the best to deal with peak oil at $100+ a barrel, global sea rise, collapse of fish stocks, scarce fresh water, other pollution and environmental issues and the economic and social problems which shall ensue? Oh, and all those other things a President has to deal with.

[snowbear]

3. Governor Richardson is receiving kudos from the League of Conservation Voters..

Both in New Mexico ->> http://www.cvnm.org/News-Events/CVNM_Press.html

And nationally --

WASHINGTON, DC - League of Conservation Voters (LCV) President Gene Karpinski issued the following statement regarding presidential candidate Bill Richardson's plan to combat global warming:


"The League of Conservation Voters applauds Governor Richardson for proposing an aggressive plan for America's energy future while dramatically curbing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.


Of all the candidates' plans to date, Richardson sets the highest goals for reducing global warming pollution and increasing production from renewable energy sources. His is the first plan to call for at least a 20 percent reduction in global warming pollution by the year 2020, and a 90 percent reduction by mid-century. The Richardson plan also calls for a national renewable electricity standard of 30 percent by 2020 and 50 by 2040.

Continued: http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/page.jsp?itemID=33897201

~~~~

[OneBlueSky]

7. I hope someone asks all of the announced candidates if they support . . .

Al Gore's proposal to reduce carbon emissions in developed countries by 90% . . . my guess is that they'll either reject it outright or, more likely, bury it in heaping piles of eloquent sounding bullshit . . .

[Duppers]

8. K & R

this is important