Which candidate will do the most to fight global warming?

[crispini]

Global warming, to me, is the #1 issue of our time, because it threatens the future of life on earth. I was originally a member of the Draft Gore movement because of this. (I wish Mr. Gore would endorse!) To be perfectly honest it may already be too late to do anything, but I am willing to try. I would ideally like to see one of the candidates advocate a "Manhattan Project" type of thing to focus on alternative energy as well as things that we can do to counterbalance what's already gone wrong.

I am leaning one way, but am still officially undecided, and this is the issue that could really tip it for me. I am going to the candidate's websites now to research this, but would also appreciate any input here.

Thanks and please keep it civil. :hi:

[9119495]

1. The Democratic candidate. n/t

[terrya]

2. I think both candidates will be good on this issue.

[crispini]

8. You're probably right.

But I have decided it's time to make up my mind, and this is the issue that is the most important to me, so I'm going to start by looking at it. :D

[crispini]

3. Here's Hillary's program

POWERING AMERICA'S FUTURE: NEW ENERGY, NEW JOBS

Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs.

Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.

Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.

Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jumpstarting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research. She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes and take concrete steps to reduce electricity consumption, including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds."

To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Hillary's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:


* A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;
* An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
* A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
* Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
* Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
* 10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
* An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
* A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
* A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;
* A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
* Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
* A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. I see an unwarranted assumption

Specifically: that either will do squat. Clinton and Obama are so deep in the major polluters' pockets, their only environmental concern is the methane from their political patrons episodes of flatulence.

[crispini]

6. So what's your plan?

Going to write-in somebody on the primary ticket?

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. The Washington State primary is meaningless

I did attend the caucus, and stood for Uncommitted. Personally, I think neither Clinton nor Obama should be elected. Quite unfortunately, it will be one or the other.

[crispini]

21. Did you ever see that South Park episode where the kids have to choose their school mascot?

And they have to choose between the douchebag and the shit sandwich? LOL.

Totally vulgar, but I find myself thinking of that quite often in electoral contests.

The system is set up to push candidates towards the middle. Now, when we get true campaign finance reform, THEN we'll see something.

[crispini]

5. Here's Barack's

The Problem

Foreign Oil: America's 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.

Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Barack Obama's Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

* Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
* Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future

* Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
* Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
* Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
* Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
* Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
* Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

Support Next Generation Biofuels

* Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
* Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
* Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
* Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
* Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

* Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
* Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

Barack Obama's Record

* Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
* CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results."

[End Of The Road]

9. Too little too late?

I don't know about you, crispini, but when I see target dates of 2050 and 2070, and think about all the intervening presidents and potential "other" crises between now and then, I just can't get that excited about either's environmental platform.

Fighting global warming is near the top of my list of priorities, too, and there are so many things that could be done that neither candidate talks about in enough detail. Frustrating to figure out who would do more.

[crispini]

10. Yeah, I know.

I understand it's the Presidential race and there are all kinds of other things that need to be talked about, BUT, I agree. I'm not seeing the emphasis on either side that I would really like to see.

Edit: Both want to reduce 80% by 2050. Interesting how on the key point there, they both have the exact same number.

[crispini]

7. Okay, I have actually spotted a difference

This may just be a difference of stuff on their website, but I do like that Barack has stuff on there about global leadership WRT climate change. Because it's not just us, it's also China and the other up and coming countries who will be doing lots more polluting in the years to come.

I really think if we can come up with a good technology to replace the polluting ones, that somehow we could help "leap" these new countries right over the bad ones and onto the new tech. That happened with cell phones, after all.

[End Of The Road]

15. One thing I'd like them to go after, fast

is building codes for homes. I live in a small house, so sometimes for fun I go to open houses in new (McMansion) developments to see how the other half lives, so to speak.

Most of the ones I've gone in have left me thinking, "wow, this ought to be illegal." Sure, the place may have energy efficient appliances, but nothing else about it is in the least energy efficient.

[crispini]

18. Oh, lord, I know.

We have a builder in our area that's LEED certified. So that's great, except -- he's building these 4000 square foot green McMansions. I mean, it's a lot better than building non-green McMansions, don't get me wrong, but he's tearing down existing housing stock to do it. I wish I could find the statistics somewhere, but I'm reasonably sure that tearing down a house and building a new one is, bottom-line, going to have a much greater environmental impact than retrofitting an existing house.

Not to mention all the STUFF that goes with the 4000 square foot house -- that in and of itself is not environmentally friendly. We Americans need to get over our addiction to stuff. Small is beautiful, we don't need all that junk, and if we don't, we are going to SHOP our way into an early grave for the planet.

[Iceburg]

11. Well given that next to Gore, Bobby Kennedy Jr endorses Hillary

and not being an authority on the subject myself ... I have to trust Bobby Kennedy Jr (Gore's right hand man)

[crispini]

12. Didn't know that, thanks!

Worth considering.

Yes, I agree, I am not an expert either. It looks to me like both of them have good programs (or at least both look good on paper) so I have to wonder when either of them get into office, how much effort they would devote towards pushing this through. In other words, where is it on the priority list for each. Hmm.

[Iceburg]

20. I know Hillary has done quite a bit in NY...

of particular interest to me are the willow bio-fuel projects (an excellent alternative to corn) as I have some vacant land that I would like to convert to viable energy crops. Willow/salix is also being offered up as an alternative crop to poppies in Afghanistan ...many thanks to Hillary Clinton. (see wmv video)

see the willow projec New York

[Mass]

14. And Kerry, which has a great record on these issues endorsed Obama as did Representative Earl

Representative Earl Blumenauer from Oregon.

[Stephanie]

37. Bobby wants her Senate seat

Sorry, but I think that's the reason behind his endorsement.

[crispini]

13. Aha! I will look at the League of Conservation Voters voters guide.

http://www.lcv.org/voterguide/

[crispini]

16. Clinton lifetime LCV score: 90

In 2000, LCV endorsed Sen. Clinton in her campaign for the U.S. Senate. In 2006, LCV named Sen. Clinton an Environmental Champion in her campaign for re-election to the U.S. Senate.

2
To view Hillary Clinton’s responses to LCV’s Presidential Questionnaire, visit:
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Clinton/tab1.html
25
*
Global Warming Policies Snapshot (Formatting off because it was a table, so LCV is first, then Clinton)

1) LCV’s Position
2) Clinton

Mandatory cap and 100% auction of pollution permits
Supports a mandatory cap on emissions and 100% auction of pollution permits

At least 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 80% reductions by 2050

At least 40 mpg fleetwide standard in 10 years
Supports 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg standard by 2030

20% renewables by 2020
Supports 25% renewables by 2025

Reduce energy consumption 10% by 2020 from current levels
Supports 20% reduction in energy consumption by 2020 from projected levels

Moratorium on all new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon emissions
Supports a phased-in requirement to have new coal plants capture and store carbon

Oppose any development of liquid coal
Supported investing in liquid coal if it reduced carbon pollution by 20%

[crispini]

17. Obama LCV Lifetime score: 96

LCV endorsed Sen. Obama in his primary and general election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and ran independent expenditures on his behalf in the primary. As a state senator in Illinois, Sen. Obama was one of only six state senators who received a 100% Environmental Voting Record Award for 2003 from the Illinois Environmental Council.8

Global Warming Policies Snapshot
LCV’s Position
Obama

Mandatory cap and 100% auction of pollution permits
Supports a mandatory cap on emissions and 100% auction of pollution permits

At least 80% reductions by 2050
Supports 80% reductions by 2050

At least 40 mpg fleetwide standard in 10 years
Supports 52 mpg fleetwide standard by 2026

20% renewables by 2020
Supports 25% renewables by 2025

Reduce energy consumption 10% by 2020 from current levels
Supports 50% reduction in energy intensity by 2030

Moratorium on all new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon emissions
Would consider a moratorium on new coal plants if a mandatory cap does not slow the construction of new plants

Oppose any development of liquid coal
Supported investing in liquid coal if it reduced carbon pollution by 20%

Ok, this isn't helping much. But it's kind of encouraging. Both are right in line with the LCV positions. Actually, this exercise is making me feel a bit better about our choices.

[karynnj]

22. Actually, Global warming may not be that much of an issue - for a good reason

When we started this year, EVERY Democrat had a plan that would move the country in the right direction, but no Republican but McCain would. McCain is unusual in being a Republican who has a decent record on global warming. He fought for CAFE standard improvements in the 1990s with Kerry. He has made dealing with global warming part of his agenda in a maverick split with his party.

Both Democrats have ambitious plans they support on global warming - But neither has had this as a major area they have worked on. This may be an issue where neither has an edge in 2008. (In fact, McCain may end up speaking of how he worked (unsuccessfully to raise the CAFE standards in the 1990s, when in reality they went down because SUVs weren't included.

[crispini]

23. I understand your point, but that actually makes me a bit uncomfortable.

It seems to me that in this election, the issue is in danger of becoming, "Oh, that's an issue that we can't differentiate ourselves on so we're not going to discuss it" -- but what does that mean for when the election is over? I am concerned that this issue is sort of falling back into eclipse with all of the hubbub about other things. I do NOT want it to get obscured and I want to choose the candidate who is going to DO something and not just talk a good game.

[karynnj]

27. I am saying that this is an issue that we have likely won

No Democrat will be able to walk away from dealing with global warming. Thanks mostly to Gore, this is an issue that Democrats are convinced is important. This is to a degree that if either were elected and did nothing significant, they would likely face a primary challenge - possibly from Gore or Kerry in 2012. But this is extremely unlikely to happen. They will likely have a more Democratic Senate and possibly house.

Already people from both parties are speaking seriously of cap and trade bills - there have been hearings all over the Senate on it - from the environmental committee, to the commerce committee, to the small business committee to the Finance committee - and I likely missed some here. That means that a huge number of Senators and their staff are becoming as educated on these issues as compared to the small number in previous years. (You have people like Biden saying in the SFRC that Kerry had spoken about that (the national security impacts of global warming) for over 15 years and they should have listened.

Neither Obama or Clinton, have the decades long environmental and global warming records that Gore or Kerry have, but they are both completely sincere in their desire to fix it. I seriously doubt that Kerry, for whom this is an important enough issue that he took 40 hours of commercial flights to spend a day and a half speaking to delegations in Bali, would have endorsed Obama as firmly as he did without knowing that Obama would do all he could on this. I assume that RFKjr was similarly sure or he would not have endorsed HRC.

I was not saying that this will not be spoken about - it will. McCain did not have his photo op with McCain at the solar power place by chance. Nor, did he do this to win votes in the primaries - it was to stake a high profile claim on this issue. I assume the environment and global warming will be important, but second tier issues. The difference is that after the stark Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry differences, the candidates are much more closely matched - our candidates will not have the standing of Gore or Kerry and McCain is nowhere near Bush.

[crispini]

29. I hope you are right.

That, indeed, would be good news. I just hope we are doing enough.

[karynnj]

34. I think we absolutely need to continue anything we are doing and

to support any activist efforts that Gore or Kerry (or anyone else) initiate. What seems clear is that there will be costs to really addressing global warming. It will be hard for leaders to commit money to things that don't have an obvious gain. Activists need to keep the pressure on to do what needs to be done - as there will be pressure not to spend money or to spend it differently,

It was interesting seeing McCain plagiarize Kerry's off said words outlining the costs of being wrong in the case of either doing something or not doing something.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. But McCain is against federal funding for transit and passenger rail,

which negates his support for CAFE standards.

[cloudythescribbler]

24. One difference, perhaps the key one, is MORE DEMOCRATS in Congress w/Obama nt

[nonconformist]

38. I think that's a dubious claim. nt

[crispini]

40. Hm, ok, I just got what you are talking about.

You are saying that Obama has coat-tails for the down ballot races.

Hm. I'll have to give it some thought.

[cloudythescribbler]

48. or even that Barack Obama's coattails are not like Hillary Clinton's NEGATIVE ones

[cloudythescribbler]

25. Authentic Progressives must INSIST on NET NEGATIVE Greenhouse Effect contribution WAY earlier ...

than 2050, no matter WHO is in office.

As for the presidency, the likelihood that McCain would do as much as a Democrat is small, although we should remember how inadequate Bill Clinton was on the environment as prez. And it seems to me that Obama gives us a better chance at both the White House and a more Democratic, eco-friendly Congress.

But NOTHING in the mainstream is sufficient -- indeed the PROGRESSIVES have thus far not really stepped up to the plate with a unified demand for NEGATIVE NET GLOBAL Greenhouse Contribution. Norway is already aiming for net zero by 2030, and probably we need to go GLOBALLY faster than that. Once the tundra starts thawing out, and releasing methane which GREATLY warms the atmosphere, thawing yet MORE tundra, we are in deep paddle without a shit.

Incidentally, though Gore has taken the lead on this issue, he said and did little about it as VP, and has not put forward a PROGRAM all that much more aggressive than put out by other mainstream Democrats including Obama and Clinton

[crispini]

26. "deep paddle without a shit."

I am SO stealing that! :rofl:

and, wrod. :applause:

[donsu]

28. both are for bio-fuels - Obama more so - I want bio-fuels out of the question

bio-fuels are not the way to go. as climate change progresses land for growing food will lessen. so every bit of land available should be used for food.

[RestoreGore]

30. None of the candidates have bold enough plans, but...

If we the informed public would push what must be done with them more instead of depending on them to just tell us, they would have no choice but to update their plans to adequately face this urgent crisis as it must be faced now. They all propose 80% reductions in emissions by 2050... not feasible under the circumstances of Arctic melting which is three times faster than the most drastic scenarios (with summer ice predicted to be gone in only five years and all ice gone by 2030 with refreeze of winter ice already slowing down,) species loss, droughts (40% of this country alone was in some stage of drought last year with Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee now engaged in "water wars") water scarcity in just about 40% of our world in some stage, loss of crops, and the weather patterns we see already being altered in Asia, Africa, and right here.

If I were writing a plan it would call for 90% reductions by 2020 (and we do have the technology to achieve that)through doing this: a carbon tax (the proceeds of which would go to investing in alternate energies such as hemp and switchgrass fuels, ocean energy, and other forms that are cleaner and more affordable for the middle class and poor) that can be adjusted based on adherence to caps set and adherence to transition periods to get off coal and onto alternate energies being more aggressively brought to market now instead of just talked about; a moratorium on all new coal and nuclear plants with an emphasis in aiding utilities to transition to alternate sources to generate 50% of their energy output within the next five to ten years, and also instituting the "electranet" Al Gore spoke of; real fuel economy standards that could give us cars that get us 80 MPG (and that technology exists) as well as affordable cars that run on electric and incentives to businesses to craft ethically and environmentally sound business practices that would actually bring them profit and growth. Also, environmental LEEDS standards on all new buildings, finally addressing the effects of population on global climate, by the U.S. leading the way in this by helping developing countries through a ratified global climate treaty regarding family planning and obtaining alternate energies like solar, wind, bio, geothermal, etc. to replace oil and coal that they only use because it is more abundant and cheaper withn a decade. And a major tree planting initiative in this country along the lines of the one Wangari Maathai initiated through her Greenbelt Movement (akin to the one I suport in my signature) that has been very successful. We also need to reward innovation not punish it, and we need to also reward companies and corporations that take a sincere lead in starting the transition we need to save this planet. I think people are looking for BOLD moves, not the same plan from everyone just to have something on paper.

However, in our political system it seems that no matter how evasive the plan must be it is always written to suit corporate America being allowed to procrastinate, and that does not bode well for this planet in this instance. So if I had to pick one I thought would have a better plan I can't based on their plans because they are basically the same and include nuclear (which is not green) corn ethanol(which is not environmentally sound and a threat to global water and food sources and does little to lower carbon emissions) and a penchant for liquid coal which is dirty and will do nothing to reduce emissions effectively. Again, more plans that simply allow corporations to procrastinate with the bold moves needed.

So that is why I like Al Gore am not endorsing any of their plans but am hoping that they all then listen and heed Mr. Gore's words regarding the true urgency of this crisis and bring their plans to where they must be to achieve those ends. Which of course will require a moral courage and the ability to stand up to the status quo unlike what we have seen from any of them to this point. And that is where we must come into the equation, otherwise without our voicing what we must see we will get what we get, and that won't be enough. I wish you well in your indecision.

[crispini]

31. Bold moves! You are correct.

Yes, I agree, they are both more or less the same. So I guess this is not going to be a good issue to use to differentiate between them.

I think Mr. Gore has done the right thing by not endorsing, although it would certainly make my job as a voter easier! I agree that we should all continue to turn up the heat on them. Knock on wood, we will have a Dem president and a Dem congress after November and that will make pressuring them easier. It occurs to me that you should always ask for MORE than what you want because through the legislative process they will certainly water things down.

Do you know if Mr. Gore plans to make another slide show and/or movie soon? I think that was remarkably effective and in light of some of the alarming developments I have heard about the ice sheet I think an update might be in order. I am worried with all the hubbub around the election that this issue is taking a back seat. Perhaps after the primary choice is solidified, we can push the nominee to be even more forward with their plans.

[RestoreGore]

33. Mr. Gore has a book coming out this May...

The Path To Survival is the title. It will be a book about the solutions we can all be a part of, and I am looking forward to it. Don't know about another movie, although I do know his slideshow is constantly being updated by him to include new findings. He will also be in Monterrey at the end of this month at the TED Conference again, so I would think he would be sharing some of that new information there. Also, I hope that once this horrible primary season is over we can get down to issues that matter like this one, and that we can really lead on this crisis because we see the moral imperative. If we are going to move, we have to move now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Neither

Neither one will have the courage to do what needs to be done, such as building well-functioning mass transit systems and intercity rail throughout the U.S. (which would also create living wage jobs).

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. they both seem to have the same policy but, I have heard Hillary speak on it more than Obama

[RestoreGore]

41. Well, have to give her that much...

She has also instituted Mr. Gore's "Connie Mae" idea into her platform as well.

[nonconformist]

39. Both have similar platforms, but Hillary speaks out on it much more

Obama also supports coal liquefaction, which isn't so good.

Edwards had the best environmental platform...

[cooolandrew]

42. I think Hillary will talk of great things about the environment, and as we see in the campaign Obama

... will actually get to work. Hillary can retain lots of impressive facts on subjects but clearly in just this past year Barack has got things done and campaigNed in all 50 states. The difference with Barack he expects folks to know most of the facts and most about his platform. His straegy is to introduce himself to America. The campaigns relect how they would run and staged question times meetings are great window dressing with no content, as we saw in other staged things by FEMA.

[joeybee12]

43. I would say Hilary, although both would be better than what we have

now...and I don't think eithre will be as good as you hope...probably the reason why Gore is not making an endorsement.

My choice is based on Hilary's strong environmental record...can't really say that BO has earned any props for his record...yet.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Al Gore.

My second choice is and has always been Barack Obama.

[crispini]

47. I wish! LOL. nt

[grantcart]

45. the one with the biggest mandate Obama

[cooolandrew]

46. That is the bottom line Obama will get us more power to pass eco bills simple as that really.