Senators Clinton and Obama are battling state-by-state with platforms so
strikingly similar that news anchors often resort to broad generalizations
and horse-race style talking points. Both candidates stress the centrality
of environmental and energy issues in guiding the nation's future, yet it
remains difficult to discern concrete distinctions between the candidates'
positions.
In short, let us abstract away for a moment from Hillary's vote to authorize
the use of force in Iraq; forget about Obama's relative inexperience on the
international scene and both candidates' aggressive programs for economic
and health care stimuli. We are going to concentrate on the candidates
environmental and energy platforms to examine the various shades of green.
The Similarities: Both candidates are full supporters of: a cap-and-trade
permitting system to cut U.S. emissions 80% below their 1990 levels by 2050,
with proceeds from the sale of permits going towards renewable energy
projects, R&D and energy efficiency measures; increased CAFE and EPA fuel
efficiency standards; zero-emissions government building requirements; 25%
renewable energy portfolio standards by 2025; 60 billion gallons of biofuel
available for cars and trucks by 2030; a federal sponsored venture capital
fund towards clean technologies; investment in a green collar workforce; and
both support coal-to-liquid, provided it is proven 20% more efficient then
conventional fuels (still on the fence about this one myself, even if 20%
efficiency is achieved). In essence, Obama and Hillary share many of the
same views on this crucial issue of climate change.
The Differences: Obama walks two slippery slopes in his campaign. First, he
is a Senator from coal-rich Illinois, the state in which the government's
first coal-to-liquid FutureGen plant is slated to be built. Secondly, he is
a proponent of increased use of nuclear energy, which Hillary opposes until
more research is done regarding associated hazardous waste stream. (Even
though in 2005, Bill Clinton helped a large energy financier gain the
exclusive rights to mine Uranium in Kazakhstan). However, Obama does stress
investment in local ownership of biofuel refineries and remains stringently
in favor of 50% industry energy use through efficiency measures by 2030.
Hillary on the other hand, has been less vocal then Obama as a proponent of
America as the global climate leader. Her strong differentiators are a
proposed a plan with Connie Mae in order to make green homes easier for
families to purchase, her support for the complete phase out of incandescent
light bulbs and a proposed series of Smart Grid city partnerships to
increase the use of on-demand energy efficiency measures. While there are
other nuanced differences, these are a few of my highlights.
The Shortfalls: This is a tricky category, but I think there are two large
issues neither Obama nor Clinton have addressed. The first is the moratorium
on the erection of new coal power plants. Many continue to view
coal-to-liquid technologies as a "silver bullet" scheme that is years away
from being economically and ecologically sensible - one without the other
doesn't help anyone. Secondly, neither candidate has effectively outlined an
actual plan to put the U.S. in a role as the global leader in combating
climate change, parallel to our economic success. We need to see a portion
of revenue from carbon permitting and other activity being diverted towards
countries with highest global warming associated risks. This is an
international problem, from which we can not hide, and to which we have
contributed the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases over the past
century. It's time we take accountability and share some of the wealth we
have accumulated over the past one hundred years thanks to the burning of
fossil fuels.
In short, both candidates support very healthy environmental and energy
policy measures even though neither platform is revolutionary. Meanwhile,
the past 7 years have yielded nothing more then a free-for-all on the
environment for corporate interests, so beware of any candidates claiming
success compared with the Bush administration's track record.
To end, here are two indicative quotes from the candidates regarding climate
change. As I mentioned previously in a December Huffington Post piece and as Adam Brown alluded to in
his de-politicization of the environment post,
the time for action is now, the environment has suffered from corporate
interests and political divides too long.
"Washington hasn't acted; and that is the real reason why America hasn't
led." -- Senator Obama
"We can empower individuals with new tools and technology to lead the green
revolution one home, one car and one business at a time. These choices
determine the energy we use, the carbon we emit, and the world we leave for
our children. I believe, when called upon, Americans will choose a clean
energy future. This generation can become the Greenest Generation. We only
need to light a spark - and that's what I'll do as president." -- Senator
Clinton