On the Issues: Energy Policy

[Telly Savalas]

So what are the Democratic candidates' proposals for energy policy?

Those of you who already slavishly worship a candidate know that your candidate and only your candidate will save the planet while the others are Corporatist whores that will lead us to doom.

Those of us who are still undecided need to compare what their proposals are on the issues. Below is a brief summary. I'd encourage y'all to check out the links because they all have quite a bit to say on the matter.


Hillary Clinton
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

*Cap 'n' trade carbon emissions to hit target of "80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050"
*Implement a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to fund investment in alternative energy.
*Increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 mpg by 2030; offer $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help automakers adapt to this
*Stressing fuel efficient homes by modernizing and retro-fitting 20 million low-income homes.

John Edwards
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/

*Cap 'n' trade carbon emmissions. Start in 2010. Reduce by 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
*Have the U.S. lead the way on a new international climate treaty. Get developing countries to comply by offering green technology and using pressure in trade agreements.
*Create a $10 billion New Energy Fund to promote investment in alternative energy. Funds come through auctioning of greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies to oil companies.

Dennis Kucinich
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/

*Immediately have the U.S. rejoin the Kyoto Treaty and comply with its dictates.
*The Kooch was a cosponsor of HR 1950 - Safe Climate Act of 2007 which uses cap 'n' trade and other measures to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050 (http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm)
*Promotes a Works Green Administration which would "couple a new WPA program to the EPA and NASA in restoring America's infrastructure and providing sustainable energy at the same time".
*Opposes nuclear energy.

Lee Mercer
http://www.mercerforpresident2008.com/page.php?D=ct_20060716151723&DP=e83609c00800254d56455f06ed58f910

Doesn't have an energy policy explicitly defined on his website, but one can infer the approach he'd take from the following:

"THE DISCIPLINE REGULATING ISSUES:

There is some concern about the U.S. Government regulating issues. I will enforce regulating the U.S. Government issues according to the U.S. Government enforcements."

Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

*You guessed it: cap 'n' trade carbon emissions to lower 'em to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.
*Use proceeds of cap 'n' trade to retrain workers to be part of the alternative energy sector. Create a Green Jobs Corps to get youth involved in this.
*Invest $150 billion over 10 years in Clean Energy.
*5 gazillion other bullet points.

[Telly Savalas]

1. Well, if shit like this is gonna sink like a rock.

I'll just post more Mercer threads.

[Radical Activist]

2. You forgot Edwards' $1 Billion per year in coal industry subsidies

for clean coal research. That's how he got the mine workers endorsement.

[Telly Savalas]

4. My little bullet points aren't mean to be comprehensive.

I believe that Obama had something about clean coal technology as well.

I don't recall seeing anything about that at Clinton's website, but it didn't seem to have as much content on the issue as the others.

[dkf]

3. Why do we need a fund?

Why don't we just give a 100% tax credit for all solar and renewable energy investments?

[Silent3]

5. Is Kucinich the only one talking about Kyoto?

I thought I remembered Hillary saying she'd sign the Kyoto accord too. I found this link from her 2000 Senate campaign:

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm

...but I couldn't confirm if she's still committed to Kyoto or not.

[Telly Savalas]

7. It looks like she's pledged to push a Kyoto II sort of treaty if elected:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c24d612c-8bdf-11dc-af4d-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R for a worthy subject and post. n/t

[ArkySue]

8. Ditto. eom

[rucky]

9. While Walken doesn't have a position on energy...

he does believe in INTENSITY.

[TheDonkey]

10. Maybe a little more depth would be helpful

rather than "a gazillion other bullets". This is a good issue and I like to compare the candidates but there seems to be little meat here.

[Telly Savalas]

12. Then post them yourself instead of fucking whining

[malakai2]

11. Tre-mendous

Let me see if I can summarize the stances of our candidates...

Generic Democratic Candidate:
2)Plot course into known dangerous waters
3)Throttle ahead at unsafe pace in the name of elusive "profits"
4)Re-arrange deck chairs to present the appearance of doing something

I see some things up there that would have been useful over the past 20 or 30 years, such as the 55 mpg standard and efficiency retrofits for low-income residences. Otherwise I don't see much discussion of dramatically lowering per-capita energy use. Edwards touches on a plateau in electrical generation, but not in overall energy production and use. Most of what I see are efficiency measures to enable per-capita rates equivalent to or greater than current rates far into the future. I see misguided bio-fuel mandates and hybrid hype, but nothing substantive about rebuilding efficient mass transit, especially local and regional rail, and nothing about greatly decreasing reliance on automobiles. I see a sustained preference, pandering or not, for coal as a generation source over fission. I don't see any acknowledgment of the principle of receding horizons, peak oil, and general resource limitations for the radical expansion of certain green techs proposed.

I get the feeling we should add a couple parenthetical bullets, something of an "in case of emergency, break glass" stance:
1)(Sell an impossibly good deal to the masses to get them invested)
5)(Keep the masses in steerage long enough to abscond with the lifeboats)

What is the point of even trying to diminish, let alone prevent, the anthropogenic aspects of climate change when every plan up there will increase the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? If we're not interested in making an honest effort, then say as much, and continue with business as usual. I'd have a hard time voting for a candidate that doesn't want to make an effort, and relying on some fantastic notion that bio-fuels or CTL or grid enhancements will save us is not that requisite effort. How about a progressive tax on energy consumption? How about a sunset on Federal coal and petro subsidies, including occupancy on public land? How about redirecting Federal highway funding to general transportation funding to facilitate something other than suburban sprawl via highways? Maybe a reduction in child tax credit for every additional child born into a family? How about an open discourse on the nature of private property rights, so people can erect solar and micro-wind on their properties without neighbors interfering? I know, I know, a candidate pushing such things as these would be quickly tabbed as un-American and would not be elected, but if these are the sorts of solutions needed, it's time to discuss them or move on to a different topic.