I strongly prefer Obama but Clinton's PR on energy sounds good

[kristopher]

HILLARY CLINTON'S PLAN TO CREATE A THRIVING GREEN ENERGY SECTOR IN OREGON AND ACROSS AMERICA
News from LexisNexis
States News Service -- States News Service, April 5, 2008 Saturday

The following information was released by the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton:

Hillary has laid out an aggressive plan to address the twin challenges of global warming and our reliance on foreign oil. Setting ambitious targets, the plan will 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. Her plan focuses on improving energy efficiency, moving to clean, renewable sources of energy and developing green manufacturing. By transitioning from a carbon-based economy to a green, energy efficient economy, Hillary's plan will help unleash a wave of private sector innovation and create at least 5 million new green collar jobs over the next decade.

Oregon is already a leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency. As President, Hillary will be a strong partner with Oregon, investing $150 billion in research, development, and deployment of clean energy over the next decade, including $50 billion through a Strategic Energy Fund paid for with a windfall profits tax on large oil companies. Oregon will directly benefit from Hillary's Plan, with:

A permanent renewable production tax credit and new consumer tax incentives to support Oregon's cutting edge wind-power sector.

A Green Building Fund to help Oregon continue its first-in-the-nation status on certified green buildings per capita.

A Made Green in America Fund that would provide Oregon with at least $6.5 million per year to invest in clean energy technology manufacturing.

Green transportation investments to help support light rail projects like the MAX in Portland.

Hillary's plan includes:

25% Renewable Electricity by 2025

Oregon is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country for wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, Oregon added nearly 500 megawatts of wind power capacity in 2007. Oregon now ranks fourth in the country in terms of wind generation as a percentage of electricity generation. Yet while states like Oregon lead, the federal government lags behind. Hillary will restore leadership by establishing a national target of producing 25% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025. In addition, Hillary will:

Encourage investment in wind, solar and other renewable energy production by making permanent the 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources;

Provide tax incentives for families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy such as rooftop solar panels; and

Establish national "net metering" standards to ensure that families and businesses who install solar panels or other renewable energy resources can sell power back to the grid on fair terms.

Greening Buildings and Improving Energy Efficiency

Oregon is a leader in green buildings and energy efficiency; its per capita carbon footprint is among the five lowest nationwide, and Oregon has more certified green buildings per capita than any other state. As President, Hillary will provide the resources and tools to help Oregon accelerate this progress by:

Creating a Green Building Fund. Through the fund, the federal government would allocate $1 billion annually to states to make grants or low-interest loans to improve energy efficiency in public buildings, such as schools, police stations, firehouses and offices. The GBF will create more than 100,000 new "green collar" jobs. To be eligible for funding, projects would need to meet tough energy efficiency standards, such as the EPA Energy Star standard for buildings. The cost of this program would be split between the federal government and states and localities, and would provide $15 million annually to Oregon to be used in successful programs such as Portland's "City Energy Challenge," which has reduced the city's energy bill by $11 million since 1991, or the Energy Trust of Oregon, which through 2006 had implemented energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in buildings to save and generate electricity to power 109,000 homes and enough natural gas to heat 9,000 homes. The program has also removed over 2 billion pounds of CO2 from our atmosphere.

Modernizing 20 Million Low-Income Homes to Improve Energy Efficiency. On average, energy bills account for about 14% of a low-income family's gross income, and for many they account for 20% or more. Economists estimate that more than 80% of energy expenses leave low-income communities, and thus do not generate additional economic activity inside those communities. By weatherizing homes, we can reduce heating bills by 31% and overall energy bills by $358 per year, savings that are significant for many low-income families. Hillary will weatherize 20 million low-income homes over 8 years, creating good jobs that cannot be outsourced. This commitment would extend the weatherization program to more than 200,000 families in Oregon over the next 8 years.

Greening Our Transportation System

Portland's public transportation system is a comprehensive and award-winning system that has increased ridership by 65% since 1990. Hillary's agenda to green our transportation infrastructure will help support Oregon's public transit system. These steps will be combined with her aggressive proposals to improve vehicle fuel economy to reduce oil consumption, save consumers money and reduce global warming pollution. As President, Hillary will:

Invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems. States like Oregon have been left to pursue light rail projects, like the MAX in Portland, with only modest federal support. Hillary believes that greater federal involvement is needed to maximize the potential of this transportation mode. She will increase federal investment in light rail by $1 billion over 5 years in order to help finance capital projects. These investments are in addition to the federal commitment to Amtrak.

Increase Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards to 55 Miles Per Gallon: Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030. By 2030, these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons.

Accelerate the Production of "Plug-In" Hybrid Electric Vehicles: A Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) is a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with a more powerful battery that can be plugged into any regular outlet. It can be filled up at the gas station, and it can be "filled up" at home by plugging it into a standard outlet. Half the cars on America's roads are driven 25 miles a day or less, so a plug-in with a 25-mile range battery could eliminate gasoline use in the daily commute of tens of millions of Americans. PHEVs offer the promise of achieving more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline consumed; and a flex-fuel PHEV running on E85 can potentially get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. In addition, new technology is making it possible to retrofit existing hybrid vehicles in less than two hours, with no modifications to the existing vehicle architecture other than connection to the existing battery poles and drilling a small hole in the bumper. Experts estimate this technology could result in up to 70% oil savings and 60% emission reductions. Hillary would invest in research and stimulate demand for the first commercial PHEVs by:

Investing $2 billion in research and development to reduce the cost and increase the longevity and durability of batteries;

Offering consumers tax credits of up to $10,000 for purchasing a plug-in hybrid or retrofitting an existing hybrid to improve fuel efficiency; and

Adding 100,000 PHEVs to the federal fleet by 2015.

Put 2,000 "Plug-In" Hybrid School Buses on the Road: Fourteen communities around the country have invested in a new type of school bus - a plug-in hybrid bus - that gets as much as twice the mileage as regular school buses while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by one-third and nitrogen emissions by half. Hybrid school buses use electric power, which is significantly cleaner than diesel fuel. These buses look the same as regular school buses, but are powered by large battery packs. They recover energy as they brake and charge the batteries while the bus is slowing down, a system that is ideal for buses because of their frequent stops. They are charged overnight and between shifts during the day, a process that can be easily managed through the city lots in which school buses are parked each evening. In fact, about one-third of communities already have the infrastructure to plug in school buses, because they rely upon plug-in block heaters to keep the engines warm in the winter. Today, plug-in hybrid buses costs $100,000 more than regular buses, but at higher production volumes, the premium will drop to $40,000 - an amount that is more than made up for through reduced fuel costs over the 15 year lifetime of the bus. As president, Hillary will split the added costs with school districts for the first 2,000 plug-in hybrid buses. This investment will lower the cost for school districts that want to be pioneers.

Creating Green Domestic Manufacturing Jobs

Hillary believes that we cannot remain a great country with a strong economy without a strong, vibrant manufacturing sector. But the failure of the Bush Administration to lead on clean energy has enabled other countries to move ahead in clean energy development and manufacturing. To help catalyze investment in clean energy research and manufacturing and restore U.S. leadership, Hillary will establish:

A "Made Green In America" Fund: Hillary will invest $500 million annually in a "Made Green in America" program to encourage the creation of high-wage jobs in the growing clean energy manufacturing technologies. The Bush Administration's failure to lead on global warming and clean energy has enabled other countries to move ahead. For example, the United States designed the solar cell, but has dropped from third to fifth place in terms of global manufacturing since just 2005. Hillary's proposal would help reverse this clean energy offshoring trend by providing assistance to domestic facilities that manufactures qualifying clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar or carbon capture and storage, or the components of such technologies. Companies that own these domestic facilities would be eligible to receive awards of up to 30 percent of the costs of engineering, retooling or construction of equipment manufacture qualifying clean energy technologies. Oregon would receive $6.5 million per year under this new program to invest in clean energy technology manufacturing.

A Green-Manufacturing Extension Partnership (G-MEP): The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a highly effective program that provides technical and business assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers to help them improve productivity and create and grow the number of good-paying jobs in this country. In Oregon, there are 6,000 manufacturing firms that employ 200,000 people at jobs that provide an average salary that is about 50% higher than the average worker. Hillary has already called for doubling the MEP to support a more vibrant 21st century manufacturing sector. As President, Hillary will create a new G-MEP program as part of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that will focus on green energy. This new initiative will provide a broad range of tools and technical assistance, and serve as a repository of shared best practices by being linked to G-MEP centers all around the country, for small and medium sized manufacturers who are working to create sustainable energy sources.

[bigtree]

1. thanks for posting

good on you :hi:

[onehandle]

2. They both have pretty good platforms.

They're Democrats, after all.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I REALLY like this program

It combines targeting fighting global warming, advancing energy security, creating non outsourcable jobs, and fighting poverty in a sweeping but sensible set of initiatives. Good for Hillary.

And lots of details I might add, not just a few good sound bites.

[stuntcat]

4. hey sweet

The reason I was mostly backing Obama was because he mentioned the environment more than she did.
It'll take BIG HUGE changes for us to make a difference, whoever's in charge. I was glad to see even McCain's said some radical stuff about this, radical compared to his Earth-raping fans I mean.

[rodeodance]

5. I heard Bill C give a talk on Hillary's green-jobs producing economy. its a winner

[rodeodance]

6. C

[elocs]

7. That you strongly prefer Obama does not preclude that Clinton may have good ideas.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton's scorched earth policy to win the nomination at all costs may, by her own actions, hurt her in being a vital part of an Obama administration as a trusted advisor as a U.S. senator or otherwise. Hers could be an important and much listened to and respected voice in government and the Democratic Party and I wish she would consider this before she burns the bridges and poisons the water. Like Senator Kennedy she should realize that she will never be president, but she can still have an important voice and role in government.

[nichomachus]

8. How would she do that?

Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030. By 2030, these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons.

How would she do that? By executive order? Would she dissolve Congress and rule by fiat?

This has to pass the Congress (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the energy companies and automakers) and then battled out in the federal courts (another wholly-owned subsidiary of the energy companies and automakers).

It would be more correct to say that Hillary "will propose it" or "would like to see it," but saying she will do it ignores some very unpleasant realities in American political life.

[rodeodance]

9. Your bitter rant will equally apply to any of Obama's proposals.

Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030. By 2030, these tough CAFE standards will save consumers more than $180 billion per year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 730 million metric tons.

How would she do that? By executive order? Would she dissolve Congress and rule by fiat?

This has to pass the Congress (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the energy companies and automakers) and then battled out in the federal courts (another wholly-owned subsidiary of the energy companies and automakers).

It would be more correct to say that Hillary "will propose it" or "would like to see it," but saying she will do it ignores some very unpleasant realities in American political life.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nichomachus]

12. A bitter rant? It was a question. Take a deep breath. You're out of control.

[kristopher]

10. That's a fair question

I suspect you're focusing on the verb tense a little too much, though.

If you look at the spending proposals, it looks like the plan is to move the personal transportation sector to all electric. Note the spending on better batteries (the lithium ion are already very close to being market ready) and the tax credits to beef up renewable electricity generation. If that effort is successful, the mpg ratings really become irrelevant except as a means of forcing the phase out of the internal combustion engine.

BTW, Obama is substantially on the same page regarding energy. I just thought I'd post a something positive about Hillary; I find so little opportunity for doing so...

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. This is such a healthy attitude you are showing all of us here

Thank you. All of us are going to have to try to unite behind whichever candidate becomes our nominee, and both of them express strong support for program and policy intitiatives that are light years better than that offered by the Republican Party in general. In the way of good things to say about Hillary, there's another thread up now about her proposals for fighting Breast Cancer also. DU would be a much better place if we focused more on the positive initiatives each candidate wants to pursue, but threads like yours are not "controversial" enough to keep easily kicked.

[yodermon]

14. Actually you raise an interesting point about campaigns in general

in that presidential candidates always campaign on policy positions with all kinds of minutiae, health care proposals, education proposals, energy plans, etc; everyone *demands* this of them. But, all of these plans have to get thru congress first, and there's no way in hell congress, even with a supermajority in both houses, would just pass a president's proposed plan wholesale. Why then, do we give so much weight & importance to these plans, scrutinizing them to find all sorts of line-item comparisons & gotchas, etc? It's like they're campaigning for legislative positions again.

[nichomachus]

16. This has puzzled me for a long time

We demand that candidates have chapter-and-verse, paragraph-subparagraph, funding proposal plans for everything imaginable. And, that would be great, if we were electing an emperor who could simply enforce all this by edict.

But we're not. Nothing can be done without the acquiescence of Congress and the courts -- and therefore their corporate sponsors (please get on the reality bandwagon here -- the corporations are the real government).

So, when I look at candidates, I am looking for someone with a broad vision, who offers a direction in which he or she would like to see the country go, and where he or she would use the bully pulpit to push ideas. I am looking for charisma and the ability to inspire people -- not only to inspire politicians, but the people in general to get them involved.

I like to see proposals in broad strokes -- say "single payer universal health care" -- and let the details be worked out later, as they will be. I'm not looking for "Well in paragraph six, subparagraph 5, section 3-slash-12 of my plan, all the aforementioned parties of the first part will be..." That's just nonsense.

How the plan will work should be part of a national discussion, and people need to be inspired and encouraged to participate in that dialogue. I see the president's role as not writing the fine-grained details of the plan, but in bringing together people around an idea, focusing the discussion, and trying to move people toward a common goal.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

22. re: Actually you raise an interesting point about campaigns in general

We give importance to policy proposals because the president holds the bully pulpit. In the modern era where the media hangs on every word the president speaks, the executive branch has the power to motivate people to take action. If strong proposals are presented to the public day after day, many of those people will write their congressmen demanding action “or else”.

[nichomachus]

24. Yes, but

I see nothing wrong with offering broad-stroke proposals. In fact, I think that's important. But the more detailed you make your proposal, the more you open the way for people to criticize the minutiae, which will never happen anyway, given the way the process works.

I would rather see a presidential candidate proposing "single-payer universal health care" and leave the details to the process.

Making too many specific promises also opens the way for the opposition to cut your legs off, as they did with gays in the military. Clinton promised to do that -- and they turned him into a "failure" on his first initiative. They were lying in wait.

[Doctor_J]

15. Her health care plan is better too

I am hoping that Obama adopts these two options as part of his campaign/presidency

[nichomachus]

17. I suggest you read her health care plan

It may be better than Obama's, as you claim, but it's no better than what we have now -- and may be worse.

[ORDem]

18. All sounds great on paper. It really comes down to who you think can actually get this stuff done.

I simply don't trust Hillary to not have the plan re-written by the corporate lobbyists. I don't know if Obama can resist the system as it is now, but I believe he has a better perspective on how to do that.

Plus, nothing is going to get accomplished if the Dems don't bolster their majorities in Congress, and on this point I think Obama clearly has the advantage in that he won't bring out the Clinton-haters on the GOP side. Longer coattails.

:dem:

[Doctor_J]

19. Agreed, in spades

this is my main reason for supporting Obama. I posted a long rant about it a couple weeks ago. He is far more capable than Hil of amassing public and Congressional support. He actually may neutralize the Dan Burtons, James Inhofes and other cancers in the government.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I fiind it interesting that here at DU which was wildly Pro Gore

That so few poeple even bother to kick or Rec a thread that contains as detailed an environmental and economic proposal as this one does. Seems like folks here often are more smoke than fire when it comes to actually wanting discussion of important issues.

From time to time someone comments on DU about how no environmental questions get asked of our candidates during the debates. The type of non response a thread like this one gets could have something to do with that.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

21. re: I strongly prefer Obama but Clinton's PR on energy sounds good

I like the CAFE standard deadlines but would like to see a little better plan coving transportation energy. Some of the things I would like to see would be:

1) Promotion of clean diesel vehicles. Our European neighbors have a majority diesel fleet. Diesel vehicles on average get 30% better fuel economy over their gasoline counterparts. While Honda will be introducing their diesel line to America next year with 50+ MPG without hybrid technology, I would hope to have some American leadership on this issue.

2) The ethanol talking points are really gets old at this point. I would like our candidate to focus on biodiesel and biobutanol to gradually faze out petro diesel and gasoline. I believe a plan that has a fazed introduction to the fuels would be appropriate. I think a mandatory percentage blend should be introduced. For example require 2% biofuel mix increase per year for a decade. Minimum standards like this have already been set in places like California, but they do it with ethanol in gasoline.

Year 1: 98% petro diesel : 2% biodiesel mix // 98% gasoline : 2% biobutanol
Year 5: 90% petro diesel : 10% biodiesel mix // 90% gasoline : 10% biobutanol
Year 10: 80% petro diesel : 20% biodiesel mix // 80% gasoline : 20% biobutanol

This would provide a stepped calendar to provide the biofuel industry time to ramp up production to meet/beat demand. It would provide enough time to distributors to make adjustments. It would send a heads up to the auto and fossil fuels industries that it is time to adapt. Finally it would serve as a gradual introduction to the fuels for the average consumers, who might decide to go for 100% biofules if available once they where able to get a taste of the technology.

3) I would also like to see tax incentives base on the efficiency of the vehicle rather then focusing on HEV. If I choose a clean diesel car that gets 52 MPG and someone else picks a hybrid SUV that gets around 30 MPG who's really contributing to the solution more?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Hey! Real discussion!

Bio fuels have great potential but they can be mismanaged also. Didn't the EU recently have to revisit this question to guard against supporting rain forrest destruction, increasing food costs and the like?

I really like the aspects of this plan that focus on retrofitting public and private buildings for energy efficience, because that has strong economic advantages also. It will provide local jobs while saving the people who need it the most money, while reducing the use of non renewable energy sources.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

25. re: Hey! Real discussion!

Real discussion is refreshing isn't it. Everyone has been so determined to brand their candidate this year that they forgot to open the box and see what was inside. Regarding your comments, while I do think green building grants are nice, I do not prioritize them as much as transportation energy. Our transportation energy problems have real effects on 1) National security / world conflict, 2) the economy / average persons standard of living, and 3) real impact in concern to climate change. If you can kill three birds with one stone, its worth a shot.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. A Kick for real substance n/t

[berni_mccoy]

27. Sounds good, but she's lost all credibility at this point. Can't believe she would implement it.

She can't run a campaign let alone an energy policy.