Corinne Ramey

Where Do the Candidates Stand on the Environment? Barack Obama

Barack Obama doesn't just admit that America has a serious problem when it comes to oil dependency and climate change; he actually wants to fix it. "Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program," Obama said in a speech at the Associated Press annual luncheon. Although nowhere near as publicized or widely discussed as his other policies -- especially his health care plan -- Obama has outlined a thoughtful, thorough, and comprehensive plan to address such issues as energy independence and climate change. Although some policies in the plan -- his stance towards corn-based ethanol and "clean" coal in particular appear unduly influenced by industry -- Obama's overall plan goes miles beyond the environmental plans of the current administration.

Like Hillary Clinton, Obama supports a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This number is crucial, as it is the amount that scientists say is necessary to halt the effects of global warming. In a cap-and-trade system, an overall cap on carbon is established and divided into individual allowances. Permits -- which allow a company to pollute -- are auctioned off and are then able to be bought and sold by companies. As Obama's website says, "A 100% auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away for free to coal and oil companies." Revenue from the cap-and-trade plan, which Obama estimates at between $30 and $50 billion each year -- would go towards creating "green jobs" and energy efficiency improvements such as a fund to help low-income people make their homes more energy efficient.

Obama supports raising fuel economy standards to 40 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for light trucks by 2020. "I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil,” Obama said during a stump speech in Iowa. Obama has introduced various initiatives to help American automakers build more efficient cars, including the one that involves paying for health care costs of autoworkers. As he said in a speech in Detroit,

"We've heard for years that the spiraling cost of health care for retired autoworkers constrains manufacturers from investing in more fuel-efficient technology. We all know the statistic - health care costs currently account for $1,500 of every GM Car. So here's the deal. We'll help to partially defray those health care costs, but only if the manufacturers are willing to invest the savings right back into the production of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks."

Obama estimates that his energy proposals -- both the cap-and-trade plan and increased fuel standards for cars -- would drastically decrease American oil dependence. "By 2020, these proposals would save us 2.5 million barrels of oil per day - the equivalent of ending all oil imports from the Middle East and removing 50 million cars' worth of pollution off the road," he said.

So far, so good. But there are more worrying parts of Obama's plan, however: his stances on corn-based ethanol and clean coal.

Despite his constant calls for "change" and a new kind of politics, Obama hasn't been immune to the pulls of special interests in the past. As David Roberts wrote in an editorial in the Nation, Obama has, to an extent, been influenced by special interests when it comes to environmental issues. Roberts writes, "Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like." Obama voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a pork barrel bill giving subsidies to coal, ethanol, nuclear, and other special interest groups. He also received campaign contributions from Exelon, an Illinois-based nuclear company, and has a chief political strategist who also worked as a consultant to the company.

Obama has done a bit of a flip-flop on so-called "clean coal." Clean coal, unfortunately, is not so clean. As the LA Times says,

"A new study has concluded that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. If the carbon dioxide is captured and permanently stored, liquid coal emits 20% more greenhouse gas than diesel but 11% less than conventional gasoline, according to the study to be released next week by Argonne National Laboratory, a research arm of the Energy Department."

Obama supported the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007," a bill that gave loans, tax breaks, and subsidies to "clean coal" production, despite the fact that the bill said nothing about requiring the fuel to be produced without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. After various environmental groups protested the legislation, including a petition by MoveOn.org, the Obama campaign issued a "clarification" of Obama's stance on the issue. An email sent by the Obama campaign to various environmental groups stated,

"Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."

Although Obama's newly "clarified" position is certainly better than his old one, his stance on clean coal still leaves a lot to be desired, especially considering the inclusion of significant clean coal support in his environmental plan.

Perhaps equally worrisome is Obama's ethanol policy, as recent studies have shown that "the widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes." However, despite these facts, Obama's plan reads, "Corn ethanol is the most successful alternative fuel commercially available in the U.S. today, and we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry." Overall, 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."

Despite these shortfalls, however, Obama's environmental plan doesn't, as he said, "skip out on the 12-step program." His plan isn't perfect, but it certainly does effectively address issues of climate change and energy dependence that have been ignored in the past.

Past posts in this series include analysis of the environmental plans of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Corinne Ramey: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:07 AM, Mar 03, 2008 in Election 2008 | Energy & Environment | Environmental Justice
Permalink | Email to Friend