Corinne Ramey

Where Do the Candidates Stand on the Environment? Conclusions

In recent days, the talk of the presidential campaign has centered on race. Between the remarks by Obama's pastor and his recent speech, the talk of the media has centered on black, white, and -- as Maureen Dowd said in the Times on Thursday -- gray. But in all this talk of race, we've lost another color that is regularly pushed to the sidelines of this election season conversation: green.

As I've written before, discussion of environmental issues has been conspicuously absent from stump speeches and interviews this campaign season. According to the League of Conservation Voters, as of January only eight out of 3201 questions asked the candidates in debates and major interviews have mentioned global warming. Forget black and white -- let's talk green.

I've written about the positions of the three presidential candidates -- Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama -- on issues of climate change, energy and the environment. Here are a few of the conclusions I've come to on the policies that these candidates are proposing.

Cap-and-trade systems have potential, if they're done right. All three candidates have proposed cap-and-trade systems to reduce carbon emissions. In a cap-and-trade system, pollution credits are given away or auctioned off to businesses, which can then buy or sell credits among themselves. There are two crucial benchmarks that a cap-and-trade system must meet to be effective. First, all permits must be auctioned off, not given away. This assures that polluters are actually paying for emissions instead of being allowed to pollute for free and provides an incentive for long-term change. The revenue from the sale of credits can also be used towards other environmental programs. For example, Obama estimates that revenues from his cap-and-trade plan will amount to between $30 and $50 billion each year, which he plans to put towards creating green jobs and other improvements in energy efficiency. Second, a good cap-and-trade system must reduce carbon emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the amount that scientists say is necessary to halt the effects of global warming. While both Obama's and Clinton's plans set this benchmark, McCain has yet to name specific targets.

Clean coal ain't clean. Despite the nice name and pleasing alliteration, "clean" coal is a misnomer and generally a bad idea. "Cleaning" coal is a process of chemical washing or gassification. However, studies have shown that clean coal doesn't live up to its name. As the LA Times writes, "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." Additionally, spending on clean coal diverts money from research and spending on renewable energy sources which are substantially more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

All three candidates support clean coal, although Obama has qualified his position more than other candidates.

Green jobs are good. Green jobs aren't only good for the environment, they're good for the economy and America's current and aspiring middle class as well. As Daniel Barbero wrote in the Harvard Political Review, "Business used to be a dirty word in the environmentalist community... The last decade, however, has seen a shift in the environmental movement away from radicalism and go-it-alone activism, and toward alliances with elements of the “machine” that environmentalists once fought so staunchly."

Both Obama and Clinton contain measures in their plans to increase the number of "green jobs" -- jobs created by the increasing need for sustainability and energy efficiency. Green jobs include everything from green vehicle engineers to plumbers who install solar water heaters and construction workers building green buildings. According to a new report by the Apollo Alliance, "In 2006 alone, renewable energy and energy efficiency were responsible for $970 billion in industry revenues and 8.5 million jobs. This number will grow exponentially if our nation commits itself in earnest to reducing carbon emissions and making economy-wide improvements in energy efficiency."

Ethanol helps Iowa, but not the planet. Sure, farmers in Iowa like ethanol and corn-based biofuel. But recent studies have shown that ethanol is no better for the environment than regular gasoline. A study in Science magazine showed 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." The Times concludes that "Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account."

All three candidates have called for increased production of biofuels, and Obama has gone so far as to say that "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."

So when it comes down to it, how do these three candidates compare? On the positive side, any of the three would be much better for the environment than the past seven years of the Bush administration have been. But of the candidates, McCain has clearly staked out the weakest positions on issues of energy independence and climate change. He has neglected to set specific goals and targets for environmental standards, and waffled when it comes to ethanol and biofuels. And when it comes to McCain's voting record, he, well, manages to avoid actually having one. He's missed vote after vote on key environmental legislation, including two bills where he was the only senator to not vote. Both bills lost by, ironically, one vote.

But between Obama and Clinton, it's less clear. Both have clearly outlined -- and mostly good -- policies on their campaign websites, despite the inclusion of clean coal and ethanol in the plans of both candidates and the occasional cave-in to special interests. As David Roberts wrote in an editorial in The Nation, the "who's the greener candidate" questions may come down to non-green issues. Roberts writes that the "greener" candidate in this election will that will be "more effective at getting a green agenda past the many obstacles it faces" and "will do more to help downticket races and usher more Democrats into Congress." Which, it seems, is an entirely different question.

Corinne Ramey: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:13 AM, Mar 26, 2008 in Election 2008 | Energy & Environment
Permalink | Email to Friend