Environmental Position of Presidential Candidates

Part of committing to a green lifestyle is not just making changes in my own life, but supporting change in my community and country. Since Seattle rejected a recent transportation bill because of its unknown environmental impact, I've been trying to educate myself on the green side of local and national issues.

With the presidential race narrowing to fewer and fewer candidates, it's interesting to better understand each candidate's position on environmental and energy issues. Grist.org, one of my favorite environmental news sites, has put together a fantastic guide summarizing each candidate's position.

Here's a quick and dirty summary:

Clinton - her recently released plan is comprehensive and ambitious. Focuses on efficiency (fuel conservation), and investment (for new technologies and energy sources). Similar to Obama and Edwards, proposes a cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse emissions 50% by 2050.

Edwards - The environment Has long been at the forefront of his campaign. Beats Hillary by proposing 80% CO2 emissions cuts by 2050. Similar plan with other dem candidates proposing investment boosts to renewable energy sources, green job programs, etc.

Obama - Obama was late to the environmental party, but now lists it amongst his top 3 domestic issues along with health care, and the economy. I worry about how confused his position was initially, but it seems to be straighted out now. 80% emissions cuts by 2050. Proposes $150 billion investment plan. It's a lot, but I don't know if it's enough. Moving the country to full-on solar was going to cost upwards of $450 billion, and that's still less than we pay to import oil every few years.

Romney - A vote for Romney is a vote for "more of the same" from the Bush days, with perhaps less stupidity re: the economy. Romney doesn't really buy into global warming, and certainly doesn't want to harm businesses one iota to apply carbon emissions caps. Romney supports alternative energy sources in the form of carbon-based domestics: liquid coal, oil shale, etc. but isn't pushing many renewable sources. Unlikely he will back Kyoto.

Giuliani -  He believes in global warming, but hasn't said what he thinks should be done about it.  9/11.

Huckabee - Huckabee isn't fully committed to the idea of global warming, but he is 100% committed to the idea of energy independence. He wants us off foreign oil in 10 years, and will invest in solar, nuclear, wind, etc. to get there. Good for him.

McCain- John McCain isn't just a believer in global warming and independent energy, he's the only one of the candidates that has actually DONE something about it. He wrote and sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act which creates the cap-and-trade system that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton want to implement to reduce emissions 65% by 2050. This has hurt his Republican base a bit, but I imagine this will help him find a new base of greenie voters if he ends up being the Republican presidential candidate.

Ron Paul - If I omit him, I'll have an army of geeks screaming "conspiracy!" and bringing down my website, so I have to say something. Problem is, Ron Paul has made few statements regarding the environment. His position is unclear.

 

Comments

[Green Bean]

Thanks for the political candidate wrap up. It's nice to get a bite size morsel on each candidate.