A Green(er) Obama
Obama spoke about energy issues in New Hampshire today. (AP).
Not so long ago, Barack Obama was regarded warily by many environmentalists and advocates of aggressive measures to combat global warming. While his record was generally pro-environment, he voted for the 2005 energy bill, which was laden with subsidies for the oil industry, and later mystified environmentalists with his vocal support for huge new federal subsidies for converting coal to liquid transportation fuel, a technology that would benefit coal-rich areas like southern Illinois but would result in even more carbon emissions than does gasoline.
Today, after months of criticism from green corners, Obama is signaling that he has fully returned to the environmentalist fold, in a speech in Portsmouth, N.H., laying out his presidential campaign's energy plan. The plan is chock full of proposals favored by environmentalists and climate scientists, including a strict cap and trade program for carbon emissions, ambitious energy efficiency targets and billions of dollars in investments in energy research. And notably absent from the 10-page proposal is any mention of coal to liquid.
According to excerpts provided by his campaign, Obama is framing energy reform as another area where the Washington establishment as failed the country, an echo of his charges last week against those who, unlike him, did not stand up in opposition of the war in Iraq. While the speech does not name Hillary Clinton, it contains what appear to be veiled criticisms of her vote in 2005 against phased increases in vehicle mileage standards, and her past opposition to ethanol subsidies and mandates.
"There are some in this race who actually make the argument that the more time you spend immersed in the broken politics of Washington, the more likely you are to change it. I always find this a little amusing. I know that change makes for good campaign rhetoric, but when these same people had the chance to actually make it happen, they didn't lead," Obama is expected to say. "When they had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused. When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America, they said no."
Clinton, like many others in Congress, until recently opposed subsidies and mandates for the corn-based fuel as wasteful and likely to drive up the cost of gasoline, one reason she gave for opposing the 2005 energy bill. She has since softened her opposition to ethanol, a stance that has helped her in Iowa, where she is seeking caucus votes, and in upstate New York, which has experienced an ethanol boom of its own. Her campaign declined to comment today.
Obama's plan calls for a cap and trade system for reducing greenhouse gases that aims to slash carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050, the target many scientists say is necessary to slow warming, and one that has also been endorsed by Clinton and John Edwards. Under his plan, the government would establish an overall limit for carbon emissions, auction off emissions permits among companies and industries to stay within that limit, and allow companies to buy and sell permits based on which of them produce more or fewer emissions as time goes on. Most legislation offered to reduce carbon emissions takes this form, even though many economists believe a carbon tax would be simpler, if more difficult to sell politically. Obama's plan explicitly favors cap and trade over a carbon tax, saying it provides "maximum assurances that emissions will decline to desired levels" and "draws on the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions in a cost-effective and flexible manner."
Obama would use much of the revenue from auctioning emissions permits to invest $150 billion over 10 years in research to develop the next generation of biofuels, plug-in hybrids and coal plants that could capturing and store emissions. Like Edwards, Obama proposes banning new coal-fired plants that lack the capacity to capture and store emissions, a stronger stance than he took just a few months ago, when he suggested that the cap and trade system alone would be sufficient to discourage traditional coal-fired plants. Unlike Edwards, who also argues against expanded use of nuclear energy, Obama acknowledges that reducing carbon emissions means using more nuclear energy, but says any expansion would require measures to improve nuclear fuel security and waste storage. "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table," his plan states.
Obama, who sponsored legislation this year coupling tougher mileage standards with incentives for automakers, would establish a low-carbon fuel standard to further reduce oil reliance. He would spur wind and solar energy by requiring that 25 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. He would establish new rules and incentives for energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, and phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014. And he would reform transportation funding to build more public transit and restrain suburban sprawl.
Internationally, he would "re-engage" with the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, using the passage of an ambitious cap and trade system in America as leverage to goad emissions reductions around the globe. "Making the U.S. a leader in combating climate change will require the United States to get its own house in order," the plan states, "and most importantly, to do so with the urgency this brewing crisis demands."
--Alec MacGills
Posted at 3:41 PM ET on Oct 8, 2007
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: doubleblackdiva323 | October 10, 2007 7:36 PM
Yes. Obama has it right. Where is Hillary on this issue? I suppose her corporate connections will hinder her from making any significant movement in this area.
Posted by: zbob99 | October 9, 2007 9:24 PM
Reaching any kind of world consensus has always been a challenge. If this requirement ends up being imposed on U.S firms only it would amount to a taxation that could push industry to move overseas or areas of the world where emissions are less regulated.
Polluters pay for every ton of carbon emissions: Do you back this proposition?
----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=669
.
Posted by: PollM | October 9, 2007 3:15 PM
Proponents who are now calling Nuclear Power clean are "cherry-picking the data" by conspicuously omitting any mention of plutonium as one of the waste products, produced in quantity, by nuclear power plant reactors. Prior to 1940, plutonium occurred naturally only in trace amounts in the immediate vicinity of naturally decaying uranium. Within 20 years of Nuclear Power Proliferation, plutonium existed in quantities of hundreds of tons on the planet.
According to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", a massive compendium of much of the known data for the elements and chemical compounds, "The maximum permissible body burden, or the amount that can be maintained indefinitely in an adult without producing significant body injury, is 0.06 micrograms (.0000021 oz). Plutonium (Pu), therefore, is one of the most dangerous poisons known." Also worth noting is that the half-life of Pu (time for half the mass to disintegrate) is 24,360 years.
And all this refers only to chemical and radiological toxicity. This does not include the significant fact that Plutonium can also be made to reach a critical mass as demonstrated by the Nagasaki bomb which was Plutonium based (Hiroshima was a Uranium based bomb).
No containment method, including burying in mountains, even if we assume no breech, such as earthquakes or other explosions, can be expected to last for more than a few centuries before leeching out into the environment.
"Contrary to the claims of its proponents, nuclear power is not only tremendously expensive, but also very dirty and highly dangerous -- producing thousands of tons of long-lived radioactive waste each year, for which there exists no permanent storage facility". ~ Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org)
Nuclear Power is most assuredly not a clean energy alternative.
Posted by: pulciano | October 9, 2007 12:29 PM
I am for Obama and so I am glad to see him commit to a strong plan for action on global warming and energy independence. We simply must have action and switch to new technologies. If we had spent all the money we are spending on Iraq on solar, wind and other renewables, we could have saved lives and become energy independent and slowed global warming. We can't delay any longer. We need a President that can get things done. Unfortunately Clinton, if elected will still be fighting the right wingers and they her. She won't get the cooperation she needs. I think Obama has the best chance of get the problems solved. He did it in Illinois by talking to Republicans. We need those 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.
Posted by: goldie2 | October 9, 2007 11:25 AM
Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary has.
Bill Clinton's experience is not Hillary's experience....unless you're saying you'll let your dentists' spouse give you your next root canal. Gimme a freaking break.
Hillary is too inexperienced!
Hillary is too green!
Posted by: julieds | October 9, 2007 3:50 AM
oops, it was
I'm a green, green freshman
Green as I can be
No LOWER form of animal life
On Earth in the land or sea.
He is still too green.
Posted by: mel | October 9, 2007 1:33 AM
I believe when I went to high school my father told me this saying:
I'm a green, green freshman
Green as I can be
No other form of animal life
On Earth, or land or sea
He is too "green" to be the leader of the free world and now is not the time for us to be put in the hands of inexperience. We need a strong leader to bring us out of this mess the Bush administration has put us in.
HILLARY in 2008
Posted by: mel | October 9, 2007 1:28 AM
And for his advisors who read these blogs, have him stop sticking his nose in the air with that concerned look on his face - he looks arrogant and generally like an a%*.
Posted by: clawrence35 | October 8, 2007 9:21 PM
This is all lip service in order to try and win over environmentalist and those of us who truly care about the environment. His actions, and the lack of actions in the state legislature, speak much more loudly than any speech. While he was speaking on the campaign trail, mass transit is falling apart in his home town adding more and more vehicles to our roads. This guy is such a joke - promising to reform Washington after only a little over a year in Washington he rewarded those oil companies and the coal industry and everything he supposedly is going to stand up against in the Whitehouse, but can't do in the Senate.
This guy is old news except when he insults our troops by implying they are indiscriminately bombing villages in Afghanistan, promising to meet with rouge leaders, or challenging those of us who display the flag (which I proudly wore on my uniform serving in Iraq and returned to speak up against the misguided strategy of the Bush administration) with the dubious and audacious notion that he possess the judgment while missing the votes to change our strategy and voting for the Biden bill or even voting on the Iranian issue. I hope everyone in America is waking up to the fact that this guy would be a HORRIABLE choice for my party to put forward as their candidate.
Posted by: clawrence35 | October 8, 2007 9:18 PM
I assume everyone can see through the pseudo-science spewed by "DrColes", whose "doctorate" must be in Creation Science. Humanity's role is global warming is more than demonstrated by the actual recorded affect of CO2 output.
I applaud Obama's move away from gasified coal, as it was an issue I needed to get past to commit to him completely. I believe that many progressive voters who are split between Obama and Edwards will view this as a positive step for Obama.
Posted by: KANSASCHAUN | October 8, 2007 5:18 PM
Cap-and-trade is a fraud, and he endorses it? August 2007 Update: Manmade Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ and Flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros.
Posted by: DrColes | October 8, 2007 4:59 PM
Bold and solid. Perhaps, we could create a new commodity exchange from this proposal. This will create more jobs for the economy and i can see a huge industry develop if he can lead this process.
Posted by: gbuze007 | October 8, 2007 4:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Yes! It's great that Obama has "gone green." He is the best candidate. Hillary Clinton would be good, but she has some views that aren't the greatest. She said in an earlier debate against Edwards that she plans to KEEP TROOPS IN IRAQ! Also, she IS NOT GREEN! The Republicans are all NOT GREEN war-supporters who drive GAS-GUZZLING SUVs that are causing GLOBAL WARMING! My family drives TWO hybrids! Support Obama '08! He is the best choice for America.