What I’m getting at, is that I did not see Hillary Clinton on This Week with George Stephanopolous, on Sunday morning. But since we have a 24-hour media matrix covering every breath and every word in this presidential campaign, I was told all about it by all of my regular news outlets as soon as I got up. I was most struck by Senator Clinton’s reply to Stephanopolous’ question about the pushback her proposed summertime gas-tax holiday has received.
STEPHANOPOLOUS:

“Economists say that’s not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They’re not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.

Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?”

[Clinton tried to elude the question with a foray into populist appeals of how elite opinion is bringing down the hard-working middle class, but Stephanopolous reiterated the question].

STEPHANOPOULOS:

“But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?”

CLINTON:

“Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.”

Now, I am usually the last person to be defending economists, but when it comes to designing energy tax policy, perhaps an economist is not a bad person to talk to, no? Former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich thinks so. Reich wrote in his blog on Sunday:

“I’m not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she’s “not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

“Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.”

This gas tax holiday is just a bad idea all the way around. First of all, Sen. Clinton proposes that her tax be paid for by the oil companies. Do you actually think something like that would get through the Senate? Let me say this, if Congress wouldn’t repeal tax breaks to big oil to fund renewable energy tax credits, they are not going to pay for a summertime tax moratorium on gas with an increased tax on the oil companies.

Abolishing the federal excise tax on gasoline in the summer leading up to the presidential election is exactly the kind of pure pandering that is not going to get Hillary Clinton or John McCain elected.

Photo: robertstown2001

See Also:

• “Obama’s New Ad Rejects Gas Tax Break“
• “Can Hillary Clinton Take on Big Oil?“
• “Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

In a recent post, my colleague Jennifer Lance asked whether Hillary Clinton can take on big oil. Among other things, Jennifer concluded that despite the good intentions of Senator Clinton,”A gas tax holiday will not solve the problem of peak oil.” And that is exactly the same message the Obama campaign wants to deliver in an ad now running in North Carolina ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.

The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.

See Also:

“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”

“Video: Obama on Climate and Energy”

“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

The federal excise tax on gasoline was first implemented in 1932, although the states began taxing fuel in 1919. It is estimated that suspending this tax, as proposed by Clinto and McCain, would result in a loss of revenue of nine billion dollars for the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for interstate maintenance. McCain says he would shift revenue from other sources, and Clinton proposes enacting windfall-profits tax on big oil companies to make up for the loss. Both candidates are making Obama look like the bad guy for not wanting to save consumers 18 cents per gallon, but would this temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline really be the catalyst to change our current oil dependency and the harm it causes to the environment?

Apparently, Obama trusts the oil companies as much as I do. Last week, he stated:

You don’t know that the oil companies are going to pass on the savings to the consumers or whether they’re just gonna, you’re just gonna see an increase in prices, by the same amount that the gas tax goes down. And it would deplete the highway trust fund that we need for rebuilding our roads and our bridges.

I agree with Obama that this is just a “short-term quick fix”, and I can’t help that it is just a ploy to get votes by the two other candidates. I do, however, appreciate that Clinton wishes to tax the record profits big oil companies are scamming out of the American public, a move Senator McCain admitently opposes. In truth, the amount saved by consumers through the removal of such a tax over the summer months is only about $30, so what’s the big deal.

What is the big deal? How about improving gas mileage in all vehicles, providing incentives for car companies to vamp up production of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids now (and I’m not talking about some joke of an SUV hybrid that gets 30 MPG), stop farm subsidies for not growing food and put it into biofuel productions, etc. A “gas tax holiday” will not solve the problem of peak oil. It is not a long term solution, and of course, our bozo of a president proposes the same old policies to help big oil rape the American public of their hard earned income. Somehow, I don’t think saving $30 over the summer will help when oil reaches $200 a barrel.

Image: Judiciary Report

Related posts on big oil companies and politics:

• The Big Oil Company Scam

• Mean Joe Green #5: “Big Oil and The Loggers” Continue to Play to a Sellout Crowd

• Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy

Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has been leading a compaign to instill “creation care” as a religious imperative. He attended the forum and this was his exchange with Barack Obama:

REV. CIZIK: How do you relate your faith to science generally and science policy, and let’s take an issue like climate and flesh that out, or take stem cells, something like that. Just give us a little more indication of how you think.

OBAMA: Well, first of all…

CIZIK: Is that fair enough?

OBAMA: It is fair enough. And you guys have done some terrific work on this. So I want to congratulate you on that.

OBAMA: And should it be part of God’s plan to have me in the White House, I look forward to our collaboration. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: So, look, the — one of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven’t been and this is one of those times where we’ve got to take the warning seriously.

I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier. By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won. And…(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And has done terrific work since. But I think that we are seeing enough warning signs for us to take this seriously. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing this planet from our children and our grandchildren.

And so we’ve got this obligation to them, which means that we’ve got to make some uncomfortable choices. And where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because it’s going to be hard to deal with.

We have to find resources in ourselves that allow us to make those sacrifices where we say, you know what? We’re not going to leave it to the next generation. We’re not going to wait.

OBAMA: We are going to put in place a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere. And we know that that requires us to make adjustments in terms of how we use energy. We’ve got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives.

And having faith, believing that this planet and this world extends beyond us, it’s not just here for us, but it’s here for, you know, more generations to come. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. And that’s why, as president, I hope to be able to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.

Eboo Patel, a Muslim who leads an organization called the Interfaith Youth Core addressed Senator Clinton with the following:

PATEL: Americans of all faiths and no faith at all genuinely believe in compassion and want to apply that in addressing global poverty and climate change. Can we do that without changing our standard of living?

CLINTON: Well, I believe there is so much we can do that we’re not doing that would not change our standard of living as an imposition from the outside, but which would inspire us to take action that would impact how we live.

And I don’t think we would notice it demonstrably undermining our standard of living, but it would give us the opportunity to set an example and to be a model.

When I think about the simple steps any one of us can take — you know, turning off lights when one leaves a room, unplugging appliances, changing to compact florescent bulbs — you know, my husband and I have done that — I don’t think it’s impacted our standard of living, but we feel like we’re making a small contribution to limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, you know, being more mindful of our purchases.

I hope that, as president, I can model that and lead that effort so that people don’t feel so threatened by the changes we’re talking about when it comes to dealing with global warming.

In preparation for the pope’s visit, I was reading that the Vatican is the first carbon-neutral state in the world now. Well, that shows leadership. And I don’t think it has impacted the work or the living. You know, Ambassador Flynn, who was our ambassador to the Vatican, might know. But it was a great statement.

And we can do more.

CLINTON: And I think that, with leadership, people will find ways to take those first steps. And then we can take even more.

Now there’s so much that I have to do as president with the cap and trade system, with moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, but I’m going to look for ways that will cushion the costs on middle class and working and poor people. Because I don’t believe that they should have to bear more than what they are bearing right now as we make this transition. And I believe we can accomplish that.

The forum brought out few contrasts between Obama and Clinton, but it was interesting to watch the candidates jump through the hoops of religious voters. It’s also refreshing to see leaders asking new questions and requiring different “moral values” from candidates in this election.

I’m not sure what it is about these ads that have captured the nation’s imagination; John McCain has his own version of it, and, of course, it inspired scores of parodies on YouTube and among late-night talk show comedians.

Still, I wonder if the candidates will get around to making one of these ads about the environment.

It’d be really easy to do, actually. All you need is a ringing phone…and no one to answer it.

That’s because the environment has somehow become a non-issue during this campaign season. All three candidates have fairly progressive views when it comes to addressing climate change, and they all tout the benefits of weening ourselves off foreign oil, so we’ve basically been told by the media that there’s nothing more to discuss on the topic.

The only problem is that voters WANT to discuss it.

According to a recent Gallup poll:

Americans continue to say (by a seven percentage-point margin, 49% to 42%) protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth.

In all fairness, the story goes on to say that the gap between those favoring the environment over the economy is closing rapidly. Of course, some of us happen to think that the two are not mutually exclusive, but that’s a topic for another day.

With that much support for environmental issues, you would think that the media would respond. Quite the contrary. Check out this depressing content analysis conducted by the League of Conservation Voters:

Total for 5 Top Political Reporters* updated 2/18/2008

Number of Interviews & Debates: 190
Number of Questions: 3,201
Questions That Mention Global Warming: 8
Global Warming Related Questions: 29

*(CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, NBC’s Tim Russert, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Bob Schieffer, and FOX News’s Chris Wallace)

As a graduate student in journalism, I’m inclined to say that this is a classic case of The Agenda-Setting Theory, which basically states that the media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about (we can end with prepositions in journalism…)

Can that really be the case? Is the media a monolithic beast with a well-planned agenda? Yes and no. There may not be a singular voice dictating what subjects get covered, but there clearly is a follow-the-mob mentality when it comes to chasing stories.

So while the mainstream media is busy focusing on the sermons of a Chicago preacher who isn’t even running for president, or whether some secret society of superdelegates will ultimately influence the nomination, we’re missing valuable opportunities to discuss the differences in the candidates’ environmental platforms. How exactly will they create “green” jobs? How will they interact with the rest of the world on climate change protocols? What sort of incentives will they offer for sustainable construction, renewable energy, hybrid cars?

How we get the mainstream media back on point is, of course, the $64,000 question. It starts with confronting outlets directly with this lack of environment-related campaign coverage. Emails to talking heads, newspapers, TV stations, radio hosts…believe me, if all it took was an email campaign to keep “Jericho” on the air, they’ll definitely listen to us.

But keep in mind that the media is rarely proactive, it’s mostly reactive, so in many ways this is as much a problem caused by the candidates as it is by the media. If we really want to improve coverage, we must demand that our candidates address the issue more frequently and with more depth. The more they address it, the more media will have to cover it.

Yes, the three candidates have fairly similar views on the major environmental themes, but there are distinct differences. We, as voters, deserve to have easy access to those differences.

Besides, I’ll be damned if the best discussion over climate change this election comes from an animated snow man during the YouTube debate.

illustration courtesy of Roberto Rizzato

Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Well, the dirty little secret is that without NAFTA America would no longer have a special deal with Canadian oil, which currently makes up roughly eight percent of annual U.S. oil consumption.

So — as sad as it is — breaking off the deal is itself a deal-breaker for both Democratic candidates, and, of course, for John McCain too. And, once again, our dependence on oil has led us into unsound policy.

Still, at least the Democratic candidates insist they will call for a restructuring of NAFTA—for both labor and environmental reasons.

We need to hold them to that promise.

It might provide a great opportunity to emphasize green practices. That means getting all three nations on board to create stricter—and enforceable—regulations; it means setting up a carbon-credit program between the three countries to help offset emissions of greenhouse gases; it means requiring all three nations to invest a substantial amount toward the development of renewable energy sources.

In other words use NAFTA to help put the three countries on the cutting-edge of the green movement. Make something positive out of a negative.

It looks like we’ll be stuck with NAFTA for the near future and that’s certainly bad news the way the agreement is currently structured. Any treaty that prolongs the short-sighted need to maintain our current levels of oil consumption, while neglecting to use the best alternative resources at the disposal of all three nations, is not just drinking our milkshake — it’s throwing it down the drain!

You get my point.

Flag artwork courtesy of illegalillegals

As Barack Obama chalked up another primary victory Tuesday in Mississippi, Hillary Rodham Clinton challenged rival Barack Obama on his record on energy policy. Campaigning in Pennsylvania and speaking in the state capitol, Clinton accused Obama of being all talk and no walk, by suggesting that he voted for the 2005 Cheney-crafted Energy Policy Act. A bill that Clinton claims is lining the pockets of big oil as the cost of gas nears $4 per gallon.

From the AP:

“Today my opponent is here in Pennsylvania talking about energy policy,” Clinton said. “That’s great, except in 2005 when we had a chance to say no to Dick Cheney and his energy bill, my opponent said yes and voted for it.”

“When it counted, I said no, he said yes,” said Clinton, adding that the measure was stuffed with “tax subsidies and giveaways” for oil companies and slowed the development of renewable energy.

“I gotta tell you, there’s a big difference between talk and action, but if you’re gonna talk, you ought to mean what you say so people can count on it,” Clinton quipped.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied that the Illinois senator voted for the energy bill in 2005 because it raised taxes on oil companies and boosted investment in alternative energy sources.

Photo Credit: Joe Crimmings Photography

Associated Press

Washington Post

The State of Nevada has opposed the Yucca Mountain project since it’s inception, and now, years overdue and billions of taxpayers dollars later, it’s still at least 10 years away from completion.

She criticized the Bush administration for it’s continuation of the project, calling it botched science.

Not only has Hillary promised to stop Yucca Mountain’s progress toward nuclear storage, but all Democratic candidates for president have done the same. Even Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul has ruled it out.

While Yucca Mountain is Nevada’s signature issue, the concern for shipment of nuclear materials stretches across the nation. I’ve included links to two sites showing proposed rail, truck and barge routes, with links to individual states showing which cities will be affected.

The waste, according to Las Vegas-based transportation consultant Fred Dilger, would arrive in 10,000 shipments, many going through major cities like chicago and Atlanta. Railway and truck accidents could have tragic consequences, especially since shipping routes are open to terrorist attacks.

So it looks as if we’re headed back to square one again, if Yucca Mountain is scrubbed as a high-level waste repository, where will it go? And, with more reactors apparently coming on line, how much is going to pile up before something terrible happens?

Potential Rail, Barge and Truck Routes to Yucca Mountain

Truck Shipments

State of Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects

Senator Clinton has been the perceived front-runner in the Democratic primary since she entered the race. Although, even in New Hampshire where support among registered Democrats remains high for both her and the former President, the race is tightening as we approach the January 8th primary.

She has been to the Granite State on many occasions, and she has brought Bill with her on many of her trips. Her political campaign in NH is heavily populated with Democratic activists and party officials who supported her husband and now support her.

In May, I met Senator Clinton in Manchester and asked her about the role of clean energy in her Administration. Clinton said, “I want to invest in clean energy technologies, and to establish a national program to reduce global warming and increase our fuel efficiency.”

When I followed up with a question about energy independence, she answered instead about climate change, “The United States must be a leader in international efforts to address the problem of climate change.”

Hillary has one of the most comprehensive energy plans of all candidates but she didn’t release it until just last month. John Edwards, Barrack Obama, and Dennis Kucinich all released comprehensive plans earlier than she did but her’s encompasses many more aspects than probably all the others combined.
Her plan states:

• Hillary proposes a cap-and-trade system that would cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
• Her plan would auction 100 percent of the pollution permits.
• Clinton wants to create a National Energy Council to coordinate action across every federal agency.
• Her political campaign is carbon neutral and she would support making more of the federal government carbon-neutral as well.
• Using a term that I first heard from Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM), Clinton wants to create an “Apollo-like project to achieve energy independence.”
• Clinton is a supporter of clean energy technologies – but her definition not only includes renewable energy, plug-in hybrids, and biofuels (which are good), but also includes ‘clean coal’ (which is not so good)!
• She also supports coal to liquid fuels technology which will still emit carbons into the atmosphere.
• Hillary wants to eliminate incandescent lightbulbs by 2020.
• She wants to encourage the creation of 5 million new jobs in clean energy over the next 10 years.
• She does oppose drilling for oil in ANWR as well as off the Outer Continental Shelf.
• She does, however, reluctantly support using nuclear power. As she said in a debate in NH, the nuclear power option has to remain on the table.
• She wants to adopt a 20% National Renewable Electricity Standard by the year 2020.
• Hillary wants to require that all federal buildings be carbon neutral by 2030.
• She would cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030.
• She would raise CAFÉ standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030.
• Clinton would become an international leader on global warming by signing the Kyoto Treaty and exceeding US targets.

Hillary’s plans are very comprehensive and well-detailed, just like her candidacy. But will her support of nuclear power and ‘clean coal’ break the hearts and cost her the support of the environmental community? That remains to be seen. But with less than 3 weeks to go, and with lots of snow on the ground, the presidential primary is heating up New Hampshire.

I have really enjoyed covering the candidates views on clean energy and energy independence for both the Green Options blog and for sustainabog and I want to thank David and Jeff and everyone who makes this all possible.

I’ve done my job; now it’s up to the voters to decide.

SmartPower - the national, non-profit marketing organization that is leading the creation of a voluntary market for clean energy and energy efficiency.

Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Website

Image Credit: Flickr - Senator Clinton Campaigning in Hampton, NH

Mike Garofalo’s Previous “Power To The People’ Columns