Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

This was a big week for our Presidential candidates and energy policy, specifically domestic oil drilling. With the recent decision by a House Sub-committee to continue the ban on more offshore drilling, spirited discussion regarding domestic oil has sprung up everywhere. This week John McCain extended his support for offshore drilling, stating that he thinks the ban should be lifted however he also made the statement that he opposes any drilling of ANWR. Barack Obama opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and ANWR drilling.

As Americans, we have a lot to think about. The fact is we do have domestic oil that we are not extracting. Geologists report we have billions of barrels in both the Bakkan Shale and ANWR. Why is John McCain in favor of lifting the offshore drilling ban while at the same time opposed to ANWR drilling? Is it politically convenient? Is it a possible attempt to satisfy both sides of a debate? Why is Barack Obama opposed to all new domestic drilling? Despite the fact that offshore drilling is technologically at its best, we have other options in other areas.

Editor’s Note: This is a follow up post to Obama’s Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence.

Regardless of who is elected next November, both candidates agree that climate change is a fact and not a theory. “I know that climate change is real,” said John McCain. “We can have a debate about how serious it is, but the debate about climate change is over.”

McCain and Obama however vary widely in their response to this issue, leaving the American people with a choice of approaches when choosing the next president. McCain’s primary weapons in this battle includes implementing a cap and trade system for emissions and utilizing greater amounts of nuclear power.

Cap and Trade

“Cap and trade is being implemented in Europe and they have stumbled and they’ve had problems but it is still the right thing to do,” said John McCain. “It is what we did in relation to acid rain.”

One of the reasons McCain supports this approach is because it encourages the market to respond with the lowest cost approach. He believes the market will correct itself with the use of cleaner technologies without the need for intervention, such as a tax credit or major investment from the government.

Following on from Monday’s article from Low Impact Living, “Who’s the Greenest? Obama vs. McCain”, I’ve decided to take a bit more of an in depth look at their policies. But all of this has a little bit of a twist, because unlike most political pundits around here, I’m from Australia, and can’t vote! Sadly, because, not surprisingly, I’d vote Obama all the way peoples!

The American political season is now in full swing, and with Barack Obama finally securing the nomination for Democratic Presidential nominee, the games can really begin to heat up. One of the big topics – alongside or just underneath the economy – will be the environment, and how to best preserve it (or resurrect it after George W. Bush is finished with it).

And, not surprisingly, a lot of the end results being pitched by Senator Obama and Senator John McSame McCain are looking mighty similar. However how they want to get there are bipolar at best.

Editor’s note: Let the race begin! As Senator Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s time to start comparing his plans and record with that of presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain. Our friends at Low Impact Living get the ball rolling… This post was originally published on Wednesday, June 4, 2008.

Now that we seem to have a Democratic candidate, we all need to be digging into the environmental views and policy plans of Senators Obama and McCain.

To help us sort it out, Reuters has published a featured called FACTBOX: U.S. Presidential Candidates on the Environment and Energy. It’s a good piece and we encourage you to read it. Here are some highlights:

On Climate Change

• Obama would cut carbon dioxide emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and require fuel suppliers to cut carbon content by 10 percent by 2020.
• McCain favors a cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions. He sponsored legislation in 2007 to cut emissions by 30 percent by 2050.

Thus far, the Democrats have dominated the media’s attentions as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battle it for the nomination. True, it is hard to ignore innuendos about RFK’s assassination; however, it is time we start paying attention to the Republican nominee John McCain. Personally, I can’t imagine he will be elected, but I have been wrong before with my election predictions, and it is important to know where he stands on climate change.

Two weeks ago while campaigning in Oregon, McCain stood amongst wind turbines to talk climate change:

Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.

I agree with McCain on many levels, but what exactly are his climate change strategies beyond political rhetoric? According to Plenty Magazine, “He proposes a cap-and-trade scheme that will limit greenhouse gas emissions to sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050;” however, scientists, Obama, and Clinton recommend 80 percent reductions. McCain does not favor allowing companies to buy extra carbon allowances, and he supports carbon offsetting. The problem with McCain’s ideas on climate change is he supports tax payer subsidies for nuclear power and has voted several times against a renewable energy standard.

Oh, I admit it; I’ve fallen hard for Obama. Perhaps it is his handsome face or eloquent manner of speech, or perhaps it is because he is the first viable candidate (sorry Kucinich and Nader) to speak the truth. First, Obama opposed the gas tax holiday, designed to distract Americans from the bigger picture of our energy usage. Now, he is blaming the Iraq war for America’s utter failure as a climate leader.

Shortly after last week’s primaries, Obama stated:

I think the way we have run this war in Iraq has lessened our ability to move our allies. It has led us to ignore the critical needs for us to focus on a sound energy policy in this country. It has left us unable to lead on critical global issues like global warming. And it has led us to neglect what ultimately is the most important thing to keeping America safe, and that is having an economy that is the envy of the world and that gives us the resources and the power to project ourselves around the world.

As I monitored the results of Tuesday’s primaries, mostly thanks to my Twitter friends, I was once again struck how the candidates and general population are ignoring the greatest issue facing human kind: climate change. Media outlet after media outlet proclaimed the economy as the greatest concern of voters; however, the connection to the environment seems to be lost in the hype. Not only is environmental degradation caused by our hunger for rapid, continual economic growth, but the environment also offers the solution to leading us out of recession.

Whether you like it or not, we live in a corporatocracy where decisions are made in favor of short term profits in contrast to the long term effects on our environment. When we expect that our economy will perpetually grow without considering the environmental consequences of corporate decisions, we are doomed. This is what the presidential candidates should be talking about: how can we ensure a stable economy that protects the environment. The solution is green jobs.

I found this video on YouTube - a Barack Obama campaign ad that highlights how politically useful it is for presidents to tout the need for American energy independence.

Obama says he’ll bring energy leadership… Somebody needs to.

Stumble It! • Digg This!