Ever try to figure out where each candidate stands on Green initiaties, climate change or anything related? Well I did - and it was a royal pain in the butt. My initial intention was to research this area for a feature story to post, but then I found Grists's compilation of the position of each candidate and I thought that the most valuable thing I could do is share that posting with everyone, but add a little bit of my analysis (take it or leave it) to add some color. For the first time I really got to see a concise summary of where each candidate stands, interviews with each candidate and an in-depth dossier about each candidate regarding Green. I really think we should thank Grist for putting such a strong compilation of information together. On the right side is a widget that you can use to find out all of Grist's information on the topic so please feel free to click through to find out what the story is on each candidate. After reading through the data, I thought it might be valuable to consolidate some of my thoughts and findings. Read what I have to say and see if you agree or disagree. ...read my reaction

       

• Nearly all of the Democras converge on a commitment by the US to a 25% renewable energy target by 2025. I don't believe this will happen for one minute. The EU just committed to a goal of 20% by 2020 and countries like Germany and Denmark are way ahead of the United States. To say that we are going to hit a target that outpaces them is not realistic at this point. Based on where we are as a country I would say that our targets should be directly tied to investment in the Green space - otherwise, they are not realistic


• Of the Democratic candidates who promote this 25% goal by 2025 here is the breakdown of how much money each candidate thinks it will take to get us there (all numbers are US government investment in research, sustainability initiatives, etc) 1) Hillary Clinton: $50 billion over 10 years 2) Barrack Obama: $150 billion over 10 years 3) John Edwards: $130 billion over 10 years.OK. So Hillary is the one out of wack with the other two, or are the other two unrealistic and Hillary is the only one with a realistic plan. My interpretation, no one is being realistic at this point. Hillary doesn't have enough money in the budget to get us there, so her 15% number by 2025 is not realistic, While Obama's and Edward's plans are potentially not realistic from a budget viewpoint. My take, I'd rather someone show that they know how much something is going to cost and say we'll try to raise the funds, than someone who claims we can get more done with a much, much smaller amount of money. Doesn't it seem wierd that the US is willing to spend more money on war than on saving the human race?


• All three candidates come in around the same territory when it comes to mpg goals - which is to say about 40 mpg on average by 2020. To me this is one of the most troubling stats. It shows that none of the candidates are willing to put down a strong government mandate. I personally would like to see us create a unifying goal of America kicking everyone else's ass when it comes to cars. Why don't we say that 100% of cars in the US will utilize green technologies by 2009! I think we should be setting bold goals in this category. Not only for the environment, but to recapture the American brand in teh car industry. Why are we so afraid to compete?


• All three candidates support a cap and trade system to get us to 80% of the emissions of 1990 by 2050.This sounds like a non-commit commit to me. They could basically agree to this without doing anything in their administration.

• All but Mike Huckabee say they support renewables but have no plan. Mike Huchabee says he will get the US to 15% renewables by 2020 with a budget of ?????? and he also includes "clean coal" and "nuclear" in his definition.I feel like we need to give the Republicans a clear definition of sustainable. Coal usage is not sustainable whether it is clean or not. I know its dirt cheap, no pun intended, but we have to have a program that does not include coal.


• In terms of a cap and trade system, all of the Republicans are against it with the acception of Huckabee and McCain. McCain has a strategy, but it produces half of the results of the Democrats proposal and Huckabee seems to be saying he supports a cap and trade system, but has no plan.I just don't think either party knows what to do here. McCain seems to have a pretty good understanding of the issues here, given that he is the only Republican with a stated plan, but I just don't get the feeling that anyone knows what they are doing.


• On the MPG standard front, I don't think I know if the Republicans have a common ground on this one. It seems there are varying plans from leave the market alone and demand for energy efficient cars will incent the car companies to change, to support for mpg goals.I think for mpg goals, the American car industry should get together and show the US government how business is done. The demand is clearly there already for energy efficient cars, but our US based car companies are simply slow to react.

Posted by Steve Newcomb on January 28, 2008 03:46 PM | Permalink