Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Surprise: Democratic Presidential Candidates Have Far to Go to Meet Voters' Desires on the Environment

By Robert L. Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation. Posted May 21, 2007.


To catch up to where the voters are on energy policy, presidential candidates still have a big gap to close.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Confronted with the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, rising gas prices and the "inconvenient truth" of global warming, Americans are looking for leadership on energy independence and the threat posed by catastrophic climate change. Even George Bush, Big Oil's pocketed president, now pays lip service to the need to end our "addiction to oil." But with his policies making us more, not less, dependent on foreign oil, energy will be at the center of the 2008 campaign. The question is whether the presidential candidates have caught up with the voters.

Energy independence now rivals health care as the top domestic concern. In an April Center for American Progress poll, 60 percent of Americans supported bold action on global warming. A staggering 79 percent believe shifting to alternative energy sources will help the economy and create, not cost, jobs. Voters think the United States is falling behind other countries, and they want government to lead.

This consensus has yet to penetrate Republican presidential campaigns. While the GOP candidates nod rhetorically to the importance of energy independence, they offer little policy vision and few proposals. Frontrunner Rudy Giuliani doesn't mention energy, climate change or the environment in the issue section of his website -- a bizarre omission for someone pitching a campaign on his ability to wage a smart "war on terror." Mitt Romney echoes Dick Cheney, pitting the economy against clean energy, warning that "Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore."

Only Senator John McCain stands apart from the lemmings, calling for action on climate change and co-sponsoring a cap on carbon emissions. McCain couples this with strong support of nuclear power, dismissing continuing concerns about cost, waste storage, safety and proliferation.

In stark contrast, all the Democratic candidates offer bolder initiatives. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich have embraced the need for an Apollo-like program -- a multilayered drive for energy independence. And Barack Obama eloquently depicts a generational challenge: "At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil."

Each major Democratic candidate offers a signature proposal. League of Conservation Voters head Gene Karpinski praises Edwards for having the "most comprehensive" plan. Edwards argues generally that dealing with global warming is more important than closing budget deficits or sustaining the Bush tax cuts.

He would generate $13 billion a year from a carbon dioxide cap and a rollback of oil subsidies and use that to finance renewable energy technologies. He calls for reducing oil consumption by increasing the percentage of biofuels in the fuel supply and by giving subsidies to auto manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. He would mandate that 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable resources by 2025 and require that all new demand through the next decade be met through improved energy efficiency. He'd give consumers tax breaks for purchasing efficient cars and appliances and increase spending on clean-energy research and development. Edwards says this will help generate jobs and growth, estimating that 1 million jobs would be created.

Senator Chris Dodd is nearly as comprehensive, and more courageous. He scorns as ineffective the "cap and trade" program the other candidates support and bites the bullet for a carbon tax he estimates could generate $50 billion a year to be spent deploying clean energy and energy-efficient technologies. Dodd also calls for a job-training program to help workers gain experience and upward mobility in emerging clean-energy markets.

Senator Clinton makes jobs central to her argument. She alone of the leading candidates attended the January Apollo Alliance summit, where she argued that "the clean energy agenda is a jobs agenda." Her signature initiative is a Strategic Energy Fund of $50 billion over ten years, to be raised by taxing the "excess profits" and rolling back the subsidies of Big Oil. The fund would subsidize existing technologies and seed research and development. Of the candidates, Clinton is the most forceful in taking on the oil companies and challenging Bush Administration failures.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, energy

Robert L. Borosage is co-director of Campaign for America's Future. Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Where have all the leaders gone?
Posted by: HughScott on May 21, 2007 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a lifelong registered Republican who cast his first ballot in 1956 -- for Ike, naturally, followed by Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon again, Ford and Reagan. In 1988, I jumped ship because G.H.W. "New World Order" Bush was a neocon and have voted with Democrats ever since.

Next year, unless Al Gore changes his mind and runs, I'm going fishing in November instead of voting. Yeah, I know. It's not patriotic to skip national elections, but having participated in every one the past 50 years, I think I deserve a pass, especially when the only candidates worth considering -- Dennis K. and Ron P. -- aren't in the race, practically speaking.

There is one caveat, however. I will definitely show up at my polling place if Billary is the Democratic Party candidate. With the NAFTA greed queen and AIPAC lover on the ticket, I'm voting Republican or independent, whichever will cause her the most hurt.

Finally, if you feel like me, that Senator Clinton is not qualified to be our commander-in-chief and want to poke fun at her in public, visit Stop-Hillary.com and follow its suggestions.

God Bless America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I Agree (in Part) Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» Pick one. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» I'll keep #4 in mind, Bob. Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
Upside Down
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 21, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's no mystery why the leaders don't catch up with the voters. Our governmental system is upside down. In a democracy the people are supposed to lead. The elected officials are supposed to carry out the mandates of the people. It's up to the voters to tell the candidates what they want before the election.

Do you want your boss to make you guess what he wants done and then complain loudly when you don't do it?

The Lincoln Initiative is a grassroots movement to tell both parties what we want done, along with a threat to show that we're serious. Then, at election time, we can choose which candidates have the best plans to carry out our agenda.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joseph Brean:
Posted by: rwa on May 21, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Environmentalism even has its persecutors, embodied in the Bush White House attack dogs who have conducted no less than an Inquisition against climate scientists, which failed to bring them to heel but instead inspired potential martyrs. Of course, as religions tend to do, environmentalists commit persecution of their own, which has created heretics out of mere skeptics.


All of this might be fine if religions had a history of rational scientific inquiry and peaceful, tolerant implementation of their beliefs. As it is, however, many religions, environmentalism included, continue to struggle with the curse of literalism, and the resultant extremism.


"Maybe I'm wrong, but I think all this is wrapped up in our belief that we can predict the future," said Dr. Orrell. "What we need is more of a sense that we're out of our depth, and that's more likely to promote a lasting change in behaviour."


Projections are useful to "provoke ideas and aid thinking about the future," but as he writes in the book, "they should not be taken literally."


The "fundamental danger of deterministic, objective science [is that] like a corny, overformulaic film, it imagines and presents the world as a predictable object. It has no sense of the mystery, magic, or surprise of life."


The solution, he thinks, is to adopt what the University of Toronto's Thomas Homer-Dixon calls a "prospective mind" - an intellectual stance that is "proactive, anticipatory, comfortable with change, and not surprised by surprise."


In short, if we are to be good, future problem solvers, we must not be blinded by prophecy.


"I think [this stance] opens up the possibility for a more emotional and therefore more effective response," Dr. Orrell said. "There's a sense in which uncertainty is actually scarier and more likely to make us act than if you have bureaucrats saying, Well, it's going to get warmer by about three degrees, and we know what's going to happen."

www.canada.com/nationalpost

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Joseph Brean: Posted by: bornxeyed
Two points.
Posted by: rockpicker on May 21, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One. The electric car has already been demonstrated to work cleanly and effectively. Instead of "gas" stations, we could just as reasonably have "battery" stations. You pull in, take out one battery and drop in a fully charged unit, and you're off. Simple!
Let's get with the program. If the car companies refuse, then boycott them into ruin. Simple.

Two. Tom Bearden and his group of innovators are building electrical generators with no moving parts. Their Tesla-based designs need to be examined and finessed. We don't need more coal and nuclear power generating plants. We need a new understanding of our accepted electrical engineering models and mathematics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two points. Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Two points. Posted by: rwa
» RE: Two points. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Two points. Posted by: rockpicker
» RE: Two points. Posted by: Benjaminsjw
Third point.
Posted by: rockpicker on May 21, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate to offer detailed, constructive answers during the first democratic debate, is being marginalized by the press. We're being sold Hillary or Obama, take your choice. That's bullshit!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pols are always behind the polls
Posted by: fanny666 on May 21, 2007 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Politicians are to the right of the genereal public on a whole host of issues. The environment is just one of them.

PollingReport.com has a list of issues for which they have collected many poll results... if you poke around and pay attention to how things are worded, you see that the government is way behind what the people want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One reason not to vote for Hillary. She supports the Jewish rightwing organization, AIPAC.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 21, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before AlterNet lefties accuse me of being anti-Semitic, as someone who visited Dachau and the Ann Frank House while touring Europe, I used to be an ardent backer of Israel, when it followed humanistic Hebrew law. Now, sadly, because of the fascist Likud Party, King David's once righteous warriors have become cowardly neocons. Like their spineless PNAC cronies in America.

Case at point, Israel using helicopter gunships to kill innocent civilians in Palestine and doing the same thing in Lebanon last year with IDF cluster bombs and 2,000-lb depleted uranium bunker busters. How can anyone defend those barbaric tactics? They can't, but Hillary did.

Consider the following excerpts from CounterPunch.org article titled, “Hillary Clinton, AIPAC and Iran” by Joshua Frank (01/26/06).

…AIPAC's hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.

During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront."

"In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability."

"During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ..."

As Sen. Clinton embraces Israel's violence, as well as AIPAC's duplicitous Iran position, she simultaneously ignores the hostilities inflicted upon Palestine, as numerous Palestinians have been killed during the recent shelling of the Gaza Strip. Over the past weeks Israel continues to mark the occupied territories (they call 'buffer zones') like a frothing-mouth K9 on the loose.

Hillary Clinton's silence toward Israel's brutality implies the senator will continue to support AIPAC's mission to occupy the whole of the occupied territories, as well as a war on Iran in the future. AIPAC's right -- even President Bush appears to be a little sheepish when up against Hillary "warmonger" Clinton.

End of CounterPunch extract.

I voted for Vietnam veterans Al Gore and John Kerry because they were qualified to act as commander in-chief. Hillary should not serve in that position because she lacks leadership experience.
If you agree that Hillary should not be in charge of our armed forces even with Bill as a back-up and want to poke fun at her in public, visit Stop-Hillary.com and follow its suggestions.

If enough voters express their displeasure with Senator Clinton, no matter how they do it, she might not get the primary delegates needed for a first-round victory at the Democratic nominating convention, which would open the door for Al Gore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

vote Green
Posted by: DaBear on May 21, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or bend over some more.... and don't fergit to smile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public image, private reality
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 21, 2007 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prior to the 2006 elections, the Democrats promised to roll back the fossil fuel subsidies and boost spending on renewables, They 'rolled back' some small fraction of the oil subsidies (15%?) and gave nothing to renewables, after a couple of 'leading Democrats' in the pockets of the oil industry and the US military-industrial complex refused to go along with the plan.

Now it's a hot topic for campaign speeches again - but these are the same Presidential candidates who won't touch the topic of the sham domestic democracy and the global military empire; they won't acknowledge that the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was not WMDs, but rather gaining control of the world's biggest oil reserve, so how can anyone believe what they say about promoting renewable energy? That applies especially to the Clintons, who have been a loyal servant of the corporatocracy for quite a while now.

Does anyone really believe that the oil and coal corporations and the funds and banks that profit from them will sit idly by while 90% of the fossil fuel market is dismantled? Global warming? Oil wars? They're raking in billions in profits - certainly enough to pay for air conditioning on their private reserves. We need politicians who don't answer to the oil industry for real change - a steep carbon tax on all fossil fuels and serious support for renewable energy and efficient technology are needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well informed voters are aware of Mike Gravel's candidacy.
Posted by: johngary66 on May 21, 2007 11:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the main stream media, CNN, can interview Mike Gravel, why won't Alternet? It was an excellent interview and he even made a good argument for legalising drugs. He wants us out of Iraq now and is Green. So quit bitching about not having anyone to vote for and do some research!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]