| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Pres. Candidate with Best Environmental Plan? |
Topic: Pres. Candidate with Best Environmental Plan?
| Author | Message |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 8/1/2007 11:52:34 AM | show profile Yes, they all live in huge houses and drive Hummers, but that aside, which Democratic Presidential candidate seems to have the best environmental proposals? Clinton - I can't find much on her, so I think she's holding her cards as long as possible. Obama - I think he's pretty good on these issues, although supports corn ethanol as they all do (think Iowa). Edwards - Of the three, I think I like his proposals best as he's more aggressive than the others (no idea what specifically Clinton is proposing though). He proposes a ban on building new coal-fired power plants and 40 mpg fuel economy standard on new cars by 2016. But as they all do, unfortunately supports corn ethanol. What do you think? |
| Mag Girl | Posted – 8/1/2007 12:17:02 PM | show profile And what about the other candidates? What people don't realize is that nearly 40% of the energy used in the US is consumed by buildings. Buildings are a great place to start with energy conservation, and probably politically more feasible than changing car fuel efficiency standards (although IMO that's necessary as well). And while using CFLs are a nice start, and I'm glad many people are switching to them, it's not nearly enough-it's merely a blip. Mechanical systems are the biggest energy consumer in buildings. We need stricter buildings codes, and we need to get the dialogue out there in full force that lifecycle costs of well-designed energy efficient buildings are less than that of energy hog buildings, despite the initial costs being higher. The technology is there for efficient buildings, but many building owners and operators need to be convinced that it is in their best interest to make that a priority. We need more tax incentives (ones that will actually make a difference), and especially a strict national building energy efficiency standard or code. Thanks to Sen. Schumer for recognizing this in his amendment he proposed for the recent energy bill. Most people can tell you what their car gets in mpg, but most wouldn't be able to tell you how much energy per square foot their house or office uses. We could save an enormous amount of energy if only more buildings employed existing energy-saving technology. (And full disclosure- I work for a nonprofit that does research and promotes building energy efficiency, but this is an issue near and dear to me, and I am speaking for myself and with my own opinions.) |
| catlondon | Posted – 8/1/2007 12:34:28 PM | show profile Richardson has a mixed record on energy and environmental issues--I know he's done some good work as Gov of NM but those stock holdings in offshore drilling and energy companies, and the fact that he was on the boards of those companies, seems a little Cheneyesque, although he has since severed ties (and made a bundle). Clinton makes her stand on health and poverty issues, so while she wouldn't do any damage, it's not how she identifies herself. I think environmentalists would be frustrated that she didn't do more, but I don't think you can make a case that someone putting universal health insurance for all Americans before environmental issues is doing the wrong thing. Corn is everyone's easy answer although I'm horrified at the thought of putting our energy future into the hands of big agricultural. I'm less interested in what they propose for the campaign than how open they would be in making and pushing hard choices once in office. It's hard to know that about Obama and Edwards, but I give Hillary props for continuing to push for health care considering the very public nastiness she endured during Round 1 while Bill was in office. It would have been very easy for her to abandon to the cause and move to something she hadn't already been scorched for. |
| UGoGirl | Posted – 8/2/2007 9:30:53 AM | show profile Mag Girl, I think you are 100% correct, and fortunately I'm seeing that a lot of companies are recognizing that improving the efficiency of their buildings is not only the "right" thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do from a business standpoint. It may take a few years before the investments pay off, but then it will continue paying off for many many years. This will only become more true as energy/water costs increase in coming years. Cat, I can understand why the health care issue is issue #1 for a lot of people. It seems that if we want to think we are a compassionate society, the very least we should be able to provide to our people is basic health care. And if so many other countries manage to do it, there is no reason why we can't. It's an issue I don't know a whole lot about, but I'm looking forward to positive changes in this direction. On Clinton, you may be right. She's certainly smart and tough, and seems to be quite effective as a senator. I'm not sure she's my #1 choice at this point (she may be at some point, but I just haven't firmed a firm opinion). I would hope that if she is elected president, she would perhaps move a bit to the left and worry more about being the best president possible (for the people rather than special interests) and worry less about being re-elected. |
