"Do you support cutting greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050? How would you go about doing that, and specifically would you support a revenue-neutral carbon tax on polluting industries?"
"We need to commit to independence from fossil fuels within a generation, and that will require major investments, a substantial shift in incentives, and a culture change as consumers. A revenue-neutral tax shift is one way to do this, but so are cap-and-trade systems that have worked to address problems such as acid rain. As for the target, I most often hear from experts that we must draw the line at no more than a 2-degree Celsius temperature increase. Our goal must be set not by what seems politically possible but what will actually produce the end result we need."
Elsewhere, Perriello has been quoted ( http://perrielloforcongress.com/news/article-3-26-08-3 ) as saying "Farmers need to serve as freedom fighters from foreign oil." Of course, the oil is not a problem because it is foreign, but because it is oil. And biofuels are not necessarily the answer even if they're domestic and clean, and even if the Fifth District of Virginia has a lot of struggling farmers in it. What of the danger of putting fuels in competition with food for farm land? What about creating local markets for local food crops?
Among the issues missing from Perriello's website is impeachment and the rule of law. Perriello has said the following:
"Telecoms should absolutely not be granted any kind of immunity for illegal wiretapping. They not only broke the law, they broke the trust of people, and they should not get a free pass. Our Constitutional principles should be absolute in this regard, and we should not set a precedent that corporations are let off the hook for breaking the law."
But, of course, the President has openly confessed to breaking the same law. Should there be a precedent that presidents are let off the hook?
Perriello has made a good Youtube video on the topic of telecom immunity. He should make more videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxqUfpmLnHU
In this video, he says that the Bush Administration has spent a lot of time trying to undermine Constitutional principles. Elsewhere ( http://www.perrielloforcongress.com/news/article-3-26-08-3 )we find this:
"'Peace is a good thing, but justice is what we wanted,' said Perriello regarding his time spent working in other countries."
Do we want justice in this country?
On Raising Kaine, Perriello said:
"Waterboarding is torture, and torture is an affront to human dignity. America is better than that. It is also true that torture produces bad intelligence - false leads far more likely to distract us from the ticking time bomb than to lead us there. These tactics are lazy intelligence gathering requested by lazy leaders without the courage to do what it takes for America to produce the quality intel networks we had during the Cold War. But even if it were not a strategic disaster, it is wrong and America is better than this. We should not torture or waterboard. Period."
What should we do if a president authorizes torture?
Raising Kaine asked: "Do you agree with Al Gore that our nation is now facing a 'constitutional crisis?' If so, what would you advocate doing about it?"
Perriello replied: "Gore raises many strong points. While I would have liked to see more leaders in the US Congress stand up on issues like habeas and wiretapping, I believe that a new Democrat President will end the Imperial Executive. Regardless, we must worry about what precedents have been set and do what is necessary to correct the path."
Perriello sounds like someone who knows what is right but wants to get along with current congressional leaders who obviously do not. On the other hand, Donna Edwards of Maryland, a fellow supporter of the "Responsible Plan," backed impeachment until she won her primary this year (which in her district amounts to winning the election) and now she no longer supports impeachment. Even promises explicitly made are unreliable. Can we expect more from those merely hinted at?
