John Edwards has won several polls for his stances on global warming by calling for a New Energy Economy. He was the first to call for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and favors launching a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions by 15% by 2020. He was the first major presidential candidate to make his campaign carbon neutral (note: this assertion is unfair because Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, and Gravel are not considered “major” candidates). He also proposed a 13 billion-a-year New Energy Economy Fund to “invest in renewable energy, efficiency, carbon-capture technology, and cleaner cars; help entrepreneurs start new clean businesses; encourage Americans to buy more-efficient appliances and save energy; and help workers in carbon-intensive industries transition to new job fields.” He has opposed nuclear power, called for a ban on new coal power plants, and opposed coal-to-liquid technologies that Obama has supported.
Bill Richardson has addressed global climate change just as boldly. He has called for a 50 percent cut in U.S. oil demand by 2020, a call that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have not made. He has called for 30% of the U.S. electricity supply to come from renewable energy sources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2040. He supports a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce them 90% from 2006 levels by 2050 and 20% by 2020. And he has called for raising fuel-economy standards for automobiles to 50 mpg by 2020. All of these calls are more bold than Clinton’s, Edwards’, or Obama’s even though Edwards has addressed the climate change quite nicely.
Chris Dodd is looking to set himself apart from the pack by advocating a corporate carbon tax that he estimates could result in 50 billion dollars being spent on renewable and energy-efficient technologies. He also aired the first-ever presidential campaign ad to focus on global warming. He one ups Richardson by calling for automobiles to have a 50 mpg standard by 2017. And he is a cosponsor of the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which would no doubt be much better than the McCain-Lieberman plan previously discussed. It would reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and would put greenhouse emissions below 1990 levels by 80% by 2050. He opposes coal-to-liquid technology and would like new coal power plants to capture and store carbon emissions. And lastly, he supports a goal to get 20% of the U.S. electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020, which is 10% lower than Richardson’s call.
Dennis Kucinich, who has called for a Works Green Administration that is modeled after FDR’s Works Progress Administration, would like to put his green philosophy for using sustainability to create peace by persuading Americans that global warring and global warming are connected. His Works Green Administration would put millions of Americans to work building and installing clean-energy technologies and retro-fitting homes for energy efficiency. Retrofitting homes has been ignored by all other candidates. In addition to calling for extensive government funding for the development of renewable energy resources, he also has called for the withdrawal of government subsidies that finance nonrenewable energy, which has not been called for by any other candidate. He calls for a “Global Green Deal” to partner with developing nations and provide them with affordable, clean energy technologies, which would also create more jobs for Americans in the process. He also calls for the phase out of nuclear power plants, coal power and coal mining (due to the mercury pollution that occurs from coal-fired power plants), and is a cosponsor of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Safe Climate Act, the toughest climate bill in the House that would do what Richardson and Edwards have called for and more (and this would definitely be better than any McCain-Lieberman act). He goes beyond energy in addressing global climate change and calls for a ban on logging, mining, and other resource extraction on U.S. public lands. He does not fully support a carbon tax because he believes penalizing companies would not help develop renewable energy sources or technologies, which what needs to be done plus he understands how biodiesel causes an impact on food supplies because ethanol is involved. And we Americans should believe he is serious about addressing global climate change because he has been a vegan since 1995, which means he leads by example and doesn’t just live green on the campaign trail when the public and the media are focused upon him.
Any candidate can go carbon neutral or tour the country in a bus fueled by biodiesel. Any candidate can come before America and spew rhetoric on what should be done to make it seem like he or she has the answers. But only a few of the candidates are truly aware of what should be done.
Go to: (http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/07/x/index.html) [Copy and paste this into your browser. I was unable to link it through this article.] Read all the interviews and view the fact sheets where I have pulled my facts from for Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Kucinich. Any of these candidates (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich) could be pushed to fix the way America addresses global climate change, although I am skeptical of Chris Dodd. Above all, Kucinich stands out because his plans for fighting global climate change extend beyond being an energy issue or an environmental issue. His plans respond to job issues, trade issues, and foreign policy issues in addition to demonstrating how we must work with the world to remedy a problem we are responsible for allowing to worsen.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
