Are The Democratic Candidates Dreaming "Green?" Taking a Look at the Obama/Biden Records on the Environment
By Julia Schafer
Intern in Climate Change and Sustainability at the Lower East Side Ecology Center
A major topic that rests at the forefront of the public’s mind during this heated presidential race is each candidate’s stance on environmental issues. Barack Obama has a strong record as a pro-environment politician, but he has also made some very dubious political moves that are not quite so environmentally sound.
Obama had gained the environmentalists’ support due to a history of voting in favor of “green” legislation. He and his running mate Joe Biden cosponsored the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act1 (S. 309), which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 80% in the year 2050; The American Fuels Act of 2007 to mandate an increase in the manufacture of biodiesel; and the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which was introduced by Senators Lieberman and McCain and would mandate 60% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.2 During his tenure as Senator of Illinois, Obama asked the Senate to increase oversight on the Great Lakes Restoration Process, increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and expand the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), as well as grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act to cut global warming pollution from motor vehicles. The bipartisan bill that he and Murkowski introduced in March 2007, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (S.906) to ban the export of mercury from the United States, was just signed into law on October 19th by President George Bush.3
As President, Barack Obama seeks to further implement pro-environment legislation to dramatically change America’s problematic energy dependence. According to his website, his New Energy for America Plan will ensure that “10 percent of American electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025”. He wants to promote energy efficiency by putting 1 million American-made Plug-In Hybrid cars, which are cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon, on the road by 20154. Obama also wants to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. According to the New York Times, “Mr. Obama says he would use $150 billion of the auction revenue [from cap-and-trade permit auctions] over 10 years — a small amount of the total flow — to help improve nonpolluting vehicles, wind and solar power, technology for capturing emissions from power plants, and other energy technologies.”5 Some ways he intends to reduce energy usage and demand are to: create a new $7,000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles, establish a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and promote the responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.
As a result, this plan would have an immensely beneficial effect on the economy, for approximately five million new jobs would be created by the strategic investment of $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future. Obama’s goal is for the U.S. to save more oil than it currently imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within ten years.
However, Obama also has a few not-so-beneficial plans in mind for how to reduce American fuel costs and dependency. According to the U.S. government website, his “‘Health Care for Hybrids’ plan would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would use some of those savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars.”6 An important problem with that plan, however, is that auto companies would be more likely to raise prices, knowing that the government would be picking up a percentage of the tab. Another problematic example of Obama’s environmental policy is his goal to develop and deploy “clean coal technology,” which is actually impossible because coal is the dirtiest and least efficient of the world's three major fuel sources (the other two being oil and natural gas); no amount of “cleaning” or carbon capture and sequestration will change that. Obama also aims to prioritize the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, which would be extremely detrimental to the pristine Alaskan landscape. Add that to the fact that, as alluded to above, he and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation to immediately update the RFS to “require the production of 18 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2016 including 3 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol”.7 This is an enormous problem, for ethanol is proven to be far less efficient than even fossil fuels. According to Science, “ethanol from corn on former grassland in the US emits 93 times more CO2 than the annual reduction it would provide by displacing fossil fuels.”8 Furthermore, Obama “believe[s] in the need for increased oil production.” In a recent speech, he made a claim that “we are going to have to explore ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling, it includes telling the oil companies that currently have 68 million acres that they are not using that either you use them or you lose them.” (Presidential Debate, 10/7/08) Telling oil companies to “use or lose” their oil reserves will not solve the global carbon crisis—rather, it will exacerbate the problem.
However, Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, has environmental policies that appear more hopeful. In the past, he has voted ‘yes’ in the Senate on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations, reducing funds for road-building in National Forests (a bill that was considered pro-business and would promote the development of nature reserves)9, and continuing desert protection in California10. He wants to take away the billions of dollars of subsidy to the oil companies11, and to create a five-year, $50 billion project for energy and climate change that would finance research into discovering alternative energy sources and developing technologies. Biden differs from Obama in his opposition to domestic drilling, both offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge12.
When deciding who to vote for this November, it is important to take into account each of the Presidential hopefuls’ stance on environmental issues, for these will drastically shape the political (and literal) landscape of America over the next century.
Works Cited
1 “Summary of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) As Introduced January 2007” 15, Jan. 2007.
2 Obama, Barack. “Environment.” http://obama.senate.gov/issues/environment/
3 Ortiz, Michael. “Bush Signs Into Law Obama-Murkowski-Allen Bill to Ban Dangerous Mercury Exports” 15, Oct. 2008 http://www.obama.senate.gov/
4“New Energy for America.” Barack Obama Homepage. http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
5Revkin, Andrew C. “If Elected… On Global Warming, McCain and Obama Agree:
Urgent Action is Needed.” The New York Times 18, Oct. 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19climate.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20environment&st=cse
6 “Energy” Barack Obama Homepage. 10, Oct. 2008. http://obama.senate.gov/issues/energy/
7 Brundage, Amy. “Obama Calls for Increased CAFE Standards, Updated RFS in Energy Bill.” U.S.
Senate Website. 19 Nov. 2007. http://obama.senate.gov/press/071119-obama_calls_for_10/
8 Fargione, J. et al. “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt.” Science (319 1236) 2008.
11 Democratic debate at Saint Anselm College. Jun 3, 2007.
12 “Running Mates on the Issues” The New York Times.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/vice-presidents/index.html
