Article Rating
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version 28 Comments
Article Tool Sponsor:

Learn More About Online Advertising with RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Presidential Candidates Weigh in on Energy Policy

Published: November 7, 2007

The League of Conservation Voters has published a comparison of the energy policy positions of the 2008 presidential candidates, which range from environmentally responsible to business-as-usual. What is startling about the comparison, however, is that some of the candidates officially hold no articulated position on a subject on which some other presidential hopefuls have gone to the wall.

What can be said is that both men [Richardson and Obama] are unequivocally pointing the way to the sort of commitment that the nation must make in the next forty years, if the threat of sustained climate change is to be countered.

On carbon caps and targets, for example, where six of the sixteen candidates support emissions reductions of at least 80% by 2050, five have not formulated any position whatsoever on the issue. Nor have these five — Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson — offered any considered opinion on subjects such as minimum standards for automobile fuel efficiency, renewable electricity, or even energy efficiency (although most are on record as having opposed a modest increase in auto mileage standards in years past).

On the contentious subject of liquid coal, none of the five have anything to say except for Giuliani, who joins Mitt Romney in giving the new technology unqualified support without even the caveat of carbon sequestration.

The Washington-based League of Conservation Voters, a non-profit organization describing itself as "the independent political voice for the environment," has praised candidate Barack Obama's record on environmental issues in the past.

Yet Governor Bill Richardson's stated positions from the beginning of his campaign were pitched incrementally higher than Obama's in all categories: 10% higher on emissions reductions and standards for renewable electricity and energy efficiency, and 50mpg fleet fuel efficiency over Obama's 40mpg. Like Obama, Richardson opposes giving clean coal a free ride, but, where the Illinois senator is seeking to hold the technology to a 10% reduction in carbon emissions, the New Mexico governor wants nothing less than complete capture and storage of emissions.

As if in acknowledgement of the importance of the issue, Obama has been inching his position nearer Richardson's of late; he now espouses the same auto mileage standard (50mpg fleetwide), a higher renewable electricity standard and energy efficiency targets that would leave Richardson's in the dust.

At this point, it's not possible to calculate whether either candidate's targets are achievable, any more than one can characterize Richardson's targets as having been developed to "one-up" (or "ten-up") Obama's.

What can be said is that both men are unequivocally pointing the way to the sort of commitment that the nation must make in the next forty years, if the threat of sustained climate change is to be countered. Their positions, and those of candidates like Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and John McCain, are light-years ahead of most of the positions espoused by the opponents already mentioned.

In the case of these opponents, it's to be wondered which is worse: a (now former) candidate like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who has actively opposed environmental legislation since at least 2002, or one who simply has no public position on such issues, suggesting that they've not even given the health of the planet any serious thought.

Read the League of Conservation Voters' comparison chart here.

Chris Stimpson is the executive campaigner and activist for the Solar Nation advocacy group solar-nation.org. Solar Nation is the nationwide campaign where citizens rally and convince their leaders to make America a true Solar Power. As the locus of grassroots American activism in support of legislation and regulation of solar energy issues, Solar Nation seeks to positively affect state and federal policy, enabling solar power to become a significant part of America's energy future. Visit or join Solar Nation at www.solar-nation.org.

Additional Information

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Previous Article
Next Article
Add Your Comment 28 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 28
November 9, 2007
Why do people always assume that solar panels need to be on the roofs of buildings to function?
http://greyfalcon.net/csp4
http://greyfalcon.net/csp2
http://greyfalcon.net/csp

Or that they need to be inherently expensive.
As thick as a business card
Ausra Thermal Solar
Semi Organic Solar Paint

Or that we've even begun the scratch the surface of their potential.
No image available
Comment
2 of 28
November 9, 2007
re: George Boshko

The big jump comes from nanotech batteries or nanotech ultra capacitors, in combination with high current chargers.
Uber specs
Charge stations
Not bad for 10 years old

Generally though what people can expect is the 3-5 hour range. Certainly less than you spend sleeping every day. Not to mention, the average commute distance is only 40 miles range. So you don't need to fill up every day.

Here's some upcoming models
Telsa Roadster
Phoenix SUV

_

Another nice thing about those nanotech batteries is that it also drastically extends the life of the battery.
No image available
Comment
3 of 28
November 9, 2007
re: George Boshko

Ah good point.
Looks like the line loss is closer to 7.5%

Electric car batteries last about 10 years or longer. With similar longevity for hybrid car batteries.

Whatever energy it takes to recycle a battery, it's less than what it would take to acquire new raw materials.

Also lithium actually isn't that toxic. You'd have to absorb and digest a Quarter coin sized amount of it before it would be considered harmful.

As for the time it takes to recharge the car, that is variable depending on the type of battery.

Usually it ranges from 8-6 hours, 5-3 hours, and then 10-1 minutes.
No image available
Comment
4 of 28
November 9, 2007
Chuck
In the Northeast, I would need 10 arrays like that one to do the job. Then once I go through the building permit process and the increased home value = taxes the pay back time would be...who the hell knows.
Misinformed? I doubt it.

That is a nice focal point for the front of your home though. Maybe we could all run on treadmills to charge batteries.
No image available
Comment
5 of 28
November 9, 2007
Thanks for the article. It took a lot of work. However, it makes little difference who gets to be President. The Congress "proposes' (makes the laws), The President "disposes" (enforces the laws). The positions of the Congress is where the rules will be made; and all of them answer to a constituency with its own agends. Exqample - ADM (the Midwest) is going to force corn-based ethanol on us, despite all its bad features. Check on, and vote on, your local House and Senate members. The technology is there, the will isn't!
No image available
Comment
6 of 28
November 9, 2007
Ok, I'll write slowly,
It's because our economy and population is growing. We can't help it.
According to your link http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5 the 15% loss is just in the storage batteries alone and not the miles it takes to get power from the power station to the plug in your wall.
Lead or Lithium Ion or nickel hydride are all considered heavy metals in waste water lingo that are NOT good for the environment. They also require EXTRA ENERGY to RECYCLE, mine the mineral, refine and distribute the product.
You forgot to mention that the batteries will take you only about 20 or 60 miles with a gas/ hybrid depending on the model car. The batteries they use would need to be replaced in about 3 yrs as with most batteries at a cost of about $10,000 US. http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3. The article makes no mention of the amount of time it would take to recharge your car. I suppose it won't matter because your going nowhere fast.
No image available
Comment
7 of 28
November 9, 2007
Wow, George Boshko is terribly misinformed. Not stupid, just misinformed. Our biggest problem is most people in this country are just as misinformed.

We need oil for all the things Boshko said, so lets stop burning it. And coal just pollutes.

My line-loss of electricity is single digits (I think) because I produce my own electricity. (http://www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg to see a pic). I'd love to get a 100% electric car and charge it with my solar panels, but, alas, they don't make one anymore.

There is a lot of talk here, but top question is: What can I do about it? Or, more to the point, what will YOU do about it. I think I have a good start here with my $25,000 worth of solar PV equipment. So, who's out there writing in this forum and driving a brand new $40,000 SUV???
No image available
Comment
8 of 28
November 9, 2007
Why do we keep talking about "solving" climate change, instead of about preparing for the inevitable?

I am seeing so much environmental crime committed in the name of "solving" climate change, an impossible idea, that I don't want to hear another word about it or have another word about greenhouse gas spewed my way.
No image available
Comment
9 of 28
November 9, 2007
* If we did more with less, then why are we using dramatically more?

* There isn't a single hybrid car which uses lead acid batteries. They use Nickel-Metal-Hydride. But either way the recycling rate on on lead acid batteries is 95% of em. As for electric car batteries, those could provide a valuable source of grid electricity storage.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5

*. The line-loss of transmitting electricity is FIFTEEN percent, not FIFTEE percent. Electricity is one of the most efficient forms of energy distribution.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
Electric is so efficient that even if it was burning coal it would be as green as a hybrid.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3

* Yes. But the PROBLEM is that those standards have actually decreased since then.
http://greyfalcon.net/cafe.png
No image available
Comment
10 of 28
November 9, 2007
Talk about ignorant.
The reason we use 25% more energy is because our economy is that much better then the rest of the world and we live longer because of it. We do more with less.
It's because of fuel economy standards that the inefficient muscle cars of the 70's are now only collector items. And that tiny electric car needs to be plugged into an electrical system that looses 50% of the energy due to wire resistance of the grid. Hybrid cars use batteries that are made of lead and are considered toxic waste which require special handling and could leach into ground water.
California has the highest CAFE standard in the country and also has the highest gas prices. And if you've ever been on the LA free way, I can't see any per capita reduction going on.
If their per capita is flat it's because the tax payers are being replaced by illegals.
No image available
Comment
11 of 28
November 9, 2007
==Because the only way our energy use will decline, is if we die.==

Thats just ignorant.

US has 3% of the worlds population, but we use 25% of the world's energy.

We have Fuel Economy standards that are even weaker now than they were 30 years ago.

California uses half the per-capita energy use as the rest of the country, and there's still lots left to go. And they've kept their per capita energy use flat since the 1970s.

We consume 27 barrels of oil per capita per year.
We drill domestically 11 barrels of oil per capita per year. You want energy indepedendance?
Ask for a 45mpg CAFE.

An electric car engine is over 4x as energy efficient as a conventional gasoline engine.
No image available
Comment
12 of 28
November 9, 2007
M.McCoud
It seems that for as long as the Sierra Club has been around (helping to ram green legislation) our energy dependency has only grown on foreign oil. I hope you'll will feel better when you have indebted our economy and futures to Mid East, Russian or Venezuelan oil.
If your ship is sinking now, just think how good you'll feel when you get carbon taxes heaped on to help you sink.
No image available
Comment
13 of 28
November 9, 2007
Also, certainly it won't solve our energy needs.
But for our material needs we can make synthetic petroleum.

http://greyfalcon.net/h2car
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/30/2124/78022


==But once fuel hits $5.00 or more a gallon, everyone loses their jobs and there will be no economy left to sustain.==

Tell that to the UK. While they laugh at you.
They are paying $9 a gallon.

The freaky thing is that expensive oil could push them to turn coal into petroleum.

Despite the fact that it has double the GHG emissions.
No image available
Comment
14 of 28
November 9, 2007
Obama keeps promoting coal...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/7/154616/668
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/22/1409/3476

_

That said, we have a choice.
We have all the energy resources we need without fossil energy.

http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
No image available
Comment
15 of 28
November 9, 2007
All of our problems have solutions. I want to thank our Veterans for allowing us to live so well today. Americans our very resourceful and we will survive with or without oil. We should all appreciate what we have and look forward to the better days ahead.
No image available
Comment
16 of 28
November 9, 2007
George,

Thank you for illustrating why it is so hard to get renewable energy legislation enacted in this country.
I don't know about everyone else but I personally feel so indebted to the oil companies for providing us with all of the luxuries of life like email and automobiles that I am willing to ride this sinking ship all the way to the bottom! All for continuing to tie our economy and the future of the United States to a finite resource that has been proven to be diminishing say "AYE!!"
No image available
Comment
17 of 28
November 9, 2007
I remember we were running out of oil 30 no, 40 years ago. Still no end in site. We keep finding more.
While we dither around and worry about the Caribou whose population has exploded and produce more methane then all the SUV's in this country. People will start loosening jobs "IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY". Life stiles will change. One only needs to look 40 miles of the coast of Florida to see the coming Chinese oil wells that WE aren't allowed to touch. No one is telling Chaves or Putan to stop drilling.
How long can you go without eating before fuel cells are ready to take over oil. I know that if I loose my job tomorrow and have to work at Mc D's I won't be able to afford a solar panel on my card board box.
No image available
Comment
18 of 28
November 9, 2007
Great comments, but don't tell us engineers we can't get phenomenal gas mileage if given the chance. I recall how the car companies were trying to tell everyone that emission controls would kill high performance. Now we have the Lexus hybrid sedan that blows the doors of its non-hybrid stable-mate.
No image available
Comment
19 of 28
November 9, 2007
Gee, sounds like life would really be tough without oil around. Is the answere really to drill like heck and be sure we have every drop out of US soil as soon as we can? That way we can be less dependant on foreign oil---for a while. Then our grandkids can all move back to the farms, buy a team or horses, and live 'comfortably'. After all, there wont be much oil on the market by that time, and $100/barrel will be the good old days.
Renewable energy is ready and available to meet a lot of our needs now, and even more of them after we install a few efficiency measures. Lets just leave a little oil in the ground so a few more generations will have something for lubrication and making plastics, etc., and won't look back on us as the Grinch that stole EVERYTHING.
No image available
Comment
20 of 28
November 9, 2007
Can we live without oil-simply stated NO. Everything that we "see, touch, listen to, eat, and think about other than procreation has a derivative of OIL attached to it. And then if we practice safe sex, we might be using an oil based dierivative on a particular part of our bodies to keep down the population.
But oil can't go away based on modern living; it can however slow down its useage.
We can and should look at biofuels that don't run on corn or other crops; like cellulasic and figure out how to mass produce biologially efficient high energy valuable fuels to slowly replace oil over the next 50 years.
Decrease demand first with the motor vehicle; that's where 30% if being used now, then, create high energy substitutes and build economies of scale to bring down costs.
But once fuel hits $5.00 or more a gallon, everyone loses their jobs and there will be no economy left to sustain. Going to WalMarts will be like taking an expensive vacation.
No image available
Comment
21 of 28
November 9, 2007
(to finish),.. Finally, as a "trial turnaround strategy" legislation will be mandated that all residential home owners MUST utilized some off the grid type of green energy while at the same time, mandates for any new housing MUST have PV, wind &/or geothermal setups. The PV arrangements will work double duty for home power/car power on the HEV's that will come from future production and we'll be turning he tide of production jobs once again by having blue collar workers supplying not only HEV vehicles, but being cross trained in PV production. Our war with energy will have transitioned from "thoughts" to mandated "survival as a nation" action plan.
Ok,
All the Best
No image available
Comment
22 of 28
November 9, 2007
The following will occur sooner or later: We'll be paying $5.00 for gas in the next,....who can say.
After that, the American cost of living index will be unreachable by the average "non-CEO" American and we'll all be in a full blown crisis. Even CEO pay will dwindle compared to what now exists and scale down to Chinese type pay scale by mandate. Wall Street will be in a crisis because the small to middle sized investor will be spending their middle class incomes on figuring out whether they should eat or drive to a 45-60K job with no chance of upward mobility.
Our consumer spending will dwindle for everything but energy with families making less than 100k a year; which is most in America. Our confidence is already poor; what do you suppose will happen when fuel costs reach $4-5 gallon? Jobs will be eliminated in every sector
No image available
Comment
23 of 28
November 9, 2007
A candidate can support better fleet mileage all that he or she desires, but there is no way to hold them accountable for what they say. I could say I want 60mpg fleet fuel efficiency, but it doesn't mean anything.
No image available
Comment
24 of 28
November 9, 2007
John:
I find it ironic that you would use the technology of the e-mail. A technology that would not be here today if not for the electricity that the oil companies helped produce. In fact, many of the third world nations that are only now getting electricity(never mind medicines) would not be doing so if not for the technology and energy that oil and coal has brought TO US ALL. No oil means no solar panels, or wind turbines, or hydrogen fuel stacks, no bio fuels or pc's.

Unless you prefer to walk or ride a bicycle to work or the grocery store(oups no groceries either without oil)or want to end up living in a dirt hut, you should write your oil-country congress person and tell them to drill more oil OUR OWN OIL, before it's too late.
If Pelosi and Reid are to do anything useful in congress, it would be to undue the strangling energy policy of a previous administration. Because the only way our energy use will decline, is if we die.
No image available
Comment
25 of 28
November 9, 2007
Thanks for putting together.

The difficulty is determining how the initiatives will be implemented. It is just to easy to say how something is supported but not have a realistic plan for making it happen.
No image available
Comment
26 of 28
November 9, 2007
It's useless to contact my own Congrssman down here in "oil" country, but I've forwarded your e-mail to some friends, and would also forward to Reid and Pelosi if you would give me their e-0mail addresses.
John Miller in Texas
No image available
Comment
27 of 28
November 12, 2007
Re: David Ahlport

Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. Things there are constantly edited without being able to check credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electric_power_transmission#Bulk_Power_Transmission

High gas prices are good for my stocks of ALTI and GBT. I don't want to be forced by some AL Gore type to purchase an electric car or else I'll be punished with a carbon tax. What will stop the Green police from claiming that my house isn't green enough and force me to buy PV panels. Or that the Utility isn't green enough and gets slapped with a carbon tax that ultimately the consumer pays. Let the market figure it out. If these cars were so great, every one would be driving one. All I'm saying is don't demonize oil, because we still need it.
No image available
Comment
28 of 28
November 19, 2007
While renewable energy is a keen interest of mine, I will not use this as a pivotal point in my decision for the leader of our great country. I would much rather other nations have a healthy respect(fear)of the next leader of the FREE World. This won't happen if we continue with an energy policy that is causing dependence on rogue countries for our vital energy needs. Technology to burn "clean" coal has vastly improved just like PV, wind, and biofuel production has. Our need for fossil fuels is not going away anytime soon and we should be tapping into and utilizing our own before someone i.e. Chavez or the middle east really puts a hurt on our economy.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
 
National Hydrogen Association Zep Solar Intersolar SolarTech Consortium BEES - BioEnergy Events & Services Valentin Software ET Solar Group
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters