Politico claimed Dems' energy plans "set[] goals so distant that they won't be met until most of these contenders might be dead"
SUMMARY: A Politico article asserted that "even the most ambitious [energy] plans presented by the Democratic presidential candidates are setting goals so distant that they won't be met until most of these contenders might be dead." In fact, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sen. Barack Obama have called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, the candidates have also established specific goals to be reached within the next two to 23 years.
In a November 8 Politico article exploring the Republican Party's position on global warming, executive editor Jim VandeHei and editor-in-chief John F. Harris asserted that "it is not clear whether the public is ready to stomach the pocketbook costs of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions," adding: "That is why even the most ambitious plans presented by the Democratic presidential candidates are setting goals so distant that they won't be met until most of these contenders might be dead." However, VandeHei and Harris offered no evidence for their suggestion that Democratic presidential candidates have established "distant" goals because Americans may not be "ready to stomach" the costs of confronting climate change. In fact, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), former Sen. John Edwards (NC), and Sen. Barack Obama (IL) have specifically addressed the challenges involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, all three candidates have set goals related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the next 23 years. In fact, the candidates have established some goals to be reached in as few as two to seven years: Clinton's plan calls for "[m]aking all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 carbon neutral"; Edwards's plan "will require oil companies to install ethanol pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations and require all new cars sold after 2010 to be 'flex fuel' cars running on either gasoline or biofuel"; and Obama plans to invest "federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013."
From the November 8 Politico article:
Politics aside, it is not clear whether the public is ready to stomach the pocketbook costs of curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
People want cleaner air, but are they willing to pay 30 percent more for natural gas to heat their home, or higher energy bills overall? Will they drive smaller cars or pay more to gas up their Durango? Probably not.
That is why even the most ambitious plans presented by the Democratic presidential candidates are setting goals so distant that they won't be met until most of these contenders might be dead.
Inglis says he is studying the proper congressional response -- three years after he was threatened with losing the family vote.
Each of the energy plans proposed by Clinton, Edwards, and Obama calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. However, their plans also set several goals to be reached well before 2050 -- some of which are slated to be completed within the next five years -- and each candidate has acknowledged the challenges inherent in their plans.
In a November 5 speech outlining her energy plan, Clinton stated that addressing climate change "is the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation. It is a challenge to our economy, to our security, to our health, and to our planet. And it's time for America to meet it. It is time to get back into the solutions business. And that is what America does better than anybody else."
Goals in Clinton's energy plan:
- 2009: "Making all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 carbon neutral."
- 2015: "Adding 100,000 PHEVs [plug-in hybrid electric vehicles] to the federal fleet by 2015."
- 2020: "An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020. ... A fundamental cornerstone of Hillary's plan is reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020."
- 2020-2030: "Hillary would raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards from the current level of 25 miles per gallon (mpg) to 40 mpg in 2020 and 55 mpg in 2030"
- 2022-2030: "To spur increased production of ethanol and other renewable fuels, Hillary would raise the national renewable fuels goal from the current level of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022 and to 60 billion gallons by 2030."
- 2025-2030: "Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25% of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030."
- 2030: "Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030."
During a July 7 discussion on global warming, Edwards asserted that "[i]t's time for the President of the United States to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war," and then outlined the changes he would require and the costs they may entail:
EDWARDS: We will need a cap and trade system where polluters pay if they pollute. And big companies are required to change the way they operate.
Oil companies that run gas stations will have to carry alternative fuels at a quarter of their stations, because every new car in America will have to be equipped for alternatives or flex-fuels.
Utilities that today profit by selling more and more polluting energy will have to help customers save electricity, and open up their grids to power produced locally, with rooftop solar panels and local wind turbines.
Automakers that are squeezing profits out of high-polluting SUVs will have to develop the cars of the future with a 40 miles-per-gallon fuel economy standard.
None of this is going happen unless we demand it. The oil companies won't do it. The utilities won't do it. The coal companies won't do it. And as we saw with the energy bill, Washington won't do it. Our generation has to do it -- we cannot wait for somebody else to take responsibility.
Goals in Edwards' energy plan:
- 2010: "Edwards will require oil companies to install ethanol pumps at 25 percent of their gas stations and require all new cars sold after 2010 to be 'flex fuel' cars running on either gasoline or biofuel."
- 2016: "Edwards will raise standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016, a step that could single-handedly reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day."
- 2018: "Edwards called for a national goal of meeting this demand [for electricity] by getting more power out of the electricity we use now, instead of producing more electricity. As a result, electricity use would be 15 [percent] lower by 2018 and renewable energy would have a better opportunity to gain market share."
- 2020: "Edwards will cap greenhouse gases at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. He will reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020."
- 2025: "Edwards will require power companies to generate 25 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2025" and "reduce oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day" and "produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2025."
In an October 8 speech on clean energy, Obama said: "Make no mistake -- developing the next generation of energy will be one of the greatest challenges that this generation of Americans will ever face. It will not be easy. It will not come without cost or without sacrifice. And if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool you."
Goals in Obama's energy plan:
- 2013: "Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013."
- 2014: "Obama will implement legislation that phases out traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014."
- 2020: Obama's plan "requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020," and "[a]s president, Obama will ensure that at least 30 percent of the federal government's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020."
- 2025: "Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025. ... Obama will ensure that all new federal buildings are zero-emissions by 2025"
- 2030: "Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal." Obama will also "[r]educe our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030. ... Obama believes it is imperative that Congress adopt the Senate-passed proposal to increase the RFS [Renewable Fuel Standard] to 36 billion gallons by 2022. As president, Obama will seek to surpass these targets and establish a requirement to produce at least 60 billion gallons of biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, by 2030."















People want cleaner air, but are they willing to pay 30 percent more for natural gas to heat their home, or higher energy bills overall?
IMO, Politico is not looking at the long-term outlook. Kilowatt hour costs of alternative energy sources are only going to get more competitive with carbon-based sources as the alternative technologies continue to improve and propagate. I think the real competition is going to be amongst the alternative sources, which will only drives costs down more.
Will they drive smaller cars or pay more to gas up their Durango? Probably not.
Again, they are not looking long term. Alternative fuels and technologies that will make even the biggest, thirstiest SUV's run cleaner are only going to get more popular and more affordable as big oil continues to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer they possibly can.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Have any of you seen "Who killed the Electric Car?"
California made a mandate to the Auto Industry for zero immisions alternatives and they did such a good job so quickly they had to hide the results for fear we would all want it!
We have the answers, we have the dire need, WE NEED THE POLITICAL WILL!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Yes, the producer was just here in Montrose! I am so ready for an EV. Check out these guys.
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
There are literally hundreds of DIY EV's now also.
And if you can afford it, you can go fast and look good, emission free.
I'm glad you posted that. If one looks at the history of the automobile, early autos were also very expensive playthings for the super rich. Our grandchildren will likely feel about our current obsession with ICE the way we feel about the horse and buggy era.
how are they making th electricity? last i heard gasolines engines are more efficient than external combustion coal
In my market, we have legal requirements on the minimum amount of wind energy in the grid, and the customer has the option to pay a little extra for 100% wind power. So if someone was powering their car with wind, or with solar generated electricity, they would 100% emission free.
Changing the vehicle's fuel to electricity opens it up to an expanding variety of energy sources. In my market, there is a %100 renewable option for electricity. As renewables become more numerous and more competitive, electric cars will become more attractive.
"They" are'nt making electricity , the EV use electricity instead of an ICE. What you are asking I think is, how does the pollution from generating electricity compare with the pollution from the ICE. Good question. Here are the details. http://www.proev.com/P1EvIce.htm
The real beauty of electric for me though is that there is a cap on the cost of electricity. As a resident of the south west if the grid cost of electricity goes over the off grid cost I switch. In other words I will never have to pay more than the cost of a solar generating solution. My current home is situated 15 degrees E of S, so the roof is ideally pitched for solar panels. I am so smart.
Woops, wrong link. Here is a link specifically addressing the "long tailpipe" discussion.
http://www.radix.net/~futurev/pwrplnt.pdf
A friend of mine is a coal fired generating plant consultant, travels all over the world helping plant operators get more out of old plants. Without getting into the C02 causing climate change discussion, he will brag endlessly about the relative merits of burning coal to make electricity. He is very conservative so I take him at his word when he touts the effiency of using coal to make electricity. Personally, I would ban all future construction of power plants except for wind, solar, geothermal and some bio mass.
2015: "Adding 100,000 PHEVs [plug-in hybrid electric vehicles] to the federal fleet by 2015."
This is an idea even a market loving republican should love. All the EV industry needs to literally explode is a little goverment policy push. Here's a chance to grow a new job intensive industry, save oil by making electricity from domestic sources (extractive and renewable) and sell the technology overseas, thus reducing the balance of trade disparity. Consumers have shown they are willing to buy the hybirds and the plug in hybirds (125mpg!!). It's a very small step to an all electric car.
Electricity has to be a major source of energy for transportation soon. If there is one thing the federal goverment could do to insure future national security it would be to start an all out effort (WWII type of investment and sacrifice) to make electricity from renewables. Once you have lot's of electricity alternatives to refined petroleum fuels can be made, like hydrogen or gassified coal.
So, incentives for solar panels, require net metering, incentives to drive less, huge investments in wind, geothermal and biomass.
Yes we have have huge reserves of coal and other coal like resources, but why not leave them for future generations? What gives us the right to burn up non renewable resources just to have heated towel bars and an SUV going 80 mph uphill to the ski resort?
"... setting goals so distant that they won't be met until most of these contenders might be dead"
This is hilarious because I don't even think it's deliberate spin. It's just the honest neocon point of view, a complete inability to understand a plan that doesn't involve instant gratification and personal benefit.
Foresight? Doing what's best for people who will be around after I'm dead? And that should interest me... how?
I've often toyed with the idea of a new political party that looks at big problems and runs on the platform of starting a solution that we can live with in 50 years. For instance generating electricity. How can we generate enough electricity in 50 years without polluting ourselves to death? I have a gut feeling that doing what is best in the long term will have advantages in the short and near term.
How about just reducing the Federal fleet by 100,000 vehicles? That would save even more and there are alternative methods of transportation for the Feds that think they need those vehicles.
That's for sure. They could also try using bikes to get around.
more nukes!!!
The nuclear option is not required. A University project this year produced hydrogen at a price comparable to gasoline. Well at a price we paid earlier this year. Still some work to be done on storage, for use in cars.
There's a turbo desiel motorcycle availible in England which will do 100 mpg.
I agree with the coment that its not a technical problem, so much as a political problem.
number one:
we have to get our population growth under control. we are growing at a rate of 3 million people a year. any gains in pollution reduction will be negated by a projected population of over 400 million before 2050. immigration is a big part of that equation.
number two:
the idea that fuel economy has to cost us something is being promoted by the right wing and their big energy supporters. know why they don't want solar developed? because they don't own the sun.
Agreed on the population, Mefirst. I think that factor gets ignored for being too obvious to those who know, and it gets ignored by the rest who don't consider it.
Every single problem in the world that I can think of is secondary to and influenced by overpopulation.
here's a link to a just released report that shows birth defects soaring in china because of pollution. their industrialization drive to modernize an economy of a billion and a quarter people is causing huge problems. i was watching a show recently about fights over water in india, a country of one billion. the same way in africa. the lack of clean water is making people ill. water supplies that sufficed 30 years ago do not now because populations have soared. population growth is a big part of the global warming equation and a problem in general. both in this country and worldwide.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Birth_defects_soar_in_polluted_China_999.html
I agree overpopulation is a huge factor in the global warming equation. That's a good reason why global reproductive rights must be acknowledged and expanded. For example, there is no logical reason to withold foreign aid from countries because they distribute condoms. We all know the conservative line on abstinence only and we know it doesn't work.
But here's an exerpt from and link to a good article on the energy debate.
"Missing Ingredients Crucial for Success
So what's missing from the energy debate? The necessity to look at our society and our world holistically is absent. This is why the idea of livable communities doesn't pop up in discussions about energy use. Central to the energy crisis is the amount of energy required to live the way we do now. Here are two new ideas that have not infiltrated the debate:
The way our cities have been structured wastes energy.
The current debate makes no reference to the way cities are structured. For example, the suburban satellite-community structure of our cities entraps people through geographic constraints (e.g. the travel distance between home and work, how freeways are designed, lack of adequate public transportation, etc.) that make them dependent upon automobiles. The separation of food production from population centers is another consequence of these structures, requiring us to transport heavy loads over long distances. Energy use is deeply intertwined with the kinds of communities we have. This includes the way we lay out our cities and move around within them.
Explore the relationship between people and energy infrastructure.
The energy bill includes proposals to improve efficiency at the source of production (e.g. power plants updated with new technology) and the source of use (e.g. replace wasteful incandescent light bulbs with superior fluorescent bulbs that use less energy, but may have health problems, e.g. migraines). But we do not talk about the relationship between production and use. Our current energy grid is set up so that large production facilities produce electricity that is transmitted over long distances to end-users. This centralized mode of production is very wasteful. We can cut our energy demand considerably by rethinking the role of people in this relationship. Energy users can become local energy producers. This can happen by promoting local communities to become self-reliant by generating their own electricity (e.g. solar panels, windmills, "green" home designs, etc.).
These ideas make sense from the perspective that energy issues are intertwined with the kinds of communities we have. They have not entered the debate because too much emphasis is on energy production in the debate about fuel, which implicitly assumes that the way we live now cannot improve."
[link to www.rockridgenation.org]
i'm aware of all those things and my point was any progress we make in reducing energy consumption is negated by an increasing population. personally, i have replaced almost every bulb in my house, inside and out, with flourescent. they use a quarter of the energy and throw off much less heat. i have used rechargable batteries for about 15 years. i have had double aa that i have recharged 500 times or more. [don't leave in charger for longer than overnight, it reduces their life.] you can also bake several things in the oven at once, a pie, a chicken and a casserole for the next day. there are a thousand things people can do.
I'm in agreement with you. Never said you didn't have a point, so reiterating your point makes you sound defensive.
Just thought you or anybody else might find the link interesting.
i wasn't being defensive at all. you did use the word "but". that would seem to imply that what i said was true, "but" here's another angle.
I see. Just given our history of bickering and the interpretive nature of reading these comments it seemed as though we weren't really seeing eye to eye.
BTW, Mefirst. Even when we are disageeing and it's getting a little heated, I still admire your directness and forthrightness. I think you contribute a great deal of valuable insights to the conversations here.
I realize you probably don't need any validation, more than likely you could care less what I think. But I think it's important to step back sometimes and recognize that within the bigger picture that none of us are really so different. I also think it's good to acknowledge the positive within people.
So there you have it. Have a wonderful day my friend.
i do care, but i don't, if you know what i mean. i just feel i have to say what i think. how's this. i'll even give george bush credit for something. hillary said he should open the petroleum reserve to bring down prices. he said no, only in emergencies. he was right. anyway, thanks for the compliment.