So the primaries are eight months away, but the campaigns are in full swing and the first Democratic Candidates’ Debate was on a Thursday night in Columbia, SC. For the full video, click here, and for the transcript, click here.
Responding to a call from two-thirds of the South Carolina Legislature and championed by their youngest representative - 22-year old Bakari Sellers, see here, the candidates did debate climate and energy policy. I copied the relevant statements from the debate (see below the fold). Few specifics were discussed, but Richardson called for 90% carbon reductions by 2050, one-upping Edwards’ 80% by 2050 plan, and Chris Dodd’s call for 80% by 2050.
But mostly, I’m curious who you all thought was strongest on those issues in the debate. And, more generally, who you think would make the best climate president.
[poll=3]
QUESTION: Why do you think Republicans are looking forward to running against you with so much zeal?
SEN. CLINTON: I believe America is ready now for universal health care. It is ready for a new energy policy; it is ready to deal with global climate change; it is ready to clean up the government after the corruption and the cronyism of the Bush years; it is ready once again to be a leader in the world, where we create alliances instead of alienation. I think that’s what they’re most worried about, because I am serious about doing that. I am serious about getting the presidency once again to lead, and I believe I’m ready to do that.
QUESTION: From Augie in Darlington, South Carolina. “Concerning the astronomical windfall of the major oil companies again in the first quarter, why is gas still on the rise?”
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, for a lot of reasons. Number one, there’s extraordinary demand in America, and we use 22 million barrels of oil a day; 12 million of those barrels are imported. It’s the reason we have to make a bold transformation from what we’re doing now.
And also on the issue of climate change, we ought to cap carbon emissions in the United States. We ought to invest in clean, alternative sources of energy. We ought to invest in carbon sequestration technology, clean-coal technology, a billion dollars at least into making sure we build the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the planet. And we ought to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war; to be willing to conserve.
QUESTION: “While sitting in the Oval Office on the first day of your administration, name the first thing that you want to accomplish by the end of that first day.”
GOV. RICHARDSON: The first day, I would get us of Iraq with diplomacy. The second day, I would plan a huge initiative on making America energy independent with an Apollo-like program to become more reliant on renewable fuels. I’d ask the American people to sacrifice in so doing. Third, I would have a major initiative on climate change. Ninety percent –
MR. STANTON: Time’s up.
GOV. RICHARDSON: — reduce emissions by 2050. The fourth day I would take off. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: “A quote from Tom Friedman in The New York Times: ‘Unfortunately, today’s presidential hopefuls are largely full of hot air on the climate-energy issue. Not one of them is proposing anything hard.’ What would you propose for the average American that would be hard?”
SEN. BIDEN: Look, it’s a simple proposition. We have to make a — the equivalent of what Friedman has been talking about, and that is, a Manhattan Project. We have to fundamentally shift the way we do it.
We started off — Barack and I have a bill to make sure that every automobile made or sold in the United States has to be a flex- fuel automobile; that every gas station in America by the year 2009 has to have 10 percent of their pumps pumping e-85 ethanol. We also have legislation in requiring that we invest $100 million a year the next couple of years while this president’s president in order to be able to find lithium battery technology to be able to — to power our cars. We also have legislation talking about capping emissions. Cap them now, not wait. Cap them where they are now. Time’s running out.
But you have to be willing to make multi-billion-dollar investments over the next 10 years and set hard goals in order to be able to get to the point where we’re no longer dependent.
QUESTION: “With the French system as the model, is the United States, in your view, woefully behind in its use of nuclear energy?”
MR. GRAVEL: No, not at all. I think there has to be a maturation process. And I’m the one that started the nuclear critique in this country. I’m also the one that denied the boots on the ground for George Bush today when I filibustered the end of the draft. And I’m also the one that brought about the Alaska Pipeline by one vote in the Congress.
QUESTION: “Staying on the notion of the environment — which, somewhat unbelievably, is where that question started — (laughter) — what in your personal life, Senator Obama, have you done recently to make for a better environment? Personal life.”
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, we just had Earth Day, and we actually organized 3,000 volunteers to plant trees, which –
MR. WILLIAMS: I mean like light bulbs. (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Well, we — (laughs) — I thought the tree thing was pretty good. (Laughter.) But –
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, but you had a lot of help.
SEN. OBAMA: — we’ve also — we’ve also been working to install light bulbs that last longer and save energy, and that’s something that I’m trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Melia? and 5-year- old Sasha (sp).
But one thing that I do have to go back on, on this issue of terrorism. We have genuine enemies out there that have to be hunted down. Networks have to be dismantled. There is no contradiction between us intelligently using our military, and in some cases lethal force, to take out terrorists, and at the same time building the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years.
And that I think is going to be one of the most important issues that the next president is going to have to do, is to repair the kinds of challenges that we face.
QUESTION: “Senator (sic) Kucinich, 30 seconds for a rebuttal.”
REP. KUCINICH: All right. My good friend, Senator Obama, that’s a very provocative statement. You previously said that all options are on the table respect to Iran. And I think that it’s important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you’re setting the stage for another war.
I think it’s important that we move away from global warming and global warring. And the connection is oil. We’re in Iraq for oil. We’re looking at attacking Iran for oil. And until we change our international policies, which — quit using war as an instrument of policy –
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I realize that only 5 people have voted… but whoever voted for Obama must have missed his endorsement of coal-to-liquids. Which in affect, is an endorsement for the continued pillage of Appalachia and more Co2.
It sucks that our first opportunity to put a women or a person of color in the white house has been tainted by the fact that neither of them have come out with a strong energy policy. I don’t really want to vote for another white male, but unless Clinton or Obama shape up on climate change….
I agree with the last comment, but I also want to say one thing. None of these plans are enough (and cap-and-trade is a risky choice by the way; we ought to make these clear). A group of well-recognized scientists recently made it clear that we are behind what the scientific community is saying. First, a US solution is not the full solution to global warming (of course, a global effort will come along with our action). Second, we will have to change the 80% by 2050 language to 90% by 2030 or deeper before we get locked into a system that is not flexible enough to make the 90% by 2030 change. Third, and final for now, we need over 60% global cuts by 2030. This is a bit out of what we all want to hear, but we do need to begin talking about these things, and much more. Thought I’d share.
presidential things are ok, and hopefully whoever gets elected will do something about climate change. but as with everything, the real power lies with the people. and our extends much much beyond a check mark on a ballot. this is nothing. our real power is how we live, how we communicate. if we bring peace within, then this will extend outwards into how we act in relation to all living things. i think this is important to remember with the upcoming election. let us not put too much energy into presidents and politicians, but rather focus on the greater project.
@ Evan,
Thanks for comment. However, I would like to pull a deeper explanation out of it. While I believe that climate change can be a scary, scary prospect and it is essential that we internalize and come to grips with the future we are creating. Only through such ownership will we build a vision of what is necessary and understand that with the challenges ahead come great opportunities.
Unfortunately, I fear that solely advocating for personal action will not get us where we need to be. People - including myself - have been changing light bulbs, turning down thermostats, biking, etc. for years. However we a need a f@cking social movement and we need it ASAP. We need to hold our politicians accountable and turn them into the leaders that embody our values - about climate change and a host of other issues.
I have to admit that looking at the list above doesn’t get me particularly pumped. And, as Andrew pointed out, it is incredibly unfortunate that our “first opportunity to put a women or a person of color in the white house has been tainted by the fact that neither of them have come out with a strong energy policy”. However that is where we - the people come in. We have the power to make Obama and Hillary better on climate. We also have the power to make Edwards, Richards, et al. anti-racist and pro-feminist allies that Obama and Hillary respectively symbolize in many people’s eyes.
Ultimately, we have the power to make our voices extend beyond “a check mark on a ballot” and I hope that - you and I Evan - are speaking the same language of the “people”.
I think there’s a deeper point in Evan’s comment. For a long time I have been frustrated both by a lack of leadership on climate change in my country and by a focus in the media and in politics on personal rather than political solutions. However, I think there is something that we are missing if we narrow our definition of politics in response to national events. I think the kind of personal change that Evan is talking about is more than simply changing light bulbs and turning down thermostats. Reducing our footprint is a worthy goal and will set a positive example for others. We need to do more than that however. If we want others to stand with us in this struggle we have to know why we this matters to us, define our principles, and lead by example in a holistic way.
Yes, we absolutely have to demand that our national representatives do more to move us toward the vision that we wish to see in the world. However, we cannot be the ones compromising and groaning when they let us down, which they inevitably will. We have to be the ones taking our message to people at every level of society and to the institutions that shape our lives. If we do this with conviction, consistently, and with solid principles in mind, we will succeed. Remember, this is the challenge of a generation, of a lifetime. The solution requires a fundamental shift in how how all of us live our lives. That is not something we can leave to any one president, senator, CEO, or activist. This is the climate election. It is also a critical time to put our bodies on the line to stop the building of new coal-fired power plants that will destroy our communities and our climate for fifty years if they are built. It is also a critical time to bring our communities together around local 21 plans for sustainability. It is a critical time for researching the kind of deep change solutions to replace our fossil fuel infrastructure with something better. If we cannot envision it today, how are we going to build it by 2050? This is a challenge for all of humanity. And yes, I agree that it does start inside each and every one of us.
Matt,
Thank you for the reply. I concur that a purely personal change model is not sufficient. My main concern is when persons give their “power” over to politicians… that is putting their hopes for better tomorrows into another. Certainly we should work with others to make change reality, and I think grassroots methods are much more effective than trying to sway the course of humanity. “Trickle down” ecology won’t work any more than it has with economics.
In terms of how we work in relation to governments on this issue, I think perhaps the best place to start is in our own communities and with local governments.
I think you and I are probably very much in agreement on things, and, again, my comments were made generally as a safeguard against projecting too much power on others.
peace,
Evan
what’s up with all the deferring back to the war and terrorism debate?? it’s like they’re afraid to talk about climate issues…