Red, White & Green?
Written by Celia Jackson
Polls Conducted by Celia Jackson & Scott Shumway
The sun that rises on the morning of Nov. 4, 2008 will greet the 44th president of the United States. It will also greet a world growing hotter, dirtier and more crowded every day.
But the horizon is potentially brighter. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all have plans to lower carbon emissions, curb climate change and boost renewable energy use. A closer look at their environmental platforms and past voting records hint at future possibilities in a society going "green."
Environmentalism is no longer just for hippies, said Anne Jansen, Chapter President of Western Washington University Young Democrats.
"Environmentalism has been de-stigmatized," Jansen said. "It’s almost become chic."
The American public clearly desires an administration willing to tackle tough environmental issues. Four out of five Americans support a five-year plan to phase out carbon-based energy, according to a poll by the Opinion Research Corporation. In the poll, 92 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of Republicans agreed that a national energy strategy should focus on aggressive expansion of renewable energy sources.
All three candidates have experience in environmental legislation, including energy and climate change policies. McCain was widely recognized by the environmental community for creating the first congressional climate-change bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in 2003. Obama and Clinton both back a current bill that is considered the "gold standard" of climate law.
In past congressional elections Clinton, Obama and McCain were supported by large environmental groups. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) named Clinton an environmental champion during her 2006 re-election to the Senate, and Obama was one of six state senators to receive a 100% Environmental Voting Record Award from the Illinois Environmental Council in 2003. McCain was also endorsed by the LCV for re-election to the Senate in 2004.
Overall, Obama has a lifetime voting record of 96 out of 100 on environmental issues, Clinton has a lifetime score of 90, and McCain a score of 26, according to the LCV. While ranking below the two Democratic candidates, McCain is above his party’s average.
But behind bipartisan agreement on the value of stronger environmental policy, significant differences exist between the Democratic and Republican candidates’ environmental platforms, as well as between Clinton and Obama.
Nuclear energy policy is the biggest divide. Both Democratic candidates are apathetic to increased nuclear energy use. Clinton does not support growth in nuclear power, and Obama is concerned about hazardous waste disposal, according to their campaign Web sites.
On the other hand, McCain’s climate and energy proposal promotes nuclear energy, according to his campaign Web site. In an interview with Grist, an online environmental news organization, McCain said that nuclear power is a necessary part of any equation to reduce green-house gas emissions.
Even so, the Republican candidate said he supports renewable energy, increased biofuel use and higher fuel-economy standards. McCain’s campaign also emphasizes the importance of linking the economy to a healthy environment, and believes many solutions lie in market-based approaches and technological innovation.
Despite the green veneer, McCain’s energy proposals are vague and his voting record is patchy. In 2003 he voted against an energy bill that would have required 10 percent of electric utilities to come from renewable resources by 2005, according to LCV. McCain also told the LCV that while he is opposed to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the status of the area should be reevaluated for multiple uses.
Unlike the cautious McCain, Clinton and Obama have specific policy plans. In particular, both Democratic candidates call for carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels in the next 40 years. They also want to boost fuel-economy standards to 40 miles-per-gallon in the next ten years.
Clinton wants to increase fuel-economy by an extra 15 mpg over 20 years, while Obama wants to invest $100 billion more than Clinton in renewable energy.
Leadership style is the major difference between Clinton and Obama. Troy Abel, an environmental policy professor at WWU, wants the U.S. to be a world leader in environmental policy, but said it would depend on our next president. Abel supports Obama because he said his imagination will attract new people.
"We were leaders in the ‘70s," Abel said. "I don’t think we’d be doing that in a McCain administration, or with Hillary."
Obama is calling climate change one of the greatest moral challenges of this generation. He said he sees environmental issues as the number one national priority, and "part and parcel" to other issues like health care and poverty, according to an interview by the LCV.
In Congress, Obama introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act, which would give automakers money for health care, so long as they invest their savings into raising fuel-efficiency. Like McCain, he wants to use incentives to encourage businesses to get greener.
On the international front, Obama wants to create a Global Energy Forum where the world’s major polluters can come together and focus on global energy and environmental issues. Domestically, he plans to create a skilled "green" workforce by transitioning blue-color jobs from old polluting industries into green-color jobs in clean energy technology.
What also sets him apart from Clinton is his focus on environmental issues beyond energy and climate change. While they both want to reinstate the "polluters pay" superfund program and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Obama consistently votes to prevent offshore drilling and protect beach and marine habitat, which Clinton has not.
Jean Melious, an environmental law professor at WWU, said that good speeches don’t always translate into good policy, especially if the new president isn’t experienced enough.
"There’s a potential problem with Barack being an outsider," Melious said. "He doesn’t have the contacts."
One of Clinton’s energy plans would use money from oil companies to fund renewable energy research and development. She also wants to retrofit and modernize 20 million low-income homes to spur the green-building industry and reduce electricity consumption.
During her time as First Lady, Clinton worked with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) to propose a Children’s Environmental Protection Act, to make health and safety standards closer to levels that protect children. On her Web site, she said she wants to create a "National Energy Council" to enforce her policies in the Executive Branch.
The real question is how the environment will rank as a priority while the economy stays in recession. Clinton and McCain both want to suspend the gas tax for the summer holidays, which, at just over 18 cents per gallon, is the lowest in the industrialized world. In Europe the gas tax can make up to 70 percent of fuel prices. Relief from the gas tax could mean more driving and carbon emissions.
"Hillary [and McCain are] going to relieve the gas tax because that’s what’s bothering people in the heartland," Melious said. "I think it’s going to be about ‘the economy, stupid.’"
In addition, the two Democrats originally supported a liquid coal program, but had to change their positions following bad publicity. By turning coal into a liquid, it acts as a direct replacement for gasoline. It has the potential to reduce dependence on foreign oil, but pollutes twice as much as regular fuel. Now Obama and Clinton say they would only support liquid coal if it were 20 percent cleaner.
"I want environmental protection," said Yoshua Angersbach, an economic student at WWU. " There’s no subsitute for the environment, because we can’t recreate things like the Grand Canyon. Once it’s gone, it’s gone."
Celia Jackson is an environmental policy major. She has been published in The Planet.
