Looking at this comparison by Reuters of the presidential candidates’ energy and oil policies, it is clear that Senators Obama and Clinton are proposing more aggressive legislation than McCain.Nonetheless, the good news is that all three candidates have significantly more pro-environmental policies than the current administration. So at least we know some change is on the way.Whether it will be enough to make a difference, we shall see.
Some of the highlights of the comparison:
On gas prices:
McCain and Clinton want to suspend the federal gas tax this summer.
Obama wants to temporarily stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The widely covered political story on Monday was about a speech Sen. McCain gave in Portland regarding global warming.In the speech, McCain attempted to distinguish himself from George Bush’s approach towards the environment by stating, “I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges.”Some of McCain’s specific policy proposals include: mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the implementation of a cap-and-trade system, and promising to engage China and India diplomatically to encourage international environmental efforts.
While it is clear that McCain is significantly more pro-environment than the majority of his fellow Republicans (he was the only Republican candidate to be in favor of emission limits and was also the co-sponsor, along with Sen. Lieberman, of one of the early Congressional attempts to implement a cap-and-trade system), he has still received substantial criticism for his environmental voting record, and recently, along with Sen. Clinton, proposed the “lose-lose-lose” policy of repealing the federal gas tax during this summer’s driving season.If he is really going to convince pro-environment voters that he is a real pro-environment candidate, he may have to ramp up the requirements in his proposed legislation, and will definitely have to work on his consistency (as does Sen. Clinton).
… And more on the lose-lose-lose of the McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal:
First “lose” = it would likely be ineffective, as the oil companies will probably just raise prices to make up for the spread.
Second “lose”= but if effective, it would remove an incentive to drive less and use mass transit more.
Third “lose” = it would remove a major source of revenue which is needed to fix our aging transportation infrastructure.
Environmental Capital, at WSJ.com, looked at a subject we have discussed regularly here—which is: are biofuels a part of the solution, or an unintended exacerbation of the problem of global warming?
As we’ve noted previously, some recent studies indicate that biofuels, such as ethanol, may actually be worse for the environment than the fossil fuels they replace.In our discussions, we’ve usually limited our analysis to which option releases more aggregate CO2 into the atmosphere.However, the Environmental Capital post notes that some experts believe that biofuel production has resulted in a 15% decrease in oil prices.Therefore, if recent policies by developed nations to increase biofuel usage are reversed, would that result in a subsequent 15% increase in oil prices?
We find this question interesting because it presents two options that are not normally pitted against each other in such a manner.If biofuel is worse for the environment than petroleum, but its production results in more affordable oil, will we find ourselves “addicted to corn?”
This November, California voters will have the opportunity to pass a ballot measure that will combine public and private money in order to develop a high-speed train that would connect all of the state’s population centers (Sacramento, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego).If built, a trip between the Bay Area and Los Angeles would take 2.5 hours (and is projected to cost $55 for a one-way ticket).
A newly added component on the measure would specifically encourage private investment in the project, which is estimated to cost $42 billion and targeted to be completed in 2020.
According to Assemblywoman Galgiani (D-Stockton), a proponent of the project, “If we don’t do high-speed rail, we will have to add 3,000 miles of highway and five airport runways in the state.”
It is our opinion that this is exactly the type of project that we, as a society, should be pursuing.Not only is effective mass transit good for the environment, but it is also good for the health and development of the community.Much of California has become paralyzed by gridlock.Flying from city to city is difficult because it can be hard to just drive to the airport (let alone get through security).An integrated, high-speed rail system, could greatly increase intra-state mobility, improving both the economy and civil society.Of course, intra-city transport, like subways and light-rails, are equally important.Otherwise people will have to fight the same old traffic, just to get to the high-speed rail stations.
According to a recent survey, 58 percent of Californians favor the bond and 32 percent oppose it.We will be keeping an eye on this measure and the arguments for and against it as we move towards the election in November.
[Update: Hat tip to reader Merritt for catching the mislabeling of the prior graphic.]
An Air Force B-1 bomber filled with a 50-50 synthetic blend jet fuel flew past Mach 1 today.The synthetic fuel is carbon based, and is derived through a process that takes coal (or natural gas or biomass) and converts it into liquid hydrocarbons (i.e., fuel).This synthetic fuel is then mixed with 50% jet fuel in order to reach the optimal blend.The Air Force intends to certify all of its aircraft on this blend by 2011 and to use it in 100% of its flights by 2016.
While it is nice to see a branch of the government leading the way on alternative fuel use, as the technology currently exists, synthetic fuel production actually emits more greenhouse gasses than traditional petroleum.The impetus for the Air Force’s policy is twofold: economics and energy independence.The Defense Department, which accounts for 90% of all fuel use by the federal government, spends billions of dollars each year on petroleum.Additionally, unlike oil, there are plentiful sources of coal, natural gas and biomass, in the United States, thereby making the military less dependent on the global oil supply.
