Third and final debate touches on environment and energy
There wasn’t much new ground covered in this third and final debate regarding the environment and energy policy. Some of the “highlights” include: READ MORE
Man-eating catfish goonch caught in India
Is this a freak mutation or a sign of “global weirding” to come?
VP Debate: Biden and Palin both support emission caps, Palin reiterates strong support for more drilling
The first and only vice presidential debate just concluded and similar to the presidential debate, there was fairly limited talk about energy and the environment. In fact, the word “environment” was only mentioned twice– once by Palin in describing offshore drilling as “safe” and “environmentally-friendly” and once by Biden, in noting that an energy policy should create jobs, in addition to energy independence and a “clean environment.”
However, there was some talk of energy policy, the following of which are the highlights:
Controlled roll-out of Palin continues with another CBS clip
CBS released another clip today of the (now infamous) Couric-Palin interviews. In today’s roll-out, Couric and Palin touch on the topic of climate change and the environment. Palin mostly answers in her trademark generalities, but does not repeat any of the controversial positions from her past. The topic of the environment begins around the 3:20 mark on the video and lasts for about a minute and a half.
[Hat-tip: Dot Earth]
Links
Los Angeles Transportation Headlines
Students for Environmental Action
Subscribe
Once Daily Email List:
RSS Feed:
Comparison of the candidates’ oil and energy policies
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.
On fuel economy:
Clinton wants to increase average efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030.
Obama wants to double the current standards by 2026.
McCain has not yet released a specific target but indicates he wants to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
On biofuels:
All three candidates support dramatic increases in biofuel production and distribution.
McCain reasserts his green policies
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.
Addicted to corn?
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?”
California voters will have opportunity to Force Change in November.
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.]
Air Force goes supersonic on synthetic fuel.
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.
China to maintain “one child” policy for at least another decade.
We recently noted that should China’s rapid development proceed without serious consideration of its environmental impacts, the resulting environmental damage could be catastrophic. However, as we also noted, China does appear to be paying more attention to this issue lately.
One of China’s most controversial developmental regulations has been its “one child” policy. Recently there has been speculation that the government might be ready to lift that rule. However, news reports this week indicate that the Chinese government has decided to maintain its current policy for at least another decade.
It is hard to say that this is a good thing, since it is a very controversial policy and there are many obvious ethical issues surrounding it. Nonetheless, as we’ve stated, one of the major keys to the health of the planet going forward, is going to be the decisions that China makes vis-à-vis development and the environment.
Chinese government creates environmental “super ministry.”
The Chinese government recently reorganized its bureaucratic structure by creating five “super ministries,” one of which is dedicated specifically to the environment. This news is being interpreted as a sign of greater commitment by the communist party towards the environment. Prior to this reorganization, the government’s environmental policy did not have full ministry status, and therefore often didn’t have the clout necessary to effect change throughout the country.
Of course, China’s commitment to green development is integral to the health of the planet. As that country develops, it is clear that should they take the same path as already developed nations, the planet would suffer immensely. For example, America has approximately 300 million citizens versus China’s 1.3 billion. Yet it was only recently that the United States was passed by China in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Given that China has four times the population and relatively recently began industrial development, it is imperative that China implements pro-environmental policies. Hopefully they will learn from the other industrialized nations many mistakes. Maybe their governmental reorganization is a recognition of this fact?
About
We are a green blog providing environmental news, policy and analysis intended to arm people with the information and tools necessary to force change in the unsustainable status quo.
There is a tremendous amount of untapped goodwill within much of the population. We understand that the future of this planet is being threatened by global climate change and other environmental impacts. We are frustrated with our current leaders in both the public and private sectors who are not taking the necessary steps to alter this unsustainable course. ForceChange aims to tap into this dissatisfaction in order to materially improve our natural environment and potential for future human health and progress.
Please feel free to contribute to the conversation by commenting on a post. There is no need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
Here is a link to some of our more popular posts.
Contact
Please contact ForceChange via the form below:
-
Private Leaders
