Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked about climate change as part of the Compassion Forum, a gathering focused on eliciting the candidates' views on matters of faith. Asked whether Americans can combat global poverty and climate change without changing their standard of living, Clinton got all "10 things you can do," advising people to unplug appliances and change their light bulbs. "I hope that, as president, I can model that and lead that effort so that people don't feel so threatened by the changes we're talking about when it comes to dealing with global warming," she said. Clinton also commented on the Vatican's efforts to become carbon neutral and spoke of implementing a cap-and-trade system. Later, Rev. Richard Cizik quizzed Obama on his climate change views. "Where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because [climate change is] going to be hard to deal with," Obama said. Obama also stressed the intergenerational nature of the climate problem, advocated for a cap-and-trade system, and said Americans need to be less wasteful of energy.
source: CNN.com
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 3:11 am
14 Apr 2008
Maybe those temperatures will start to rise again...then you can implement the Global Tax on all citizens.
Permalink
starsky Posted 5:01 am
14 Apr 2008
http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/
I am trying to figure out which candidate is really interested in taking solid steps or which one is just appeasing. I want a proactive President, not one that merely has a record of votes but rather a record of instigating eco-friendly measures.
Permalink
TomCasten Posted 8:26 am
14 Apr 2008
Consider the savings in fuel costs from improving the efficiency of generating heat and power, which together account for 69% of U.S. CO2 emissions. Efficiency investments that reduce fossil fuel use enough to avoid one ton of CO2 emissions save fuel purchases as follows:
- If coal, cut fuel costs by $34
- If natural gas, cut fuel costs by $154
- If #6 oil, cut fuel costs by $288
These savings are 3 to ten times higher than the savings in 1999, due to soaring fossil fuel prices. Even at the old, lower prices, there were many profitable opportunities to improve efficiency that were blocked by regulations, and the regulations stand today. These regulations were enacted when society thought resoucres were infinite and before climate change was recognized as a problem.
Modernizing the regulations will unleash an investment boom in efficiency. Proven technology can cut fossil fuel used to produce electricity in half, while cutting costs by $50 to $70 billion per year, after capital amortization.
The actual tradeoff is between a dirty, high cost energy system and a clean, low cost energy system. This ought to be the message of all candidates for President.
Tom Casten
Permalink
danielbarker123 Posted 9:06 am
14 Apr 2008
For years the 'extremists' have been preaching about meat. Now people are beginning to listen. I have been eating flexitarian since 1992 - my goal is to eat less than six pounds of meat a year.
People are starting to learn that eating meat consumes forty times the fossil fuel. Are you opposed to the war in Iraq? Not if you indulge in hamburgers and hot dogs.
I have a simple solution to meat. Let the Humane Society sell meat. That would solve our problems.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:34 pm
14 Apr 2008
Meanwhile, in order to impress the voters of PA and IN with how "normal" she is, and how out-of-touch and elitist Obama is, Hillary boasts about how she shot and killed a banded duck:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/14/2364/40067/39/495 ...
Permalink
mtvyfan Posted 1:36 am
15 Apr 2008
My husband and I have come to the conclusion that everyone is waiting for someone else to make the sacrifice because they do not want to give up their trucks. It is discouraging trying what you can to save the planet and having to deal with people with that, "Let someone else do it" attitude.
Permalink
makemesustainable Posted 3:07 am
15 Apr 2008
In my humble opinion it comes down not to the platform itself, but whether or not the candidate would implement everything they are promising, even if the status quo should change.
For instance, if oil prices stabilize and fall, which candidate would relax on environmental issues given that the economics of initiatives such as renewable energy become less attractive.
Permalink