As of today, Bill Richardson has become the boldest, most visionary Democratic presidential candidate on climate and energy policy. (John Edwards is a close second.) No politician from either party has put forward a plan that comes closer to being a realistic response to the energy shortages and climate chaos heading our way.
Here's the heart of Richardson's speech today:
We need a man-on-the-moon program to end this addiction, this hemorrhage. But we need it much faster and much more boldly than people are suggesting.
When John F. Kennedy challenged this country to reach the moon, he challenged us to get there in TEN years, not twenty, or thirty, or forty.
On energy policy, we need to change fast, or sink slowly
I am issuing a call to action, for Congress, the energy industry, and the public. I am calling for a new American revolution -- an energy and climate revolution.
Word.
He's not kidding about much faster and much bolder, either. Here are the major planks of the plan, with some commentary.
Cut oil demand: 50% by 2020
This is bigger and faster than anything put forward by any other political figure I'm aware of -- certainly vastly stronger than anything Bush has offered.
The key pieces are raising fuel-efficiency standards to 50mpg by 2020 (contrast to Bush's plan to hit 35mpg by 2020, or Edwards' to hit 40mpg by 2016), a new low-carbon standard for liquid fuels (30% carbon reduction by 2020), and substantial support for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles.
Change to Renewable Sources for Electricity: 50% by 2040
This is incredibly ballsy -- far and away the most ambitious target on the political table. (The closest comparison is Edwards' plan to make power companies generate 25% of their power with renewables by 2025.)
A national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) would mandate that 30% of the nation's energy come from renewables by 2020, and 50% by 2040. That's stronger than any of the 21 states that currently have an RPS in effect. It would require a truly radical series of reforms in the way we generate and use electricity.
Dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 80% by 2040
This is where the cap-and-trade system comes in, pushing emissions down 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2040 (ten years earlier than Edwards' plan -- the strongest competitor --would hit that target).
Lead by example and restore America as the world's leader
See if you can imagine Bush saying this:
We must return to the international negotiating table and support mandatory world-wide limits on global warming pollution. We will work closely with fast-growing nations and, as President, I will cooperate with the European Union, the World Bank, and other allies to help finance the small incremental cost of "doing it right." I will create a North American Energy Council with Mexico and Canada, which supply about 20% of our oil, and make sure our relations with these neighbors are firm and friendly. As we reduce our demand for foreign oil, we should work with the Gulf nations, and our partners at the UN, to create a multilateral system for protecting the Gulf so that within ten years the U.S. presence in the Gulf could be sharply and safely reduced.
This kind of forthright, unabashed multilateralism is practically anachronistic these days, but this is the issue that will -- if anything will -- restore America's position of leadership in the world.
Get it all done without breaking the bank
Richardson claims the programs, taken together, will produce 10 times more value than they cost. I'm inclined to believe that, but he'll have a tough time convincing the public, especially with a chorus of conservatives forecasting economic doom. The question of whether we can decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions is one I suspect can only be answered by trying.
Anyway, I don't think Richardson has much of a chance at the presidency, but this plan will have the salutary effect of further pushing the envelope of what's possible on energy policy for whoever is elected. Kudos to him and his staff.
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Blowing up our clean energy future
Comments
View as Flat
Maywa Montenegro Posted 12:17 pm
17 May 2007
There are---as far as I know---six climate change bills currently making their way through the Senate (Sanders/Boxer, Bingaman/Specter, McCain/Lieberman, Feinstein/Carper, and Kerry/Snowe). And over in the House, Henry Waxman is leading a group of 120 members who support the Safe Climate Act of 2007, which the Union of Concerned Scientists calls "the best opportunity to protect future generations from the worst effects of global warming."
Now, all the presidential candidates are throwing their own policies into the ring as well, so I'm a bit confused...Is there a qualitative difference in having the policy come straight from the president versus the Congress (expediency, perhaps?) Or are the Presidential hopefuls simply expressing the kind of congressional legislation they would support if they wind up in office. Whose job ultimately is it to craft climate change policy (I assume the founding fathers didn't see this one coming...)
Thanks in advance for anyone who can shed light.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:15 pm
17 May 2007
At the very beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon, apparently looking far into the future, without knowing what he was looking at. So he sent out the Lewis and Clark expedition, of academic interest to you guys up in the PacNW. That turned out OK; but if Jefferson had never heard back from them again -- say, there were some bad scrapes with grizzlies, or Sacajawea's folks were not too hospitable, or some of the guys wanted to take off on a Brokeback adventure of their own -- , that would hardly have been a problem to us back East.
When Andrew Jackson forced the Civilized Tribes of the Southeast to move to Indian Territory, later Oklahoma, that was the biggest forced shift of populations in US history, and ought to be a much bigger issue than it apparently is. No doubt plenty of white settlers were ready to move in and take over, and so whatever protest there was did not deeply resonate.
In the 1840s, the bizarre history of Texas, the successful war with Mexico and the California goldrush all attracted lots of people from the East into a huge new territory. But I do not know if there was any government direction of the settlement of those territories by US civilians.
The Civil War and its aftermath are sui generis.
FDR's New Deal, and the mobilization for World War II, involved direction from the White House supported by a more-or-less cooperative legislature. But it is becoming almost a cliche' that the required governmental mitigation/adaptation response to global warming must fundamentally resemble what FDR did in the 1930s and 40s, so that is probably the best place to look for historical precedents.
Al Gore mentions the international government agreement, regarding the restriction of the use of CFCs, in connexion with the scientists' report of ozone depletion, as a successful example of how the concerted actions of many governments can achieve something effective to defend against a major climactic threat. Well, sure. But you decide how analogous that is to the current situation: fewer, smaller and less powerful industries needed to be regulated; and the lifestyles of consumers were not affected in a big way.
Similarly, I wonder if JFK's challenge to put a man on the moon in ten years, which Bill Richardson recalls, is quite analogous to what we are facing today. Back then, in an age of trust in technology and "American know-how," as well as one of warlike competitiveness with the Soviet Union, that challenge made a great deal of sense, and won a great deal of support. Our present situation is not really like that at all.
Nevertheless, I like Bill Richardson a great deal, and wish him well. We ought to trust this plan of his with special confidence, because he has admirable experience as Secretary of Energy and as governor of a state that produces natural gas, uranium and petroleum.
We also ought to think highly of him as a successful diplomat, who has made friends at the UN, and has spoken well with the North Koreans, and has recently tried to make some decent progress in Darfur. If repairing the image of the US in the world community is recognized as a major issue, as it ought to be, then Richardson is very well placed to become a leading candidate.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
paulbaer Posted 5:14 pm
17 May 2007
So, one and a half cheers!
--Paul Baer
Research Director, EcoEquity
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 3:55 am
18 May 2007
The last nomination was won in Iowa. If Kerry had come in third (beaten, by say, Gephardt and Dean) he would have lost the nomination. Money had nothing to do with his victory in Iowa, nor did it have anything to do with his victory in any other state. The biggest reason he won in Iowa (and other states) was because people thought he had the best chance of getting elected. I was personally involved in his campaign early on (before his victory in Iowa) and I can tell you that most of his volunteers felt that way, too.
Richardson has a lot going for him, with very few negatives. He has a lot of great experience and comes from the West. Unlike Dean, he is pretty good looking. It is sad to say, but in this era, such cosmetic things matter (ever since JFK beat the more qualified Nixon). If Dean didn't have that funny smirk, he would have easily won the nomination. However, a lot of people (myself included) concluded that he really didn't have a chance (because of that and some of his gaffes). Bob Graham was the only other Governor and unfortunately, he was even less appealing in front of the camera.
At some point, the folks in Iowa (and the other states) will pick the person they feel will not only represent their political beliefs, but also win the election. When that happens, Richardson (at this point) becomes the obvious choice.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:05 am
18 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Queen Whackamole Posted 4:55 am
18 May 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:02 am
18 May 2007
...climate revolution...
When will the 2010's get here, so that "Climate Change" joins bell bottoms, Nirvana CDs and skinny ties in the Nostalgia Drawer?
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:08 am
18 May 2007
The $35 million facility on Albuquerque's west side will mean 400 new jobs, Gov. Bill Richardson said.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17239047/
Win-win
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:25 pm
18 May 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix4yVlZkyt0
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:27 pm
18 May 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14neTprFvUQ
Permalink
Rune Posted 5:14 pm
18 May 2007
Also, there seems to be no sense of curtailing subsidies of meat production, which is a major contributor to CO-2 emissions in the U.S. I guess that might be a little much to ask of a former governor of a ranching state, but it is worth nothing.
Permalink
randino Posted 11:02 pm
18 May 2007
Number one, bold ideas and big plans do not scare him. Audacity is not a dirty word. Yes, I know, bold ideas and big plans got us into Vietnam and Iraq as well. But what I have noted in recent years on the left page of the political ledger is a militancy for the miniscule, and a soul killing timidity. We have become policy bean counters. All the boldness has been on the right.
Number two, is that this country used to be a "can do" country. Anyone who issued us a challenge had to jump out of the way, or he would be run over. Now we are a "can't do" country. We can't do health care. We can't do anything about global warming. We can't do anything about a ruinous war. We can't do anything about growing social and economic inequality. I remember - barely - a time when the operative word in this country was Yes. But the era of No, has given us a case of collective senility. Richardson is about can do. Richardson is about Yes.
Bless him.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:25 pm
18 May 2007
We know we can, but this corporate class running things from the whitehouse, congress, and the boardroom can't.
When coal miners went on strike and then mine owners locked them out, crippling the nation's economy, national guard troops were sent in to operate the mines.
Real leadership in DC would send in the national guard right now. To take over corporate boardrooms and get this energy revolution going.
We can't afford this lockout by the corporate elite, they are closing down america's manufacturing capacity to keep their lock on power. And that is killing the living planet that we all depend upon for life itself.
Put Gen. Karpinsky in charge of the GM boardroom, for instance. She knows the wrath that oil war has wrought, first hand.
Call in the national guard, this is a real emergency.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:21 am
19 May 2007
You Gristies go on and on about the need for a "new energy plan". Well guess what...while you've been whining, the Bush Energy Plan -- with an emphasis on fuel cells and hydrogen -- , has been delivering.
Witnesseth:
"With this drive, General Motors has reached another important milestone toward the commercialization of our fuel cell vehicles, by achieving the range expected by today's consumers," said Larry Burns, GM vice president, research & development and strategic planning. "And we did it while producing zero emissions, as a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle only emits water. In addition, the hydrogen produced at Niagara Falls, used to fuel Sequel, was derived from hydropower - a clean, renewable resource. This means that the entire process - from the creation of the hydrogen to the use of the fuel in the vehicle -- was virtually carbon dioxide free."
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?sto ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:40 am
19 May 2007
"Fool US once...fool US twice..hmmm.. er.. we won't get fooled again."
Maybe Pat Robertson will open up an engineering school soon. Then the hydrogen economy will explode with new found hope, like the Hindenberg.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:44 am
19 May 2007
The Hindenberg?
Gramps...you gotta start reading the newspapers again:
Automobile Fuel Could Lead Water-burning Engines
Bypassing gasoline altogether, a Purdue University professor has come up with an automobile fuel that could lead to water-burning engines.
The professor, Jerry Woodall, discovered the fuel process quite by accident, while cleaning a crucible. The reserve contained gallium and aluminum liquid alloys, which reacted when water was added by splitting the whole mess into hydrogen and aluminum oxide. After some refinement, Woodall and his lab colleagues have hit on a solid way of creating the mixture, such that hydrogen can be siphoned off and used as engine fuel and the aluminum oxide can be reused in the next process.
http://www.htlounge.net/articles/3287/1/Automobile-Fuel-t ...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Rune Posted 7:06 am
19 May 2007
Unfortunately, switching to new sources of fuels (while using what is still economical among old and dirty fuels) will only make most of those problems worse by making it possible to do more of the same. If we really want to reverse this trend, we need to stop consuming so damn much, which means putting more effort and appreciation into doing things we love instead of buying and consuming our way through life. It also means putting the focus on resource efficiency for the things we do continue to consume, instead of pushing for more and more energy, "clean" or not, as the magic key that will let us continue to tear the Earth apart to keep feeding our out of control consumer addictions.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:47 pm
19 May 2007
First off.
Gallium is way too expensive. It's what you make high grade solar panels out of.
Second off, this concept has been shown tons of times before. With Boron and Zinc. Which would be more practical.
The way you "recharge" the metal into a metal-oxide is by electrocuting it. In essense a battery.
We already have high density batteries that can recharge to nearly full capacity in as little as 1 minute when given enough current.
And then drive hundreds of miles.
Permalink
Rune Posted 10:02 am
20 May 2007
The aluminum could be produced at competitive prices if the recycling process were carried out with electricity generated by a nuclear power plant or windmills. Because the electricity would not need to be distributed on the power grid, it would be less costly than power produced by plants connected to the grid, and the generators could be located in remote locations, which would be particularly important for a nuclear reactor to ease political and social concerns, Woodall said.
But other than that, it's pretty much a slam dunk solution to all of our problems. Read all about it.
Permalink
mwilli Posted 11:11 am
20 May 2007
You're not giving credit to another Democratic candidate, who in my opinion offered the most ambitious plan thanks to a focus on a corporate carbon tax... Chris Dodd. Yes yes, I know he's basically an afterthought at this point, but check out his plan and you'll see.
Raising fuel efficiency to 50? Dodd said it first.
80% GHG reductions? Dodd said it first... and is a cosponsor on the Boxer-Sanders bill. He also set forth his corporate carbon tax plan.
Richardson has some better numbers for RES... but Dodd came down hard on coal.
I'm not taking anything away from Richardson as it makes me quite happy to see this plan, but give credit where credit is due.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:55 pm
20 May 2007
Barack is sui generis. No, he does not belong in the Senate. And yet, while I like him, and am very impressed by him, I mistrust him too. It will be interesting to see where he ends up. And for better or worse, whatever happens to him will be meaningful to all African-Americans, somehow.
By contrast, it seems that the political story of Latinos in the US is not quite so bound up with Bill Richardson, perhaps because of his Anglo surname.
But African-Americans have a unique history of isolation and oppression in this country, which no other group has had to deal with, save the Native Americans, in a somewhat different way. They are far and away the most interesting ethnic group, if that is the right term, in America, from the perspective of us literary types and ethicists.
Latinos are certainly not a united group or a bloc. Just as we Italian-Americans did not rally behind Geraldine Ferraro or Mario Cuomo, and most certainly are not rallying behind Rudy Giuliani, I do not see why Richardson should count on a Latino bloc supporting him.
That said, I still like Richardson a lot. But in a way, as much as I admire Ross Bleakney's support of Richardson, in whose ranks I suppose for honor's sake I would choose finally to stand, I nevertheless understand the doubts of DR and of my pal Randino, as they shrewdly consider the political lay-of-the-land. It is no criticism of Bill Richardson, after all, to point out that he does not have behind him the serious para-military machinery of Hillary, Barack and Edwards -- nor even of Al Gore, if he should choose to raise his flag and pop off his cannons in the Fall.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
mwilli Posted 10:53 pm
20 May 2007
Permalink
ditchlily Posted 2:01 am
29 May 2007
But I too think he is probably doomed :) not necessarily because I have rational reasons for saying that; I'm just in an oh hell kind of phase at the moment. But I'm still sending him a little cash.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 3:17 am
29 May 2007
These three certainly deserve a lot of attention from an energy policy standpoint. Throw in Kucinich for filing Articles of Impeachment, and we may have something. We do, however, need to get a lot more detail from each of them on how they would have us reach the lofty goals they propose. If they reveal themselves to be love-slaves to nukes or biofuels or other duplicitous activities, their ideas will be no better than the Stooge who passes himself off as the current President.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Lynda Allen Posted 9:24 am
12 Dec 2007
New Mexico is an oil producing state. Areas where the oil industry is prevalent are polluted and plagued with crimes such as meth amphetamine labs and high levels of rape related to the roughnecks who work the oil fields. (Farmington, NM has the highest number of rapes in the country!).
The citizens of Santa Fe County (the state capital and residential area) are currently opposing the proposed oil and gas drilling by Tecton, LLC (a Houston based company whose technologies were developed by Haliburton). The area they are looking to drill is in the Galisteo Basin, Santa Fe County, one of the most pristine areas in New Mexico, it is environmentally sensitive, a major archeological site with Indian burial grounds and home to many ranchers.
The production of oil here will destroy tourism (Santa Fe's major industry), home values, and most importantly our water aquifers. We are in the desert and have experienced a decade long drought. Additionally the oil pollution will get into the country's food supply via the grazing cattle, so this eventually effects the whole country not just Santa Fe.
I've asked BR several times via email on his website specifically what his position on the proposed drilling in Santa Fe County is and all he does is reply back with on his campaign policy or does not respond at all.
See what's going in Bill's own backyard on these websites and if you think he is for real or it's all just campaign rhetoric:
http://www.drillingsantafe.com
http://www.santafenotoil.org
You may also want to check out the NRDC's article:
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/06sum/rockies1.asp
Or National Geographic's article:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0507/feature5/galle ...
Or the Sierra Club's article:
http://riogrande.sierraclub.org/pajarito/issue13.asp
Or Audubon Magazine's article:
http://audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0403.html
See how oil has destroyed these other areas of Bill's state:
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=13965
http://www.oteromesa.org/people_blancett.htm
Or how Chaco Canyon (a UNESOC World Heritage site) is in danger of oil and gas drilling:
http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/wildsanjuans/chaco.shtml
Permalink