Grist poll: Which candidate has bucked his base more on the environment? 2

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 3:12 am
   18 Oct 2008

   Don't Understand These ResultsHow in hell can anyone say that McCain has ignored his base on environmental issues more than Obama?  McCain's base is Republicans, the vast majority of whom don't even pretend to care about the environment.  While making lip service on global warming, McCain takes the very anti-environmental positions of supporting coal and nuclear power, more oil drilling, and supported the gas tax holiday.  But with the exception of the gas tax holiday, Obama has the same positions.  Obama's base is Democrats and unrealistically optimistic progressives, who at least pretend to care about the environment.  So, who's betrayed his base more on this issue?  Clearly Obama.

   Permalink

2. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 3:27 am
   18 Oct 2008

   McCain consistent
   
   McCain -- in each debate -- has consistently stated his energy policies: independent AND clean.
   That point has been ignored by his opponent.
   In every debate McCain committed to:
   
   
   Increased domestic production
   
   Nuclear
   
   Clean Coal
   
   
   But he also said
   
   
   Solar
   
   Wind
   
   
   And in one debate he actually said the word
   6. Hydrogen
   Look, you can be for clean energy and be realistic at the same time.   A person can say, look, I will increase solar and wind, and at the same time cover my base(load) with nuclear and keep the coal industry in business UNTIL SUCH TIME as America has made the transition to completely clean energy (solar, wind, hydrogen).
   Let me ask the Grist Ecologists.  Can any of you articulate a workable energy policy which says:
   
   
   Shut down the coal industry entirely.
   
   Ban the use of oil.
   
   Run the grid entirely on electricity including all transportation.
   
   
   I'm not mocking the idea, but can anyone make a feasible case for doing so, starting tomorrow?
   Or, can we set reasonable switch over periods?
   Or, should we always hedge our bets with the thought that there would be some convergence of nanotechnologies ideas that might, for example, make use of coal 100% efficient?  Or reduce nuclear waste dangers to nil (using nuclear cells to turn radiation into electricity, rather than boiling water with it)?

   Permalink