This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
Update: Clinton suspended her campaign for the presidency on June 7, 2008.
True to form, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has done her homework on environmental and energy issues. A member of the Environment and Public Works Committee during her six and a half years in the Senate, she has sponsored or cosponsored nearly 400 legislative proposals related to energy and the environment. They've hit on high-profile topics like energy independence as well as less-discussed green issues like toxic exposure, environmental justice, and brownfield redevelopment. While Clinton hasn't been a trailblazer in the fight against climate change, she has been vocal on the need to pursue clean energy and protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Her efforts have earned a respectable grade from the League of Conservation Voters -- a 90 percent lifetime voting score. [Update: In February 2008, Clinton's lifetime LCV score was changed to 87 -- lower than before because she missed some key votes while on the road campaigning.]
But many enviros aren't convinced that Clinton is at the head of the class on green issues, noting that she supports "clean coal," and, like nearly every other candidate, pounds the drum for corn ethanol. Can she win the green lobby to her side? To get a feel for her chances, I caught Clinton by phone after a picnic on the Iowa campaign circuit.
For more info on her platform and record, check out Grist's Clinton fact sheet.
Listen to a clip of this interview:
What makes you the strongest green candidate? What sets your energy and environmental platform apart?
I believe my proposals for energy and environmental priorities are really well thought-out and comprehensive. You know, I have been focusing on these issues for years. Obviously, I have been a child advocate for most of my adult life, and as first lady I focused on the environmental effects on children's health. I have served, since I arrived in the Senate, on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am proud of the work that I've done to stand up against the Bush administration's many efforts to weaken environmental laws.
I have worked to pass the Brownfields Revitalization Act and the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. I've taken many actions specific to New York, like pushing for the Hudson River cleanup by GE. I have been very committed on health-related effects -- that is why I've got legislation to try to deal with asthma and other respiratory diseases and to reduce pollution from power plants. Time and time again I have tried to protect public lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. I cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act to try and get back what my husband had done as president to protect the National Forest system. I believe strongly in supporting the "polluter pays" principle, and I am going to work to try to reinstate that.
I have done a lot of other things that I care a lot about, but one final point I would mention is that early on in my Senate career I introduced bipartisan legislation to establish an environmental health tracking network, to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being. That was important when I began to tackle the toxic legacy of 9/11.
In the Senate, you have supported the goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. Is this a centerpiece of your platform?
It is. I joined with Sens. [Barbara] Boxer and [Bernie] Sanders because I thought that their bill was the most forward-leaning in terms of what needs to be done to deal with the threat of global warming, and I'm very proud to support their legislation.
And obviously I have my own proposals. I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would be funded by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America.
How will the funds be distributed among alternative energy sources -- for instance, will they be weighted toward coal, ethanol, solar, or wind?
My model is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which brought together the best minds in academia, business, and government. It incentivized researchers and entrepreneurs to tackle the space program and the Cold War military challenges, and [eventually] led to the invention of the internet.
What I want to do is not only look at existent, known forms of renewable energy and how we can move more quickly to commercial application and distribution for solar, wind, and geothermal, but also look at other forms of biofuel and biodiesel. You know, let's take a look at the internal combustion engine. Let's figure out if there are some new ideas out there that would play to America's strengths as we move toward less of a dependence on foreign oil and more homegrown energy.
What role will coal play in your plan?
I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove one way or another.
The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal -- of which we have a great and abundant supply in America -- is not going away. So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards? It is not going to do us any good if we substitute one dirty energy source for another.
I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste. But I keep being given information about research that is being done to resolve the waste problem. I know that will continue because that has a lot of economic power and resources behind it. But until we can figure out what to do with the waste and overcome the political objections, we should not be putting a heavy emphasis on nuclear.
Do you believe we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade system?
There is a lot of interest now in figuring out what the most efficient and effective means of controlling and decreasing greenhouse gases would be. I'm looking for what will work and produce results. A cap-and-trade [program] can be designed and implemented in a number of ways. I would strongly favor using an auction for the allocation of the permits -- an auction that would [sell] as close to 100 percent of the permits as possible [rather than giving a percentage of them away for free]. But I think that there are a number of other serious proposals. I will entertain what I think are the best proposals that are politically viable. We still face tremendous opposition from the Republicans.
Whatever we do, we have to do it soon. We can't keep talking about it. If we can't get to the end point soon with a comprehensive proposal, then let's make as much progress as possible while we have a Republican president who is beholden to the oil companies and who is uninterested in taking action.
Would you oppose subsidizing any technology that would worsen global warming, even if it would advance energy independence?
Absolutely. I believe that it has got to be two for the price of [one], it has got to be a win-win. We can't make the [global-warming] problem worse. Now, obviously, you have to have waivers because of national-security implications -- because if terrorists go after our oil supply, we are going to keep figuring out where to find oil, as we make a transition. It is always dangerous to say, "never" and "I will never do this." But certainly, my goal would be to subsidize clean technologies just like we subsidized gas, oil, and coal for years.
How would you balance the call for higher fuel-economy standards with the call to help the U.S. auto industry? What fuel-economy targets would you support?
I believe we need to increase our fuel efficiency in order to reduce global warming. I have supported a fuel-efficiency standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and I've supported a variety of proposals, including tax incentives and other approaches, to help ensure that the next generation of vehicles is much more efficient than the last.
Some people believe we should only commit to a global climate treaty if China and India do as well. Do you agree? How would you bring China and India to the table?
Global warming is a global problem that's going to require a global solution. As president, I will work to involve both China and India. But I think it's important for the U.S. to provide leadership by taking aggressive steps to reduce our contribution to global-warming pollution.
After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?
The Bush administration has reversed decades of bipartisan consensus and progress on the environment by using executive action to weaken environmental safeguards in clean-air laws, clean-water laws, and laws protecting our public lands. For example, the Bush administration issued regulations that allow power plants to emit more mercury pollution and changed the rules to allow discharge of untreated sewage. The administration has also worked to undermine one of the most important conservation accomplishments of my husband's administration: his decision to protect nearly 60 million acres of the most pristine areas in our national forests. As president, I would restore these protections. I would tell my EPA administrator to protect the environment instead of polluters.
Who is your environmental hero?
You know, I have a great deal of respect for Vice President Gore. He has been beating the drums and sounding the alarm of global warming for many, many years. He has never given up on his mission to try and raise awareness and to get the country to take action. I may not agree with everything he proposes -- I don't agree 100 percent with anything that any one person proposes -- but I am certainly grateful to him for being such a public spokesman.
What is your most memorable wilderness or outdoor experience?
When I finished college, I spent a summer in Alaska, washing dishes at a lodge in Mount McKinley National Park [now Denali National Park] and sliming salmon in Valdez. America has an incredible natural heritage, something that I learned to appreciate early in life.
What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?
We have taken quite a few steps to make sure our house is as green as possible -- common-sense and simple steps that everyone can take advantage of. For example, we have switched not only lamps to compact fluorescent light bulbs, but also downlights, track lights, and vanity lights. We've installed motion-sensor light switches so lights automatically turn off when there is no one moving in the room, and switched to buying our power from ConEdison's green power program. We're also reducing our demand for energy by replacing windows and doors to keep more heat and cold in. This has taken our total [kilowatt-hour consumption per year] from about 14,000 to about 4,300. We're currently working with the Rocky Mountain Institute to determine how we can best incorporate solar energy into our home.
A video interview with Bill Moyers
The Yes Men reveal their next big stunt
A video interview with the Yes Men
Comments
View as Flat
arty Posted 6:21 am
09 Aug 2007
Her focus is obviously not here.
I wonder who her sponsors are? Any oil or energy companies in there?
Permalink
venus1kjs Posted 7:24 am
09 Aug 2007
She seems to have an evenhanded view of what is politically possible without bowing to "special interests'" demands. One can tell she does actually care.
I don't know if saying that Al Gore is her environmental hero is just good PR or she actually believes it, but that alone says something positive about her views on the environment. I mean if we can't vote for him, she seems most likely to do the hard work and get things done for our planet.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:52 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:51 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
askantik Posted 8:59 am
09 Aug 2007
Additionally, let me say that venus1kjs says: "I don't know if saying that Al Gore is her environmental hero is just good PR or she actually believes it, but that alone says something positive about her views on the environment. I mean if we can't vote for him, she seems most likely to do the hard work and get things done for our planet."
Um, no. If she says Al Gore is her environmental hero, that most likely means she doesn't know any other environmental activists. I'm not downing Mr. Gore, but the former sentence is the truth. Anyone who thinks Clinton's dedication to the environment is the best of the candidates is foolish. I gotta put it like it is.
If you give a crap about the environment, please vote for Kucinich. I've read every interview that's been posted on here so far and I've done lots of research on all the candidates and I still maintain that the big 3 (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards) are carbon copies (CARBON!! pun intended!!) of one another. Please consider Kucinich if you haven't already. I can't make you vote for him but I can annoy the crap out of you so that maybe you won't be brainwashed into thinking that there are only 3 Democratic candidates.
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 9:08 pm
09 Aug 2007
to safely trap and store the CO2." There is no safe way to
confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high pressure for ever.
For Ever is a lot longer than the 100000 years that people
want nuclear "waste" to be stored. The CO2 WILL
leak out and suffocate millions of people. CO2 is denser
than air and displaces air at ground level. CO2 has caused
suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm
"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
and animals.
The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "
The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides
being prone to leak, will be a target for terrorists. A
terrorist has only to cause a leak to kill more people than a
nuclear bomb would. Leaks are very easy to cause in high
pressure containers. CO2 storage is a silent disaster
waiting to happen.
The pledge Should read: "I will learn enough about nuclear
physics so that I will no longer be paranoid about nuclear
power. I will advocate the replacement of coal fired power
plants with the newest nuclear power plant designs."
I [Asteroid Miner] have no financial or other interest in
nuclear power and no connection with the nuclear power
industry.
It is HOT CO2 that goes up smolestacks. Being hot it is
less dense so it goes up and disperses. Stored CO2 is cool.
A gas gets colder as it leaks out from high pressure to low
pressure. That is the secret of air conditioning. CO2 at
the same temperature as air is denser than air because CO2
is a heavier molecule than N2 or O2. The cold CO2 will
stick to the ground and suffocate people and other animals.
No other gas is required to explain the deaths in Cameroon.
Here in the US, more CO2 will leak out into areas with
more people, so the death toll could be in the millions.
The Live Earth Pledge reads:
I PLEDGE:
-To demand that my country join an international treaty
within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution
by 90% in developed countries and by more than half
worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a
healthy earth;
-To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by
reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and
offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
-To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new
generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to
safely trap and store the CO2;
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 9:10 pm
09 Aug 2007
A little prediction from this foreigner:
If either Clinton or Obama are put up as lead candidates the GOP will win the next election. Barring a massive shift in something fundamental in the nation's psyche, the US is not ready to elect a non-Anglo or a woman. Neither of them have a compelling vision for how to get out of Iraq, or deal with Afghanistan, never mind a visionary and daring approach to green issues. Any great 'green' vision any candidate has will be obscured if they lack vision re turning around the 'war on terror'. Without this no candidate can inspire the US population to climb out of its conservative, polarised, navel-gazing morass into a positive future.
The US will not lead the world in enviro issues for some time to come if these candidates are the best on offer. Neither of their positions is thus of great importance.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 9:16 pm
09 Aug 2007
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Metals and Ceramics Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee
Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements, but mostly in amounts too small to be worth separating. Coal is a rock. Ore is a rock that contains a higher percentage of an element of interest. By burning coal, the major element, carbon, is removed. Coal, minus the carbon, is an ore because other things have been concentrated. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Permalink
Asteroid Miner Posted 9:33 pm
09 Aug 2007
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938- ...
Several previous mass extinctions were caused by global warming. When the oceans get warm enough, sulfur-eating bacteria take over and make enough hydrogen sulfide gas to kill us all.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:28 pm
09 Aug 2007
Q: How do you feel about <blank>
A: Well, <interviewer>, as you know, I've been a strong leader in <blank> for many years now, and it's something that's deeply affected me.
<Blank> is a core issue in my campaign and I want people to know that <blank> will remain a top priority always.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 1:34 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 4:09 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink
community energy Posted 4:32 am
10 Aug 2007
PS - And would someone PLEASE ask Al Gore if he and his family STILL own stock in Occidental Petroleum, and if so, please ask him to clean up his contribution to global warming and GET REAL.
Permalink
bailsout Posted 5:42 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink
FuriaFubar Posted 10:01 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink
Gary Bridge Posted 9:25 am
11 Aug 2007
The technology to siphon or vacuum CO2 emissions from land-based industrial and coal-fired power plant smokestacks already exists. Ammine Glycol does the job quite well albeit somewhat expensively. But what to do with this immense quantity of sequestered global warming greenhouse gas? Pump it at high pressure into the ground? Into the oceans? Anybody really considering that this sequestered CO2 gas will stay put in the earth's strata or remain in water bodies? Hardly...
The petroleum industry has figured out that sequestered CO2 can cling to certain strata and thereby loosen up and cause depleted oil fields to flow again thereby releasing a bit more residual crude oil into older well bores. But what else? This old oilfied regeneration means of utilizing sequestered CO2 isn't making any dent in available quantities of greenhouse gas being vented to the planet's atmosphere every day...
A DOE sequestration scientist admitted to me in conversation that if the CO2 portion of emissions from just coal-fired power plants operating in the lower 48 states were to be captured, sequestered and liquified (resembling something like a precursor to dry ice) that this volume of liquid CO2 would more than fill Lake Erie each and every year! Apparently there is one hellava lot of CO2 being released into our atmosphere via the process of incomplete oxidation combustion of coal and even methane in centralized industrial boilers and don't forget cement kilns...
The third week of June, Hillary filmed a short political commercial in the Mount Kisco Diner 25 miles north of NYC near her home in Westchester County. This political commercial was a parody of very popular HBO Soprano's gangster series and while running on TV, the snippet was also being viewed on the internet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfkRjvAYuOc
After this filming which took place on a Sunday morning - she and Bill were presented with a bottled sample of a new green biofuel which utilized CO2 as one-half of the waste carbon process feedstocks used to cleanly synthesize it for less than 50¢ per gallon.
Apparently Hillary still didn't realize the message herein - understanding that polluting CO2 greenhouse gas can can be recycled and profitably utilized as a biodegradable oxy-bridging solution to the conventional hydrocarbon economies of petroleum-derived fuels or even coal. The chemical secret herein involves the oxygen atoms contained within both CO2 and H2O as the source of new biofuel's biodegradability characteristics. Maybe Obama or Kucinich would recognize this answer still escaping the folks who designed the Kyoto Protocols?
Gary Bridge
Permalink
pianoyoga Posted 5:03 am
12 Aug 2007
I'd like to have someone very unlike Bush: that would perhaps be a woman with a functional brain with the ability to at least pretend to listen and respond to my concerns. Bill Clinton could be a phenomenal asset too.
People should realize: Homo sapiens is the only species on the planet that's not carbon neutral. A tree, a duck, a flatworm, bacteria, whales- all doing just fine. Our population is out of control. Every item in every store has a big carbon footprint. 6000 years of civilization are a sanctimonious mess, and 250 years of the American experiment in slavery, deforestation, Indian genocide, and fossil fuel exploitation have not exactly been a huge success, no glowing example of liberty and justice for all.
There are lots of compromises to be crafted; individuals will be forced to make a lot of changes. The most promising route is all-solar, simple integrated living, electric rail, bicycles, huge taxes on consumption, and, most precious of all, honesty and compassion.
Permalink
blacksheep Posted 2:40 am
13 Aug 2007
while she may not be the best of all the candidates on the environment (particularly compared with Edwards), she's not bad... i don't agree with her on everything she has said, but overall she seems to know her stuff, to be willing to consider many options and get rid of those that don't meet particular criteria, and to be ready to work with others to find solutions for our environmental problems. rationality in decision making is a nice thing....
we can't expect that a president alone can create the transition to a more sustainable society that we seek... but, the right president at the right time can ride (and enhance) the wave and help enable big changes to happen faster. she seems both aware of and receptive to changing attitudes about the environment...
i'm not sure if i'm going with edwards or clinton in the primaries, but i'll tell you this: if she shows up on the final ballot, I'll vote for her without hesitation...
Permalink
racc Posted 4:18 am
13 Aug 2007
More people in the world use these solutions than will ever drive. The North American privileged lifestyle of excess is coming to a crashing halt. It is time some people like Hill show some leadership.
Permalink
bart laemmel Posted 12:03 pm
13 Aug 2007
Oh yeh she's looking to put in a solar panel system. That would be a solution well with in anyones means. How about a tub of caulk to make your house more air tight. thats more with in my budget.
Permalink
michaelconley Posted 3:17 am
14 Aug 2007
So, I feel that if by closing ranks early behind Hillary we can preclude another 4 years of GOP non-leadership, we -- that is, progressives -- should do it.
I will continue to support candidates who think "outside the box" and encourage Hillary to listen and learn from them.
Michael
Permalink
howardgw Posted 4:47 am
14 Aug 2007
Permalink
mikesfilms Posted 5:34 am
14 Aug 2007
Permalink
maryellen Posted 10:48 pm
14 Aug 2007
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 3:56 am
15 Aug 2007
If this is such a central issue for her, and she's so proud of supporting this bill, then why did she wait until May, five months after the bill was introduced to sign on as a co-sponsor?
Chris Dodd didn't wait - he signed on as an original co-sponsor of the bill.
John Edwards was the first major candidate to publicly endorse an 80% by 2050 cut in emissions and made it a central part of his comprehensive energy plan released in March. Not only did he publicly endorse the emissions target, he also immediately called on his supporters through multiple email alerts to urge their representatives and senators to co-sponsor Sanders and Boxers' bill.
In April, hundreds of thousands of citizens joined the Step it UP! day of action and called for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Dozens of representatives co-sponsored the house version of the Sanders-Boxer bill (sponsored by Henry Waxman) after Step it UP!.
So where was Senator Clinton this whole time? Why did she - and Barack Obama, who endorsed the bill on the same day as Clinton - wait until May? Why did she not send email alerts to her members asking them to call on their representatives and senators to co-sponsor the bill she was "so proud of"? What has she done to lead her colleagues, her supporters and American citizens on this crucial issue that is 'so central' to her campaign?
We desperately need a strong leader in the Oval Office in 2009 committed to solving the climate crisis. Think about the timeline above and ask yourself if Senator Clinton has exhibited leadership, or follower-ship on this issue...
Permalink
pianoyoga Posted 1:28 am
16 Aug 2007
The major holdup in achieving responsible political response to our ongoing environmental disaster is the primacy of money in the American political system. Congress is a bunch of millionaires. People have made money quickly by exploiting workers and our finite planet while externalizing costs (dumping waste into the air and water instead of dealing with it). They generate "wealth" and translate that into political power. It's a mess.
The CO2 allowances in the current new Global Warming bill would at least introduce an economic value to pollution avoidance, and should begin to slightly enrich and empower people & processes that oppose global warming.
If Apple iTunes would let people buy a Green song for $1.00 instead of $0.99, purchasing carbon offsets for that song, and donating 1 cent to an organization promoting global warming political solutions, it would push the politicians and the consumers to choose sides.
Within a week, all the politicians (including Republicans) would be talking about global warming in major policy speeches, and Apple iTunes would get millions of dollars in free publicity on CNN, etc.
What do you think- good idea?
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:08 pm
20 Aug 2007
I mean no disrespect to Mrs. Clinton, but I find this very hard to believe. If true, that puts her monthly electric bill at 360 kWh per month. Or about $72 from ConEd. Their house in Westchester Count is reportedly 100 years old, has 5 bedrooms, 11 rooms total. Plus they have a 20' x 45' pool (24,000 gallons).
A 2 hp pool pump running 8 hours per day consumes about 12 kWh per day, or 360 kWh per month. Ok, so maybe they only operate the pool 3 months out of the year. Still that wouldn't leave them much power for the rest of the year. Certainly not enough for air conditioning even for a month or two.
Plus, Mrs. Clinton has a home in Washington, DC near the naval observatory.
I believe that the 14,000 kWh / year is about right for the house in Westchester. I just don't think there is any way they could get it to 4,300.
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 7:34 am
02 Sep 2007
PS whenever there's a post like this, there's always some nut that posts about the population bomb. I wonder i don't recall seeing anything like that yet
Permalink
brockadler Posted 7:37 am
18 Sep 2007
http://www.epa.gov/Education/
Permalink
truegreencore Posted 9:26 am
06 Nov 2007
Of note:
1.) She wants to bribe automakers with $20 billion. She has swallowed automakers load of crap that they are unable to improve fuel efficiency without the government paying the way.
2.) She provides a fantastic (note my sarcasm) incease in public transit by $1.5 billion. Hmmm, $20 billion to automakers and $1.5 billion for mass transit -- I wonder how our country will continue to develop.
3.) She wants to "link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage and discourage sprawl." How about linking more than just public transit funds? And, I don't know what kind of pathetically weak language "encourage" is? All federal and state funds that are given to municipalities for infrastructure purposes should be REQUIRED to follow smart growth policies. Of course, she doesn't use the words smart growth at all, unlike at least Richardson and Edwards (think Obama, too).
4.) She doesn't once mention the fantastic energy use of freight transportation. While transportation is a significant contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, transportation itself is comprised of passenger transportation and freight transportation. Hillary seems to believe automobiles are the only thing deserving of our attention.
I encourage all individuals to look at Governor Bill Richardson's policies. As a former Energy Secretary, his knowledge of issues is incredibly nuanced. He develops in fantastic detail benchmarks with coordinated policies to achieve goals. And, he is the only candidate urging for a reduction of carbon emissions 90% by 2050.
I am an Iowan and I AM going to the caucuses (only about 40% of Iowans go). I am taking others with me if I have to hog tie them and drag them into precinct sites.
Permalink
GreerPhoto Posted 2:13 pm
28 Dec 2007
Southern Appalachians. The more time I spend in the Cumberland and Allegany Mountains the more depressed I become for I'm finding out what's really happening, first-hand, to the poor communities of Appalachia. The strong-arming of the local communities by the Bush Administration and big Coal is truly an embarrassment for the United States. I hope that each of the candidates will take the time to respond, at some point, to the atrocities that our mountains and the communities are going through at this moment. Clean burn coal is only part of the issue! We MUST clean up big coal early in the mining stages. A list of websites follows:
http://www.700mountains.org - Please watch the 7-minute video preview of
Burning the Future: Coal in America.
http://www.socm.org/stripmining.html
http://www.crmw.net
http://www.samsva.org
http://www.appalachian-center.org/issues/coal/index.html
http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org
The most important website of all:
http://www.ilovemountains.org
Please take a few minutes and visit these website, for all Americans, especially
the ones that have been forgotten in the rural areas directly affected by big
Coal in Appalachia.
Permalink
AuntBeth Posted 7:45 am
08 Feb 2008
Damn. I was more impressed by Edwards at the time, but the woman means business.
Permalink