This is part of a series of interviews with presidential candidates produced jointly by Grist and Outside.
In his two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has been active -- even hyperactive -- on matters of energy and the environment. The Democrat from Illinois has introduced or cosponsored nearly 100 eco-related bills on issues ranging from lead poisoning and mercury emissions to auto fuel economy and biofuels promotion. Along the way, he's racked up a notable 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters. [Update: In February 2008, Obama's lifetime LCV score was changed to 86 -- lower than before because he missed some key votes while on the road campaigning.]
But it hasn't been all hugs and kisses between Obama and enviros. Some green activists wrinkle their noses at the senator's overarching emphasis on bipartisan consensus, insisting that real environmental change won't happen without tough partisan battles against entrenched interests. Enviros have also knocked Obama for his support of corn-derived ethanol and liquid coal, both of which would benefit industries in his home state of Illinois but do little if anything to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Are the criticisms justified? Does this frontrunner have what it takes to tackle the climate crisis and lead America to a cleaner, brighter energy future? To find some answers, I reached Obama by phone in his office in Washington, D.C., between Senate votes.
For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's Obama fact sheet.
Listen to a clip of this interview:
Why should voters consider you the strongest candidate on environmental issues? What sets your green platform apart from the rest?
To begin with, people can look at my track record. I'm proud of the fact that one of the first sets of endorsements I received in my race for the U.S. Senate was from the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. I've since cast tough votes on behalf of the environment. For example, I voted against the "Clear Skies" bill that George Bush was promoting, despite the fact that the administration had heated up support for the bill in southern Illinois, which you know is a coal area of the country. So I think people can feel confident that I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk.
How central will energy and the environment be to your campaign?
I consider energy to be one of the three most important issues that we're facing domestically, along with revamping our education system and fundamentally reforming our health-care system. And the opportunities for significant change exist partly because awareness of the threat of climate change has grown rapidly over the last several years. Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for that, as do activists in the environmental community and outlets like Grist. People recognize the magnitude of the [climate] problem and are ready to take it on.
Not only is there environmental concern, but you're also seeing people who are recognizing that our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East is distorting our foreign policies, and that we can't sustain economically continuing dependence on a resource that is going to get more and more expensive over time. As all those things converge, we have to move boldly on energy legislation, and that's what I'll do as the next president.
How central of a role do you think the issues of energy and the environment will play overall in the 2008 campaign? Will they take a backseat to Iraq?
Bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible end is the most pressing challenge we face, but that doesn't mean it's the only challenge we face. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and slashing our greenhouse-gas emissions will also be defining issues in this campaign.
You've consistently emphasized consensus and putting aside partisan battles. Many argue that, when it comes to climate change, the maximum of what's politically possible falls short of the minimum we need to do to solve the problem. In other words, consensus won't get us where we need to go. Will you fight the political battles needed to move the consensus on this issue, even if that means aggravating partisan rifts?
I am the cosponsor of the most aggressive climate-change legislation in the Senate, along with Barbara Boxer [D-Calif.] and Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.], which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We are going to have to make some big decisions to meet those goals. Consensus doesn't mean 100 percent consensus -- there is undoubtedly going to be resistance from certain parts of the energy sector, and there may be ideological resistance within the Republican Party, and we are going to have to attend to the regional differences in terms of how people get energy. But I believe that we can put together a strong majority to move forward, as long as we are thoughtful about the potential losers in any big piece of energy legislation.
Do you believe that we can achieve political consensus on this goal of 80 percent reductions by 2050?
I think with presidential leadership we can meet this goal, and it will be one of my top priorities. But it is going to require a thoughtful approach that accounts for the possibility that electricity prices will go up, and that low-income people may need to be compensated. We'll have to deal with the fact that many of our power plants are coal burning, and consider what investments we're willing to make in coal sequestration. If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way.
Do you believe that we need a carbon tax in addition to a cap-and-trade program?
I believe that, depending on how it is designed, a carbon tax accomplishes much of the same thing that a cap-and-trade program accomplishes. The danger in a cap-and-trade system is that the permits to emit greenhouse gases are given away for free as opposed to priced at auction. One of the mistakes the Europeans made in setting up a cap-and-trade system was to give too many of those permits away. So as I roll out my proposals for a cap-and-trade system, I will price permits so that it has much of the same effect as a carbon tax.
You have personally addressed automakers with a call for more efficient car technologies. Is Detroit ready for this shift?
We made some progress recently in the Senate, with the first fuel-efficiency standards increase in 20 years. It only went up to 35 miles per gallon -- far short of what we needed and what technology would allow.
We have to work not only to make our cars more efficient, but the fuel we put in those cars a lot cleaner. I believe I am the only candidate who has proposed a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard, something that California has already initiated.
You've received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven't retracted it. Why?
I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid were higher than gasoline, we couldn't do it because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that, because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting CO2 emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.
How much should we be willing to pay in taxpayer money to make liquid coal that clean?
Our original bill on coal-to-liquids -- which generated a lot of heat in the environmental community, no pun intended -- proposed $200 million for demonstration projects, to see where this technology might take us.
If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion, then that is something all of us should welcome, particularly because China and India are building coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate, and they likely have lifespans of several decades. Coal is a cheaper resource, and they're going to be figuring out a way to exploit it, so we should help to find technologies that will ensure that if it is used, it is used cleanly. The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better geologic coal-sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.
But I stress again that my position has been consistent throughout: If we are using coal in the absence of these clean technologies, then we are going to be worsening the trend of global warming, and that is something that we can't do.
Do you support a freeze in the U.S. on new coal development until these clean-coal technologies are commercially available?
I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.
As president, would you oppose subsidizing any technology that increases global warming -- even if it reduces our dependence on foreign oil?
As a general principle I would agree with that. I would not make huge investments or try to take technologies to scale that worsen the climate-change situation. But it may be appropriate for the federal government to make small investments in pilot projects to see if we can make dirty fuels cleaner.
I think that with nuclear power, we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way, and if we can do that and deal with the some of the safely and security issues, [nuclear power] is something that we should look at.
My general view is that we should experiment with all sorts of potential energy sources -- don't prejudge what works and what doesn't, but insist that we have very strict standards in terms of where we want to end up, and enforce those standards vigorously.
Some argue that 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?
We shouldn't look at it as a single tit-for-tat exchange. The U.S. is the world's largest economy and the largest single source of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, so it is our responsibility to take the first step. We cannot expect China and India, with a billion people each, to take the lead on this if we do not -- but we can expect them to join us if we demonstrate leadership. If we must take the first step, our second and third steps must be conditioned on meaningful participation by all countries. This is also an enormous opportunity for us to provide our technological expertise to these nations so they can leapfrog to cleaner technologies.
You are a strong supporter of both corn and cellulosic ethanol, both of which would get a major boost from your proposed National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. How, specifically, will you structure policies that transition the U.S. away from corn ethanol and toward cellulosic?
No single feedstock is going to get us to energy independence, and none will be the perfect solution -- each faces its own challenges. Corn-starch ethanol provides a critically important bridge toward energy independence and corn remains a strong part of the domestic biofuels industry. But developing greater volumes of cellulosics is a critical next step in domestic biofuel development, and is the key component of my Low Carbon Fuel Standard bill.
Through greater fuel economy and the use of hybrid and plug-in vehicles, we can notably reduce our dependence on foreign oil over the next decade. It is important to note that domestic fuel security, environmental protection, and economic development all must be considered in unison as we progress. My National Low Carbon Fuel Standard provides a way for us to better understand the impacts of an advanced biofuels industry on the environment, so that as we move forward on cellulosics and other domestic fuels we do so responsibly.
What environmental achievement are you proudest of?
In 2006, I developed an innovative approach to gradually increase CAFE standards while protecting the financial future of American automakers. The resulting Obama-Lugar-Biden Fuel Economy Reform Act gained the support of senators who had never supported CAFE increases before. This, in turn, helped lay the foundation for Senate passage of updated CAFE standards last month.
After climate and energy, what do you think is the most important environmental issue facing the nation?
Restoring the strength of the EPA to adequately enforce our clean-air, clean-water, and other environmental-protection laws, after over six years of ruling by ideology rather than science and adherence to the law.
Who is your environmental hero?
If I think historically, Rachel Carson probably had as much to do as anybody in helping trigger an environmental consciousness in this country.
I also admire Teddy Roosevelt, who probably wouldn't have seen himself as an environmentalist in modern terms, but who had a great appreciation of the outdoors and the beauty of our land, and understood that part of the role of the president is sound stewardship.
If you could spend one week in a natural area in the U.S., where would it be?
I have very fond memories as a kid of traveling to Yellowstone, marveling at the scenery, and chasing after bison, much to my mother's distress.
But when I think of my own connection to the earth, I think of my time in Hawaii, my birthplace. I think those of us who grew up in Hawaii have a particular attachment to the land and understand how fragile it is. When you are snorkeling through the coral reefs, you realize that a slight change in temperature or increase in sediment and runoff could end up destroying it all and making it unavailable for your children. That is something you worry about.
What have you done personally to lighten your environmental footprint?
We just bought a Ford Escape, so I traded in a non-hybrid for a hybrid. We are in the process of replacing our light bulbs in our house and trying to limit the use of our air conditioning, trying to make sure that we unplug and turn off all of our appliances when we're not using them. It's a fun project to work on with my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old.
Merkel threatens no-show at Copenhagen climate talks
Obama will go to Copenhagen—if he can seal a deal
Comments
View as Threaded
horrorz Posted 1:08 pm
30 Jul 2007
-Sen. Obama's biggest no-no is saying nukes are on the table with Iran! The implications of a nuclear attack socially,environmentally for the next hundreds of years
-Check out Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who introduced H. Res. 333(Impeachment of Dick Cheney), he has a platform that truly stands out from the rest.
Permalink
Gary Bridge Posted 4:12 pm
30 Jul 2007
Questions: I wonder what Amanda or Barack would think of a special coal to liquids process which recycled CO2 emissions as more elemental carbon atoms of feedstock, just like the coal itself? And what if this process didn't produce a float-on-water oil, albeit sulfur free? What if some specific new clean coal technology which has remained hidden for the past 35 years were to suddenly show up and a new biodegradable fuel revolution would then begin?
Just curious.
Gary Bridge
Permalink
adriandeveny Posted 8:11 pm
30 Jul 2007
I like Barack, and overall I think he is an excellent candidate, but is time that he gets better informed on environmental issues.
Permalink
geoark Posted 1:16 am
31 Jul 2007
It is high time that politicians understand the importance of a rather simple concept - an "Environmental Revenue Shift". Let us stop taxing desired activities (like work and capital investment) and charge a user fee on the consumption of our planet. Cap and trade give-a-ways miss the mark.
Of course, charging for Earth Consumption will raise prices on wasteful things and hurt middle class on low-income groups. However, without the appropriate incentives, we as a planetary civilization will never become sustainable.
Along with the user fees on the consumption of our Earth (e.g. carbon taxes), we need to distribute an "Earth Share" to all citizens. This could be done via Social Security, a Health Savings Account, and funds for converting to resource conserving technologies.
Large corporations don't need to make billions more by giving our land, air, and water away. These "Earth Consumption Obligation" Fees (or ECO-Fees) should go to all of us.
Barack, are you listening?
GeoArk
http://www.green-shift.org
Permalink
MillerOfReality Posted 2:42 am
31 Jul 2007
It all actually sounds very nice and good. There's a lot of nice 18-months-til-the-election, starry-eyed speech here.
What don't "we" understand about the fact that cars got 35 miles per gallon... 40 years ago!?
What don't "we" understand that this should've been the minimum back in the Carter Administration?
Coal-to-Liquids? Hello Illinois coal lobby.
Nuclear power? How about "we have got to see if there are ways for us to store the radioactive material in a safe, environmentally sound way" for oxymoron of the year!
And running a close second in Lane 5 is "If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion..."!
Closing fast in Lane 7 is "I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market.." !
Read between these lines. It says "F*#k you, America, coal and oil companies rule!"
Ethanol? It's ALREADY a bust. Just do a google search... or read the latest issue of Rolling Stone mag (yes, even those hippy rock journos are 'in the know'!).
How about sense!? Where's the Peace Plan?
Where's the "By golly, Al Gore's right! We're in trouble and gotta do something now!"
I like the energy Obama still brings. He's fighting. He's saying a lot of the right things. But he's getting knocked around.
Yes, if only Dennis Kucinich was 20 points (and 6 inches) higher in the race...
Permalink
michaelconley Posted 5:42 am
31 Jul 2007
Comments to others: coal to liquid certainly deserves some research, but not as much as renewable fuels -- shouldn't we be researching both? and wind and hydro? we're going to be totally hybrid by 2050 anyway; perhaps there is more merit than we might think in liquid coal if I understand Mr. Bridges post correctly.
Permalink
President Lindsay Posted 8:57 am
31 Jul 2007
There actually is a way to use nuclear waste for fuel instead of storing it, which will be covered in my upcoming book. I've been trying like mad to enlighten the Obama campaign on this very subject, but it is like pulling teeth. He seems to already have such an impenetrable bubble in place that fresh ideas from the outside just bounce off. All the candidates seem to be the same in that regard, even Richardson.
When it comes to actually solving global warming, it boils down to politics. The end of global warming necessarily implies the end of the fossil fuel industries. Are any of the candidates prepared to promote the dissolution of the most powerful industries on the planet? I would like to think so, but one must consider the millions of lives that have been sacrificed on the altar of oil, and wonder whether a president who defied them would simply be added to the heap. This is a tough nut to crack.
Permalink
VivaldiCO Posted 12:34 pm
31 Jul 2007
Kucinich is viewed as not having a chance, but then he doesn't get many chances to speak, does he? Why doesn't Grist provide a platform for him? We need his voice for as long as possible.
Edwards could actually upset the front-runners. He could win in areas where they will not. He shouldn't be seen as "fringe" by Grist. He should be right there in the main stream.
As for what Obama has to say, most of it is fine, but it's shallow. His heart's in the right place, and so we can trust that he will choose advisors who are deeper than he is.
But I wish Grist would give Kucinich and Edwards the time to counteract the time they DON'T get on TV.
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 3:23 pm
31 Jul 2007
Permalink
Iredeu Posted 1:12 am
01 Aug 2007
Watch what the oil prices will do, and you'll know we can't do without CTL, which is much cleaner than anything we have that is petroleum based. Don't give it a disadvantage compared to current dirtier 'solutions'
Thanks
Permalink
dreamer Posted 10:32 am
03 Aug 2007
In assesing a candidate's environmental policies, I'd like to know his or her stance regarding science vs. religion: is he or she open to assesing facts, or will his or her religious background cloud decisionmaking?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:59 pm
05 Aug 2007
The Corn Guy would love to make us take a bath in ethanol.
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 4:11 am
15 Aug 2007
My question for Senator Obama (and one I wished Grist would have asked) is if he's so proud to support this strong legislation, then why did Senator Obama 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 Obama this whole time? Why did he - and Senator Clinton, who endorsed the bill on the same day as Obama - wait until May? Why didn't he send email alerts to his supporters asking them to call on their representatives and senators to co-sponsor the bill? What has Obama done to lead his colleagues, his supporters and American citizens on this crucial issue that's supposedly so important to him?
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 Obama has exhibited leadership, or follower-ship on this issue...
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 6:15 am
15 Aug 2007
Obama: I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.
Mnnnn! Wrong Answer! Try again...
First rule of holes: when you're in one, STOP DIGGING. Then figure out a way to get out. When it comes to the climate crisis, we're in a pretty damn deep hole, and a president who's not willing to stop the raft of new, conventional, pulverized (aka DIRTY) coal plants currently proposed across the country (more than 100 of them) doesn't impress me with his commitment to tackle the problem.
John Edwards has said 'No way!' to new coal plants that don't sequester emissions. Hillary is at least wiling to say we shouldn't be subsidizing anything that makes the problem worse (a step short of banning new coal plants I suppose). But Obama wants to let the market work things out?! You'd better be ready to put a pretty damn stiff price on carbon then and avoid grandfathering in any plants currently on the drawing board, Mr. Obama, so that the market functions properly and keeps those new coal plants from being built.
Check this out to see how important it is that we stop the construction of ANY new coal-fired power plants that do not sequester 90% or more of their emissions.
Permalink
subboy Posted 2:54 pm
16 Sep 2007
and LCV has an entire website devoted to the presidential candidates. 20 in-depth questions, including population and social justice. some people are going to ride his early liquified coal stand to death, but that's to be expected. the LCV, on the other hand, gives Obama a 96% rating -- by far, the highest of all the candidates. yes, in practice, Obama does better than Kucinich.
Permalink
piglet Posted 5:40 am
09 Oct 2007
And with wind energy that are build in the natural flyways; what about the tens of thousands of birds that get slaughtered as they migrate?
So...solar energy. The one thing we all know is that the sun rises and sets every day. Surely we can create a system where solar energy is powered onto the grid. We have plenty of desert in the world and everyone has a roof on their house...e.g. Denmark.
We need to take into account the entire eco system while making these crucial decisions; as we see with ethanol and corn prices for food going through the roof, let alone all the water just growing the crop consumes. (clean drinking water is fast running out)
Piglet
Permalink
crumbrye Posted 4:38 am
08 Jan 2008
Permalink
nancylaplaca Posted 7:41 am
08 Jan 2008
Permalink
homeboy Posted 3:56 pm
10 Jan 2008
Permalink
foreverhopeful Posted 1:19 am
25 Jan 2008
"I would enact a bold energy policy because I think that we could save so much money, engineer such a resurgence in our economy and solve climate change all at one time. And it would improve our national security posture. So you get a three-fer. It helps our environment, our economy and our national security and it would free up resources over time to deal with what I think is the most important domestic issue which is health care, and I think it would help us strategically on the international stage."
Pretty spectacular.
Permalink
greengo Posted 1:28 am
09 Feb 2008
Feel free to post this on, as i think it really addresses a couple of critical issues.
Permalink
greeniemeanie Posted 12:42 pm
23 Feb 2008
No. There are many red flags involved with this guy.
Permalink
AuntBeth Posted 1:04 pm
23 Feb 2008
Check his lifetime score, and you find 2 years. 1 ranked 100 and one 95.
Then check Hillary. We also have a 100 year, and a 95 year. She has more yearsm, and several with lower scores but she still gets a lifetime score of 90.
Not "by far" by any means. Limited number of years.
I have serious questions about Obama and nukes, and Obama and coal. I am thankful he can be pressured and his stances have become greener as people have raised doubts, but that's not what matters in the long run.
Permalink
AuntBeth Posted 1:06 pm
23 Feb 2008
Check his lifetime score, and you find 2 years. 1 ranked 100 and one 95.
Then check Hillary. We also have a 100 year, and a 95 year. She has more years, and several with lower scores but she still gets a lifetime score of 90.
Not "by far" by any means. Limited number of years, and not enough to make that kind of judgment by.
I have serious questions about Obama and nukes, and Obama and coal.
Permalink
AtomicWarBaby Posted 11:53 pm
19 Mar 2008
It's real Simple, & one-fifth of all Americans can also take this ONE action:
He QUIT CIGARETTE SMOKING.
My Lungs & the Lungs of my 2 grandkids, who have childhood ASTMA, as does my daughter-in-law, THANK Obama, & every Smoker who quits. (Myself,I have "adult onset Asthm, ironically CAUSED by smoking, from the Age of 14 (PRIME target age for tobacco industry to hook us: we're kIDS!) until the Age of 34, when THANK God both Surgeon C. EVERETT KOOP's "Smoke-Free Class of 2000" project for kids & his gutsy (against massive political pressure from Pres. REAGAN, who appointed him) campaign to educate & encourage Americans about Smoking & Health, & being a True "ENVIRONMENTALIST"!
Because where do most of us spend most of our time? INDOORS, breathing INDOOR Air. Dr. KOOP helped make our AIR CLEANER, & inspired so many Americans like myself to quit.
Thankfully also, the NICOTINE GUM came on the market then, or we wouldn't have been able to quit, a lot of us!
Bill Clinton, he is a CIGAR Smoker, as BUSH has been known to smoke Cigars also. (Don'tknow what ELSE Bush does with cigars, we know what Bill does with them); Arnold Schwartzenegger is one of Cigar Industry's loyal "Celebrity Smoker "PIMPS", who help promote cigar smoking in return to financial & other rewards.
The REPUBLICANS are dying to "roll back" what progress has been achieved, toward creating Smoke-FREE Public Air Space for all Americans to be able to "breathe free", because they are so in BED with Big Tobacco, they might as well be kissing gay cousins or incestuous brothers!
I don't THINK Hillary Clinton smokes Cigars, but who the heck knows? She sure wears the Pants Suits, that's for sure! Ha!
McCain? He'll go along with the TobaccoIndustry, his 15-yrs. younger second wife is a Beer Distributor Company family "heiress", it is HER money that paid for his political campaign to get him into the Senate, along with other Special Interests Lobbyists backing.
So, I'll stick with Obama. He's so right in so many other ways, & he had the WILLPOWER to kick the Nicotine addiction. That's like major willpower. Now he's an "ex-smoker" he won't be able to stand tobacco smoke, either!
Permalink
green8659 Posted 2:35 am
25 May 2008
Permalink
sarewx Posted 8:43 am
29 Jul 2008
Per KWH, nuclear energy's radiation emissions are SIGNIFICANTLY less than what coal produces. Wind power kills birds by the thousands, hydro kills fish and other aquatic life thats essential to the food chains, but Nuke does not. Solar would be the way to go if we had a more efficient way of capturing the sun's energy, but until we have Fusion energy, or an efficient form of Solar energy capture, the best option we have is Nuclear Fission Reactors.
Regarding Obama, I think its just silly that people want to "Pin" him down on stances or opinions on specific energy plans. He can't be pinned down because he is an excellent candidate, and does not stick to his guns on a specific technology or course of action. If you read what he is saying, you would come to the understanding that he simply wants to do whats best for the environment and for our people. He is a man of ideas, where his idea is that we need to fix things, and his opinion will change based upon what the best course of action is. If you don't understand that, please don't waste your time posting. Trying to pin him down and attack him is all you really want to do, because all the ideas out there currently have flaws, and you want to point them out. Good job, no one else here has figured out that most of the current ideas are not ideal. Enter realism.
We can't just shut down the coal plants or ignore the coal industry, our energy grids would fail, and our slumping economy would almost recede into a full depression. I think he is making the best decisions that anyone could make in his position. Please remember that he has to remain in favor with his party, his people, and other countries. You can't just shut down "evil" markets, you have to slowly push them into "healthy" markets.
Wake up. Obama is the best candidate we have for cleaning up the environment in a realistic way.
Permalink
goliath0825 Posted 10:25 am
24 Sep 2008
Nuclear Power in my frame of mind is still depleteing a natural source of fossil fuel, Uranium. The supplies for that is running low as well.
The more energy one country can create the stronger that country will be. In that thought if every homeowner was to participate in solar power and supply at least 50% of their own energy would strengthen the economy.
Permalink