The following post was first published on Passing Through, The Nation's guest blog, where I will be posting all month.
If you're a political junkie like me, all you can think about is the primary and the general election beyond. Can you remember a primary season so dynamic and volatile, so dramatic, so filled with hope and trepidation and the stirrings of something historic? I can't decide if I love it or I'm going to have an ulcer by November. Or both.
Today I want to take a look at the Dem candidates. Do green issues offer a way to differentiate them? A way to help wavering primary voters decide which way to go?
Sorry, but not really.
In terms of climate/energy policy proposals, there's not a whole lot of distance between Obama and Clinton. On this issue as on so many others, they both followed Edwards' early lead and ended up with strong, ambitious plans. Both would substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost clean energy; both pitch sustainability as an issue of shared sacrifice and economic opportunity; both have an impressive grasp of the policy details. Some resources:
- My analysis of Clinton's plan is here, of Obama's here.
- A more thorough factsheet on Clinton's green record is here; Obama's here.
- An interview with Clinton on green subjects is here; Obama here.
I'll look at the merits of some of their proposals in subsequent posts; for now I want to focus on what differentiates them.
Thing is, there isn't much. There are episodes in their respective pasts that give pause. Clinton burned all those tires (long story). As a Democratic power broker and high-powered lawyer of long standing, she's been cozy with some fairly unsavory corporate players, from Alcoa to Wal-Mart.
Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like. Those allegiances led him to vote for the monstrosity that was the Energy Act of 2005, a porkfest that funneled subsidies to all three interest groups (Clinton voted against it). Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. (When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards.) As the NYT exhaustively documents, he gets big campaign contributions from Exelon, a nuke outfit based in Illinois; his campaign adviser David Axelrod once consulted for the company.
There is, however, no smoking gun of quid pro quo in either's career, and both are well-regarded by greens. Various commentators have blown past transgressions up to make the case that Clinton is secretly an earth-hating corporate sellout, or that Obama is, or that both are. Call me cynical, but all the above seems like relatively run-of-the-mill parochial politics to me. You'd be hard-pressed to find a politician that doesn't have compromises like this in his or her past. If you wanted pure green positions -- no new coal plants, no corn ethanol, no nukes under any circumstances -- I'm afraid your hopes died with the Edwards campaign (or the Kucinich campaign ... is that one dead yet?). Between the two remaining Dems, neither their histories nor their campaign proposals yield an obvious green favorite.
It comes down to these questions:
- Who will be more effective at getting a green agenda past the many obstacles it faces?
- Who will do more to help downticket races and usher more Democrats into Congress?
There's been a lot of chatter about "theories of change" this election, but if you ask me, personal style matters a hell of a lot less than the number of reliable votes in Congress. So who'll get more downticket Dems elected? I think, as his recent endorsement by a string of red-state Dems attests, Obama will. He's got broader appeal with the Independents and wavering Republicans that will make the difference in close Congressional races.
So in the end, if I was forced at gunpoint to pick the greener Dem this election, it would be Obama, but only based on second-order effects, and only barely. By far the larger story this season is that both Democratic choices are advancing a green agenda substantially more ambitious than what was proposed by Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. It's hard for green Democrats to go wrong this year.
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
David Sassoon Posted 11:35 pm
04 Feb 2008
David Sassoon, http://www.solveclimate.com
Permalink
crumbrye Posted 12:58 am
05 Feb 2008
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/super-tuesday- ...
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 1:28 am
05 Feb 2008
That would work, but new authorizing legislation from Congress would make it a lot less vulnerable to legal challenge.
Probably what will happen is that EPA will start doing something, and so will Congress, and we'll just have to see how the politics play out -- whatever would pass in Congress would supersede Clean Air Act rules -- but the groundwork for a program will have moved forward within EPA in the meantime.
Anyway that's my hope.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:00 am
05 Feb 2008
The same on healthcare, though not an environmental issue it clearly indicates barack's bias. He does not have the experience to over ride lobbyists. Hillary does.
Give Barack a couple terms as VP to get up to speed. Our very best green ticket is hillary/Barack. They will bring the most green congress and senate seats with them..together.
Be fair Barack supporters, he has less government experience than duuhbya, don't you think Rove's wrecking crew will swiftboat around that? Imagine the media barage before the general election, funded by corporate cash.
Remember what they did to Kerry. McCain the war hero versus Barack, with one year in the senate and no military service. Experience counts, many of the youngsters flocking to Barack don't even remember the '04 campaign.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:59 am
05 Feb 2008
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 3:18 am
05 Feb 2008
David is right that either of them will be a quantum leap over Dubya, but I wonder if Obama's star is blinding him a bit on this one.
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:11 am
05 Feb 2008
http://greyfalcon.net/electionchart.png
Permalink
Sir Oolius Posted 4:20 am
05 Feb 2008
Permalink
danielbell Posted 4:36 am
05 Feb 2008
Also, lets remember that that while we need 80% by 2050 - to get there we need 2% per year. So if either candidate can just focus on ramping up what we are already doing, we'll be well on our way.
I'm an independent california voter, voting for Obama.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:57 am
05 Feb 2008
So the more important question to ask, which group would have more potential to sway the general election.
RightWing/Independant Women
RightWing/Independant Minorities
Permalink
Kristina & Jason Makansi Posted 5:22 am
05 Feb 2008
Who ever wins in November will need every Independent and cross-over vote they can get...
-k
Pearl Street::Jason and Kristina Makansi
Read Lights Out reviews
Permalink
GabrielleG Posted 5:28 am
05 Feb 2008
Permalink
frw Posted 5:30 am
05 Feb 2008
Loss of biodiversity (land-rights vs. endangered spp., naval sonar testing, will Dept. of Interior define critical habitat protection for endangered spp.? Also, remember when dam removal for endangered salmon was a big campaign issue? The anti-dam-remover won, the dams are still there, why aren't we talking about them?
Loss of old growth forests / other wilderness. Roadless area protection? Klamath, ANWR, southern Utah, many other pristine areas are under the gun, the federal government is pulling the trigger.
Global environment: international trade accords? import restrictions? Pushing for protection of rainforests, migratory species, marine mammals, etc.
Toxins (Chinese imports do get discussed. What about US manufacturing? Electronics, etc.? Support for organic farming?)
Solid waste (national bottle-bill, initiatives to support USE of recycled materials, etc., what ABOUT that floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas?)
Even worse than ignoring all of these other important issues, some global warming solutions carry substantial environmental side-effects. Nuclear power's caveats are unmistakable, but what about deforestation/conversion of our last prairie's to grow biofuels, massive bird kills by windmills, toxic batteries and solar panels, etc.? Where are the initiatives or at least intention to address these?
Can we PLEASE broaden the discussion?
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:30 am
05 Feb 2008
A girlfriend of mine, who two days ago was scoffing at my praise of Obama's ability to effect change, went out and voted this morning.. for Obama.
Let's hope Dr. X is right and we get the Clinton-Obama ticket... although would not a Clinton-Edwards ticket be just as nice?
Kaela
Permalink
katwin24 Posted 5:39 am
05 Feb 2008
So, I've decided to go with Hillary. She's smart and determined, I can only hope that she realizes green is our only future.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:05 am
05 Feb 2008
(This really kind of borders on unfair politicking I'll admit it. The problem is that it really is based in fact. Girls do deserve a break this time around.)
But Barack can be VP. It's our best ticket Kaela, better than Edwards, despite his excellent stance on the issues.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
javaearth Posted 6:12 am
05 Feb 2008
I live in Northern Utah, near Wasatch Mountains base. despite the fact that many homes on the market are not sold, there is so many new houses and roads being built! All th land is being taken away from the nearby wildlife.
Permalink
jyoungster Posted 7:24 am
05 Feb 2008
I learned about Mr Sussman's career when the Obama campaign sent Mr Sussman my way to talk about the Obama plan on climate change for a story on the fine public radio program (shameless plug) PRI's Living on Earth.
The campaign identified him as a "former EPA official under Pres. Clinton," which is true. Sussman was a Deputy Administrator at EPA for 2 years before Carol Browner apparently showed him the door. After leaving EPA he returned to L&W. He recently retired and is now a fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Here's the pertinent section from the piece on LOE this week:
> SUSSMAN: Well I don't think there's much of a connection there to worry about.
>
> YOUNG: Sussman himself, aside from working at the EPA, spent much of his career
> as a lobbyist and lawyer for the firm Latham and Watkins. The firm represented
> coal power companies in their attempts to influence Bush administration rules
> on mercury emissions and changes to the clean air act.
>
> SUSSMAN: That's true. I did work for different folks in the energy industry,
> and I don't consider that to be a bad thing, but it's not a factor at all in
> anything that I'm doing for Senator Obama now. Senator Obama's been very clear
> that he doesn't want lobbyists involved in his campaign. That's an excellent
> line to draw, but people who have worked for industry understand how industry
> works, and have expertise on these issues, have an awful lot to contribute and
> they should have a seat at the table along with everybody else.
The story's at PRI's Living on Earth:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00 ...
cheers,
Jeff
comfort the afflicted; afflict the comfortable
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 8:06 am
05 Feb 2008
The best I can say about Sussman (whom I do not know) is that these guys are chameleons -- they change their tunes to fit their masters. At least we know he's old enough that he's not going BACK to represent the industry -- that frees him from sucking up to his former buddies and pushing their point of view to Obama.
That's my positive spin. I fear we're seeing way too much kumbaya with the forces of darkness from Obama, but I'm willing to hope for the best.
Permalink
brands Posted 9:13 am
05 Feb 2008
by Adam Cohen, The New York Times
January 10th, 2007
Read the full Article at http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=64 ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:27 am
05 Feb 2008
Since it wouldn't be Bush Clinton Bush Bush Clinton.
And frankly, a lot of the peoples of the nations we're having trouble working with aren't light skinned.
And ultimately, Global Warming is going to require global cooperation.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:42 pm
05 Feb 2008
On balance I'd vote for Obama, based purely on electability in November, which is really what matters most. (Please please please let's not let Dem snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. Honestly that would doom the planet.)
Both Obama and Clinton have their warts, but they'd both be vastly superior presidents to any of the Republicans. So let's go with the guy who's going to turn out the voters. Did you notice that in absolute numbers Democratic turnout has been bigger than Republican turnout in most states tonight (looks lik 11 or 12 of 14)? That's including several "red" states.
The rest of the world really liked Bill Clinton, so they'd be happy with Hillary -- but you're right, electing Obama would be a HUGE message to them that we really need to work together. Then all we'd have to do is keep him from giving away the store through too much compromise. :-)
Permalink
amc89 Posted 4:10 am
06 Feb 2008
Permalink
racc Posted 5:11 am
06 Feb 2008
Permalink
inkabinkaboo182 Posted 5:51 am
06 Feb 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:36 am
06 Feb 2008
Also, even though she won the NY primary yesterday, a number of progressive Catholics here have been strongly supporting Obama, I am sure in part out of repugnance for Hillary's hawkish history. And it is clear that Obama's promise of being a peacemaker is just about the most attractive element in his image for voters such as us.
In general, though, the NY congressional delegation -- Hillary, Chuck Schumer and, in this part of town, Charley Rangel -- are fairly good on animal issues, and vote correctly on legislation having to do with animal welfare.
Mike Gravel was not on the ballot here yesterday (though Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards were). That is a pity. I wish I knew more about him. As a joke, a few weeks ago I took that poll at ABC News designed to match you up with your ideal candidate, and my first choice -- to my surprise -- turned out to be Mike Gravel, with Kucinich coming in second and Edwards third.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
KFK Posted 11:25 pm
07 Feb 2008
Obama supports a frighteningly HUGE increase in nuclear energy use, including adding hundreds of new nuclear facilities to our country- all the while knowing that our CURRENT facilities already suffer from vast security issues, and knowing that there is nowhere to dump the current waste.
He spoke about this at length in one of the many debates (that most haven't even watched)...
This fact should be listed on the "quick view" laundry list comparing the 2 candidates' positions, as its QUITE an important distinction between the 2, don't you think?
Obama also supports coal use, while refusing to sign the bill that would at least force miners to clean up the mess they leave behind after they're done stripping our Earth of what they need.
These facts are VERY important to people who actually care about our environment, and our Earth.
Clinton is very different in this regard, and strongly supports renewable/sustainable energies that COME from our Earth- namely, solar, wind, and water energy.
YOUNG PEOPLE: Please spend some time investigating the facts before rushing out to vote.
Which candidate concerns itself more with the health of our Earth, and- the health of the next 7 generations to come?
Change comes in all forms, and its usually wise to dig beneath the surface a bit for the truth.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:46 pm
07 Feb 2008
Hillary has dissed all of these alternatives and has mentioned plugin hybrids in a favorable light.
Hillary, mother earth friendly and a green job FDR-like figure. She's no rock star. But that's a good thing.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
gcolbourn Posted 11:08 pm
11 Feb 2008
danielbell says that we need 2% cuts in emissions per year to get to 80% cuts by 2050. This is a common misconception. It is 2% of todays emissions that he means. However, year on year, a 3.76% cut in emissions is needed (based on the 'compound interest' formula 100.0*(1 - E^((Log[(100 - 80)100])(2050 - 2008))). you can check by doing (100-3.76)^42.
However, there is mounting evidence that 80% by 2050 is woefully inadequate. If anyone has read the book Heat by George Monbiot (a well known writer on environment and social justice issues in the UK), they will be familiar with 90% by 2030, which is what he reckon's will be needed to avoid 'runaway' climate change. This is a 10% year on year cut. [He now actually reckons that even this will be inadequate, but best not to dwell on that!]
2050 is a too distant target. We need the biggest cuts soonest. Having a target so far in the future is dangerous in terms of people thinking we have plenty of time to deal with the issue. We need the biggest cuts soonest, because it is the total amount emitted that is important, not the eventual reduction in rate of emissions. I suggest 5% year on year maybe achievable politically, even though it may prove to fall short scientifically!
Ultimately, we need to reduce emissions to a level that is below the level that natural 'sinks' can deal with, so that the level of GHGs in the atmosphere actually diminishes (rather than just merely rising more slowly). We may already be beyond the safe limit - some are now touting 400ppm CO2e (we are currently at c. 430ppm CO2e). The problem is also that the sinks may be becoming saturated, so are themselves diminishing. 80% by 2050 is admirable, but unless the bulk of that 80% happens before 2020 or 2030 it won't be enough.
"I find it helpful to think of the three deadly C's. Cars, cattle and chain saws." - James Lovelock
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 2:51 am
12 Feb 2008
In this area, Obama looks slightly better than Clinton, but I was hoping for better yet.
Let the jaguars return!
Permalink
Roxanne Posted 5:27 am
12 Feb 2008
Permalink
greeniemeanie Posted 4:17 pm
17 Feb 2008
LMFAO.
For my money, I'm choosing the candidate who has talked about addressing climate change as the next space race, and who has made her campaign carbon neutral.
I preferred Edwards on the environment, but Hillary was second. Obama, well, the Grist should know, he didn't bother to show up at the only forum (er, debate) where climate change was a major subject, since they sponsored it. Guess it's not a priority for him.
As for being closer than I like to nuclear and coal, well, he is. Way too close. One of Illinois's nuclear power providers was a major, and I mean major contributor.
Sorry folks, I'm voting as green as I can.
Go Hillary.
Permalink
matthewmoore2 Posted 1:09 pm
18 Feb 2008
Permalink
Backcut Posted 2:54 pm
18 Feb 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
eddieb Posted 3:05 pm
19 Feb 2008
Permalink
crumbrye Posted 1:46 am
20 Feb 2008
Obama... http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
McCain... http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
Washington Times Story... http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200 ...
http://www.greenpieceblog.com
Permalink
greeniemeanie Posted 1:17 pm
20 Feb 2008
http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/pagenum/all/#page_start
Psychobabble is never objective, and we need as little as possible during a campaign.
Permalink
eddieb Posted 1:48 pm
20 Feb 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:56 pm
20 Feb 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
eddieb Posted 3:42 am
21 Feb 2008
"Lessig announced that he will stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters, and will instead work on corruption in the political system. This new work may be partially facilitated through his wiki -- "Lessig Wiki" -- which he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of corruption."
if that's propaganda then the world is upside down... Fox News is fair and balanced.
Permalink
crumbrye Posted 12:10 pm
21 Feb 2008
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&ur ...
Permalink
greeniemeanie Posted 2:26 am
22 Feb 2008
yeah, Obama gives good speech. I am looking at issues.
Permalink
greeniemeanie Posted 2:29 am
22 Feb 2008
I referred to psychobabble.
Over the years, there have been plenty of eminent respected political scientists have used the way politicians have been potty trained to how they will govern. This is just another version.
A major grain of salt is required.
Permalink
eddieb Posted 7:48 am
25 Feb 2008
Clinton gets a 73% (2007) 89% (2005-2006)
Obama 67% (2007), 96% (2005-2006)
McCain 0% (2007), 41% (2005-2006)
http://lcv.org/scorecard/
does this make clinton better on the environment than obama?
Permalink
VeganCutie Posted 2:12 pm
26 Apr 2008
Stephanie
GoVeg.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:17 pm
26 Apr 2008
Kucinich is great, he reminds me of a Hobbit. And as you remember from Tolkien, the Hobbits were chosen to destroy the ring of power because of their incorruptable nature. Absolute power would not corrupt them and take them over.
I think Kucinich will be a senator someday, he is just too great not to be. Incorruptability is a rare quality in politicians. Does barack have it?
Unfortunately I think Hillary has proven corruptable. But don't despair of a woman becoming president, I think we may see it happen sometime soon.
If you enter politics now at the grassroots you can run in 18 years. Power to the (young) people!!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink