I like Clinton but she sounds very weak on the environment. Not at all together. Her last comment "We're currently working with the Rocky Mountain Institute to determine how we can best incorporate solar energy into our home" sounds like political speak for, we phoned up to enquire.

Her focus is obviously not here.
I wonder who her sponsors are? Any oil or energy companies in there?

When I am asked what is the most pressing issue facing us today, I always answer the environment, silly.  So when I say that Hillary has what it takes, I'd like to think I have some facts to back that up as I've done copious research.  

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.  

She never uttered the word "ethanol". I wonder, though, how much she really knows about the subject (or whether it was just a slip of the tongue), since she referred to "biofuels and biodiesel" (the latter being a subset of the former). I am encouraged, nonetheless, by her next line, "let's take a look at the internal combustion engine." Yes, let's.

Does Hillary really understand global warming and the mechanics of mass extinction, what that will do to children, to civilization?

Ok, I don't like Clinton for environmental issues OR non-environmental issues.  I'll say that up front.  

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.

on corn ethanol. Why didn't you ask her?

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

Reference:
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.

Hillary Clinton always talks like she's on automatic.

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.

Is that she will become president.

please no!

Notice Hillary never said the word CONSERVATION. That's because corporations that fund her campaign can't make billions of dollars from it. If you don't think CONSERVATION is THE number step to take environmentally, then you don't take the environment seriously, PERIOD. And for those who ask, has Clinton taken campaign funds from the NUCLEAR industry, the answer is YES. As Senator she took donations from Entergy, the owners of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant in New York.
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.  

When are these green politicos going to attack the cause of global warming and not the symptoms? Not one has addressed the problem of overpopulation. None is offering any incentives,i.e, tax plans to encourage smaller families.

I really think that one has to consider whether a candidate (1) wants to go in a certain direction, (2) if they WILL go in that direction and (3) if they have the machine behind them to do so.  Hillary Clinton is a many-time participant in the Bilderberg group meetings, she has a tremendous amount of power behind her -- and I do believe she is in favor of cleaning things up.  She is incredibly bright and yes, she does "get" what is going on.  Sequestration is at this time not doable.  I'm sure she is aware of this but is treading carefully.  One does not bang a drum before hunting a tiger (oil and coal industries).  Biodiesel is a band-aid approach.  Worse, it threatens deforestation and food supplies.

She sounds presidential, just by being willing to endorse Al Gore, by having an active background crafting legislation, and by marriage to Bill Clinton, who is generally brilliant and likable.  I think she's very bright, and has had to put up with a lot of bullshit through the years.  After two terms with George W. Bush I can identify with this.  

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.

sure, she's a politician... but all the same, she hasn't said anything that really scares the crap out of me.

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...

At least some of the other candidates mentioned transit and rail. The technological "fixes" are more like lets just pray for a miracle to save us. Until (or if) they are proven to work on an industrial scale with minimal environment and social impact, they are not solutions. Even worse, they are false hope that distract from proven solutions such as public transit, rail and cycling. These solutions have multiple social, environmental, health and economic benefits. They are not one trick ponies like hydrogen and carbon sequestering.

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.

How come not one question regarding the building industry and it's use of energy and materials was ask to any candidate?  Buildings account for 45% of the energy use in america. 40 to 50 % of the stuff we put in land fills is construction waste.  I would say the candidates that can come up with a greener building code could win over a lot of people.  

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.

The only bad thing about this election is that the Dems are offering a number of strong candidates, all of them seem vastly superior to the GOP especially in environmental matters, yet I'm still worried about the general election.  Reading this interview with Hillary is almost enough to make me support her, even though I LOVE Dennis Kucinich and am very fond of Edwards and Dodd and Obama as well.  Hillary's support of the 80% reduction by 2050 is basically a litmus test, and I do think she has a solid if undistinguished track record for supporting environmental legislation. We could do a lot worse.
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

Almost all of Clinton's positions on the environment are reactionary. There is a little, but very little,  new thinking suggestive of leadership. The ugly C word (conservation) is not an element of her plan, and she, like most of the candidates, utters nonsense about energy independence.

It is an aberration that some people still think that a woman like Hillary Clinton would make a worse president than the half-wits we have in the present administration just because these are male. The economy is in shambles, we're fighting the wrong war, at the wrong place, the wrong time agaist a mushrumming wave of terrorists that threaten America and the world. They are running record deficits in trade, and the budget. They are inflating the National Debt to gargantuan proportions. They did nothing to avoid the present real estate bubble and subsequent debacle among the middle class; and someone still thinks that Mrs. Clinton would be a "bad" president??? Give me a break!!!
   

that the person with the very best ideas will probably not make the "best" candidate. The person with the connections, the savvy and the biggest army will be the one capable of bringing at least some positive change to our political problems. Senator Clinton and her husband fought 8 yrs with a GOP whose main goal was to thwart any progress that administration could make. Clinton is a very smart woman and she has become politically intelligent. If a candidate cannot get both sides to act, the best ideas in the world are useless. I think she has the best chance to get things going in a positive direction and I believe that she truly wants  making a positive difference to be her legacy.

I like what I read here.

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?

Mrs. Clinton said: "This has taken our total [kilowatt-hour consumption per year] from about 14,000 to about 4,300."

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.

I know its popular to bash Hilary. I also know that her environmental record is not outstanding, but it is solid. But some of the nuts that post on here have to wake up and realize that America simply NOT READY to cycle to the corner grocery store, never mind cycling 5 miles to work. Nor is America ready to recycle every piece of paper or scrap plastic that comes their way. We have to be ready to accept partial solutions so long as we see people moving in the right direction. This is really important. Another point: America will simply not elect Kucinich. Period. Much as though I personally like the guy, and I would vote for him, he is unelectable. So, I think that we could do a lot worse than Hilary. Our best bet is to work with her and try and get her to see the light on remaining issues that are still troubling.

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

Hillary just released her energy plan in Cedar Rapids,IA and in reviewing her policies she continues to fall short of the other three major democratic candidates (Richardson, Edwards, and Obama).

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.

but I rewatched the video from the Climate Change forum the other day.

Damn. I was more impressed by Edwards at the time, but the woman means business.