Voting for Clinton - it's the same as voting Republican, right??....not.

Of course the Queen of Pandering includes ethanol and "clean coal" in her plan, despite neither being green energy.  But who cares as long as corn farmers in the mid-west and coal miners in Kentucky and West Virginia are happy.  What a joke...

politics. In a democracy. What a joke!

grist.org

?$1.5 billion a year for public transit is a joke. In British Columbia, with a population of 4 million, the opposition is talking about $1 billion per year. In the US, it should be $50 billion per year for 5 or 10 years. Now that would make a difference.

The $1 billion for inter-city rail is a larger joke if it is a one-time expenditure. A nation-wide high-speed rail network is needed.

A large part of the problem was created by massive federal expenditures on the interstate highway systems. Massive federal expenditures on transit and high-speed rail is required to solve climate change and create a better transportation system.

They're both good and very close. I think this plan might be a bit better, which matches a prediction I made that the Democratic candidates will be competing with each other to be better on the environment. It's a nice position to be in for a change. You have to assume that only half of these plans will ever get implemented, and it's better to get half of a large pie than half of a small pie.

I'm thinking Hillary is better than Obama on nuclear energy, though. Hillary seems to say that we should fix the nuclear we have and make sure it doesn't blow up in our faces / pollute our land, while Obama seems to say that even though we don't like nuclear we should build more of it.

"Yeah, politics. In a democracy. What a joke"

Actually David, we in the Cynic's Party think the ethanol thing is a fairly logical outcome of the two party system, and the structure of those two party's primary elections.

In an alternate democracy (say a parliamentary system) you might not get such curious regional leverage.  It might come down to a national dialog, and coalition building at the national level.

Of course, the fact that this current two party leverage locks out our party only serves to reinforce our belief in the Cynical platform.

Substitute an effort to mass produce plugin hybrids to save fuel equivalent to the amount in the biofuel goal.  Divert fuel farming subsidies for this purpose.

No more fuel farming.  Period.

The goals are also far to mild and too far out on the time line.

To my fellow green warriors for truth, justice, and the mother earth way...

This election cycle won't take a lot of effort, so it would be wise to concentrate on lobbying the future majority party on renewable energy.  Just getting rid of fuel farming would take a major effort.  Agribizz bribery has entrenched fuel farming in the political psyche.

Reiterate your opposition to fuel farming, nuclear power, clean coal, and more oil wars every time you can get the ear of those running in this upcoming election cycle.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Was that suppose to be an aggressive policy?  Timeline seems too far out to me, as well. Especially given that the technology exists today for much/most/all of the proposed solutions.

How about "home-recycled" rather than "home-grown" biofuels.  I'd sure like to see more attention (funding, tax incentives, etc.) for use of waste biomass.  Double wammy: Contributes to a solution for alt-fuel and solid waste.

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

The term "Windfall Profit" was mentioned several times in Hillary's energy plan.

Most people inherently seem to know that something is not right when someone holds a natural resource until it becomes scarce and then makes a "killing" with a sale when not a finger of work was lifted in the process.

Certainly, when a company performs the true work of finding, pumping, processing oil or other natural resources should be richly rewarded -- and they are.  But the profit that comes from monopolizing a natural resource can be seen as an "unearned increment".  

Why not go all out and begin a conversion to an economic system that is not only good for business and labor, but also for the environment.  I call this "Sustainanomics" and others call it Earthrights Democracy.  It is also known as the Green Tax Shift.

Let us gradually implement a use fee on ALL natural resources that would include extracted mineral, the pollution of our land, air, and water, and, very importantly, the exclusive use of site locations.  Other natural resources that are not fully collected are the broadcast spectrums for communication.  (These should be 100% auctioned off too).

As all these natural resource "rents" are collected, we could reduce and eliminate all the taxes that suppress our economy including taxes on wages, income, business investment, sales, and commerce.  And, don't worry, corporations will pay their fair share in this system of Sustainanomics if they pay the user fees on all the natural resources they control and make windfall profits on.  When you go to Wal-Mart you must pay for what you take.  When you go to Earth-Mart you, too, should pay for what you take!

Of course, or complete fairness, everyone should receive an equal "Earth Inheritance" paid monthly in the form of retirement, health savings, education, food, shelter, and energy efficiency accounts.

My slogan for this is 80/80 by 2020.  Eighty percent of our planet's taxes should be Green Shifted by the year 2020.  We don't need to wait until 2050 to do this.

By the way, cap and trade systems can be easily manipulated even with an auctioning system (which I support).  So let's push for a Carbon Tax for everyone where taxes are lowered on work and production.  With Sustainanomics, we can have full employment -- while we produce renewable energy technologies such as the Magenn Wind Rotor.

Sorry to be so long winded.  Perhaps I should also pay a windfall tax. ;)
GeoArk

3 things wrong with this: 1) I bet you $50 Bill wrote this.  2) These plans aren't what we need.  3) I'm biased, but there's also truth in this: her (and everyone else's) plans can't hold a candle to Dennis' plans, including but not limited to his Works Green Administration.  

Besides that, Hillary can only issue statements like these.  She can't actually say anything when prompted or when on TV during a debate.  This is sound proof that someone else shat this out, probably at her $1M birthday party.

When did energy become "environmentalism?"  I mean, sure, yes, we need energy conservation and energy reduction and we need to do everything to decrease CO2 emissions, but when did this become the defining idea of environmentalism?

In other words, the leading Democratic candidates are not battling for a strong environmentalist position, they are fighting to sound best on the single issue of energy policy.

Where do they stand on the Endangered Species Act?  Genetically Modified Organisms?  Farm Subsidies?  Land Conservation?  Toxic and Hazardous Waste?  Methyl Bromide?  Mining?  Recycling?

Yes, Hillary's taken an easy position on a popular issue.  But let's not forget that Richard Nixon signed most of our most sweeping environmental legislation into law.  

And how long before Rudy jumps into this so-called 'environment' debate with proposals of his own?  Will Grist be gawking over him when he does?  How will they distinguish?

Peace,
K

Who cares who Hillary got to put the C&E Plan together. Its mostly good, and 100% better that America has been doing up till now with Bush/Cheney's unchained Energy policy. Lets not quibble about details as the GOP has produced NOTHING except more of the same . Just make damn sure the  Democratic candidite actually gets elected this time so the good old USA has a chance to provide leadership to the world again. Otherwise India ,China and all will just sneer at you when you ask them to be more responsible.

A Green Canuck

Why are people promoting compact fluorescent lamp bulbs to replace incandescents. Have they ever tried them? I have tried twice to substitute CFLs in out home, and both times I took them back to the store and demanded a refund. They don't fit in the recessed fixtures in our ceilings, they can't be used outdoors (where we would think the most saving would accrue from those lights that are on most of the night), they buzz on dimmer circuits, they don't go on instantly (I got one so I could see into my closet and I couldn't tell black from brown socks for two or three minutes) and they can't be used with electronic timers. On that last point, timers on lights is a great energy saver. Using CFLs ruined my timer. I called an engineer at Levitton - the timer maker. I told him the CFL package said they were good with timers. He told me to get my money back from the seller on the grounds of false advertising.

...i'm obviousy biased here since I support John Edwards, but really, this is dramatically different than what she's been doing in the Senate (supporting nuclear for one) over the past years and even what she's been saying on the campaign trail (two debates ago she came out FOR nuclear once again).  

Is anyone else concerned that she's just putting out pleasing enviro rhetoric for the sake of drawing last minute support? personally, its too late for this massive transformation into the "green candidate."  I'm not sure I totally trust everything she's coming out with now...seems like there are too many political motivations driving them.

Also, I have to say that in the end it comes down to who of these candidates are the most viable in a general election. More than 55% of the electorate said they would vote AGAINST Hillary if she was the candidate for the Dems in '08. So, I have to say if we want Giuliani or Romney in the WH, we should be careful who we nominate. I don't want to lose....again.

Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

we should be pushing these candidates to embrace the environment...not just energy.

Hillary is for nuclear. Obama is for coal. Edwards is for neither. Need we say more?

Has anyone else noticed all of the wind turbines have the same design?  That suggests a monopoly in the wind energy industry to me.  GE has the patent on the wind turbine.