<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Conventional wisdom declares all candidates equally green]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Pangolin http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/ Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:00:31 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/1 They have a point. All three are cowards.

When it comes down to it the publicly offered policies of all three candidates on climate change amount to "more of the same with a pretty band-aid."

It doesn't have a chance in hell of working as policy.

Where's the massive conservation financing and subsidy package that would wean our buildings off of coal-fired electricity and natural gas heating and hot water? Where's the no-coal policy since "clean-coal" is a blatant fraud. Where are the hard-line CAFE standards Senators?

Since not one of them has attempted to filibuster anything to get some real change in the budget I would say all three are full of crap.

That said I would posit that Obama has a slight edge only because he is younger and less beholden to a huge train of old politcal favors that must be cashed in.

We can only hope that whatever science team briefs the next President once in office has the heuvos to tell the officeholder the ugly truth.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> They have a point. All three are cowards.

When it comes down to it the publicly offered policies of all three candidates on climate change amount to "more of the same with a pretty band-aid."

It doesn't have a chance in hell of working as policy.

Where's the massive conservation financing and subsidy package that would wean our buildings off of coal-fired electricity and natural gas heating and hot water? Where's the no-coal policy since "clean-coal" is a blatant fraud. Where are the hard-line CAFE standards Senators?

Since not one of them has attempted to filibuster anything to get some real change in the budget I would say all three are full of crap.

That said I would posit that Obama has a slight edge only because he is younger and less beholden to a huge train of old politcal favors that must be cashed in.

We can only hope that whatever science team briefs the next President once in office has the heuvos to tell the officeholder the ugly truth.

Put the Carbon Back

]]> Comment #2 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/ Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:35:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/2 Adam,

I was at the session and will try to get a post up on it over the weekend.

Suffice to say, they are not all three the same, and the session made the differences very clear. It was a fascinating panel. More later, gotta go get on a plane.

grist.org

]]> Adam,

I was at the session and will try to get a post up on it over the weekend.

Suffice to say, they are not all three the same, and the session made the differences very clear. It was a fascinating panel. More later, gotta go get on a plane.

grist.org

]]> Comment #3 by human power http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/ Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:54:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/3 All 3 identical from wealthy point of view

All three have programs based upon the premise that GHG-generation should be allocated based upon wealth. With cap and trade, whether fully auctioned or not, wealthy individuals have no constraints on their carbon footprints. This creates a certain high social status for those who are being the most destructive. (If only the rich can afford to do it, then everyone wants to do it.)

Notice we did not use cap and trade for scarce resources (wheat, sugar, gasoline, rubber) during WWII. If we had, this site would probably be in German or Kanji. If we are going to pull together and avert the worst of climate change, we need to use quotas, not cap and trade or other market mechanisms.

Proper carbon-footprint quotas would not only give us a fighting chance to avert the worst of climate change, they would also rejuvenate our manufacturing base by making products produced by overseas slaves too "carbon expensive" to purchase (China is mostly coal-driven + transportation).

Cap and trade programs for GHG are just pandering to the wealthy class.

]]> All 3 identical from wealthy point of view

All three have programs based upon the premise that GHG-generation should be allocated based upon wealth. With cap and trade, whether fully auctioned or not, wealthy individuals have no constraints on their carbon footprints. This creates a certain high social status for those who are being the most destructive. (If only the rich can afford to do it, then everyone wants to do it.)

Notice we did not use cap and trade for scarce resources (wheat, sugar, gasoline, rubber) during WWII. If we had, this site would probably be in German or Kanji. If we are going to pull together and avert the worst of climate change, we need to use quotas, not cap and trade or other market mechanisms.

Proper carbon-footprint quotas would not only give us a fighting chance to avert the worst of climate change, they would also rejuvenate our manufacturing base by making products produced by overseas slaves too "carbon expensive" to purchase (China is mostly coal-driven + transportation).

Cap and trade programs for GHG are just pandering to the wealthy class.

]]> Comment #4 by racc http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/ Sat, 15 Mar 2008 07:02:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/wsj-mccain-obama-clinton/4 Obama suports smart growth, mass transit, cycling

Obama suports smart growth, mass transit and cycling which are the best solutions for our energy problems which will also improve people's health.

From  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf ...

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities:
- Reform Federal Transportation Funding: Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding
process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account and he will also re-commit
federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country.
- Require States to Plan for Energy Conservation: Barack Obama will require governors and local
leaders in our metropolitan areas to make "energy conservation" a required part of their planning for
the expenditure of federal transportation funds.







]]> Obama suports smart growth, mass transit, cycling

Obama suports smart growth, mass transit and cycling which are the best solutions for our energy problems which will also improve people's health.

From  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf ...

Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities:
- Reform Federal Transportation Funding: Barack Obama will re-evaluate the transportation funding
process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account and he will also re-commit
federal resources to public mass transportation projects across the country.
- Require States to Plan for Energy Conservation: Barack Obama will require governors and local
leaders in our metropolitan areas to make "energy conservation" a required part of their planning for
the expenditure of federal transportation funds.







]]>