Presidential Pylons or Political Power Stations?

Alright Flamers!

It’s time we examine this election’s presdential heavyweights to learn their individual perspectives on environmental policy. With all of them hamming it up to gain your allegiance, it can be difficult to separate the pre-meditated “stump speeches” from genuine interest in finding effective solutions. So below I will summarize for you each of their plans allowing you to decide which candidates are cumbersome policy pylons or policy power stations!

Now, I would like to warn you this is an extremely terse outline of each plan. If you would like a more detailed summation of their respective goals, please click on their names.

Hillary Clinton

According to her official campaign site, Clinton plans to bridge the economic market and the environment comprehensively. This would include:

An interest in caps on carbon emissions; including streamlining emissions/vehicle efficiency standards. She intends on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next 42 years to prevent the exacerbation of environmental depredation due to global warming. This would include increasing funding for research in sustainability and reducing U.S. reliance on foreign oil. In addition, not only does she claim to increase using sources of renewable energy she also claims she’ll invest in the “green collar” economy to modernize the blue collar jobs of the working class. Also, she advocates the creation of a National Energy Council (presumably to be the ultimate aegis on all things green).

John McCain

I can’t deny McCain’s issue statement was certainly the briefest between the three candidates. It is also the most purposefully ambiguous.

McCain’s focus is from a more “dutiful” standpoint, in that he acknowledges the importance of clean air and water because it’s essential to America’s “natural heritage.” He’s not interested in ignoring environmental problems and he advocates pragmatic polices on reducing carbon emissions. He is interested in the advancement of technology, states and interest in nuclear energy, and wants to work cooperatively within the sphere of market forces.

Barack Obama

Obama, similar to Clinton, adopts comprehensive solutions to the energy crisis. He exposes two problems: 1)Foreign Oil and 2) Climate Change.

His issue statement focuses on caps on carbon emissions whilst supporting American workers through this transition. His campaign is also interested in investing in biofuel development and infrastructures, increasing production of alternative vehicles (i.e. hybrids), spreading “green” technology internationally, increasing research and development, and requiring that 25% electricity consumed be renewable in the next 17 years.

He is also interested in working more closely with United Nations to constructively develop sustainable solutions.

My Thoughts

I believe what is first important to acknowledge is that all of these proposals, or lack there of in the case of McCain, are tenuous. Thus, there isn’t any indication whether or not any of these plans, or lack there of in the case of McCain, will come into fruition. I work in the supply chain logistics industry so energy consumption and preservation is always the principal topic of discussion. If I never have to analyze another depressing International Energy Agency OMR report it would be too soon. So, I wholeheartedly acknowledge the need of renewable energy resources as is advocated by both Obama and Clinton. My major concern is the proper production of biofuel and biomass. Many biofuels can be used for sustenance (corn/ethanol) and biomass (dead matter/usually wood) can worsen environmental degradation by increasing incentives to create “false” biomass.

Hopefully, this helped ignite the interest of my fellow flamers on the specifics of each campaign’s stance regarding the environment.

If this was a paltry write-up *cries* you can also go to On the Issues to get each candidates stance on not only the environment, but also other pertinent issues. It has no recognizable bias and it also displays the voting records of all of the current presidential candidates and MUCH MUCH MORE.

Green Noses, Green Eggs, Green Collars?

It’s enthralling to see the “green” revolution is invading the usually grizzled youth consciousness. C-SPAN devoted a block of its schedule to Economic Security and Youth Issues. The “green nosed” panel discussed important topics facing the current generation such as employment security, benefits and pensions, and ground floor growth to increase the presence of the green economy. What was particularly interesting is the Green Collar Jobs Campaign, which purpose is to develop career opportunities in the “green realm” for people within the lower income sector. In this way, as was stated in the broadcast, “Eco-equality” can exist on a scale never realized.

This is an important point to make as I think most “green horns” are stampeding through solutions gathering without considering the implementation dilemmas. How do we plug the holes that create an Eco-apartheid? Aparteid does sound rather melodramatic but look at these facts:

According to the American Lung Cancer Association’s Trends in Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema (COPD) Morbidity and Mortality (DATA):

• 1.2million [African-Americans] (43.6 per 1,000) were diagnosed with chronic bronchitis. The rate in blacks had decreased in recent years but increased again in 2005 and was higher than the rate in whites for the first time since 2002.
• Women are twice as likely to be affected than men to die of COPD.
• However, the population living within the southern region of the U.S. are gravely effected at a 39.3% emphysema and 43.4 % (COPD) mortality rates.

Those are some deep holes to stick our little “green thumbs” in…

Still, I will conceed in that the ALCA doesn’t specify, at least to my knowledge, the exact causes of these mortality rates. Still, I am willing to wager it is not all caused by unbridled indulgence of nicotine. Moreover, it is imperative to support a green way of living that is not just a luxury for the affluent.

So instead of snubbing our “green noses” towards others, we should work to reach within communities effecting their policy such as reducing pollutant emissions in lower income residential areas and educating children and their families on recycling and other proper methods of disposal. If we build a firm foundation within our base then it will only make it easier to persuade the benefits of such a program to all. Hopefully, there will be less skepticism across the economic spectrum.

If there is anything I do know..it’s that it will take more than breaking a few green eggs to make an omelet.