Domestic Policy
Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 5, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.
| Hillary Clinton |
John Edwards |
Barack Obama |
| Environment |
|---|
|
Link
|
Link
|
Link
|
| Emissions |
|---|
- Initiate a cap and trade program
- All new federal buildings designed to produce zero emissions
|
- Initiate cap and trade system, targets of 15% reduction by 2020, 80% by 2050
|
- Initiate cap and trade system, target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
- Create Low Carbon Fuel Standard - fuels reduce carbon emission by 10% by 2020
- All new buildings to be designed for zero emissions by 2030
|
| Energy |
|---|
- Reduce projected 2020 energy usage by 20%
- 25% of electricity produced by renewable sources by 2025
- 60 billion gallons of biofuels in the system by 2030
- Fuel efficiency of 55 mpg by 2030, automakers funded in this by $20 billion in bonds
- Retrofit 20 million low income houses to increase energy efficiency
- Invest in a smart grid
|
- Meet demand for more energy through increased efficiency, not increased production
|
- 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025
- Increase research funding for clean coal
- Get the first 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013
- Create incentives to fund locally owned biofuel refineries
- 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels in the system by 2022, 60 by 2030
- Double fuel economy standards by 2026
- New building energy efficiency to increase 50% by 2030, existing buildings by 25%
- Invest in a smart grid
|
| Research |
|---|
- $150 billion extra funding over 10 years, $50 billion from a new Strategic Energy Fund, this partially funded by oil companies
- A new ARPA-E agency modeled on DARPA to manage this research
|
- Create an Energy Economy Fund with $10 billion for environmental R&D, funded partially through green house gas permits (see cap and trade) and partially through repealing oil company subsidies
|
- $150 billion over 10 years to fund green energy research
- Double research and energy funding
- $10 billion per year for 5 years to fund venture capital for clean technology start-ups
- Create a competitive grant to fund early adopters
|
| Miscellaneous |
|---|
- Require all publicly traded corporations to report the threat posed to them by climate change
|
- Forge a new global climate change treaty that will include requirements for developing nations
|
- Create incentives to increase forestation
- Work through the UN to address global climate change
|
6 comments:
john j,
Not one of these plans will fly in any forms that matter.
The failure of thought in all these concerns and worries over "global warming" is arises because population is ignored.
The number of cars in the world will easily double and probably triple, or more, within the periods laid out these goofy plans. Hence, even if manufactureres build cars that go twice as far on a gallon of gas, the improvements won't lower the output of the offending gases.
That's just the start of it. As long as Earth's population grows and prosperity spreads, energy use will soar.
The only way to stop increases in energy use is to stop population growth now and urge the living to become muslims, thereby subjecting themselves to a life of deprivation. Otherwise, forget it.
Human nature isn't going to stand for the burdens to which you would like everyone on the planet to submit.
Meanwhile, the trading system you envision is unenforceable. The only people who will benefit are those who trade the paper. Soon enough those who need to burn more carbon will simply do it and pay fines if necessary. The fines will become embedded in the prices of the goods they sell and in the end, consumers will get the bill.
Your plan is nothing more than a tax. And taxes are the thing every government craves. Thus, a steady stream of fines for violating the rules becomes an important source of revenue -- like the Master Settlement Agreement that Big Tobacco agreed to pay.
Philip Morris and the other big tobacco companies pay huge annual fees to the government in exchange for freedom from further lawsuits. The governments of every state in the union now depend on this revenue.
Carbon revenue will become as desired as tobacco revenue. Hence, carbon combustion won't decline. It will simply cost more.
Meanwhile, the pricing of alternative energy sources will closely track oil and other offending energy supplies.
The elevated price of oil energy will lead to the elevation of alternative energy prices. If a quantity of oil is $1.00, maybe, if we are lucky, the alternative will cost 99 cents.
But, as we have already seen with ethanol, the game is to give big subsidies to those involved in producing corn and ethanol while restricting imports of ethanol by hitting them with high tariffs.
The net result? Every food item connected with corn is more expensive. All the food from animals that are corn fed is now more expensive due to the political idiocy influencing the corn market.
I don't object to ethanol that costs a little more than oil, because, in fact, a gallon of domestic ethanol, displaces some percentage of a gallon of imported oil. I'd like to be able to say that a gallon of ethanol displaces a gallon of oil, but that's not true. However, I'll take what I can get.
Meanwhile, what none of these idiot candidates have said is that we import about 60% of the oil we consume daily. In other words, we send billions of dollars out of the country to buy a product that is available here.
This fact mocks the obsession many politicians and Americans have with "exporting jobs" to countries like India. We export oil-service jobs as long as we restrict drilling in the US.
There are 80 billion barrels of untapped reserves in US territory that is off-limits to drillers. The oil industry pays oilfield workers good money. By opening ANWR and coastal waters to drilling, employment in the oil service industry would soar. And the work would go to Americans.
Anyway, neither China nor India is going to let punitive environmental issues stand in the way of growing prosperity. Both countries might improve their pollution regulations in the years ahead, but they won't take steps that will intentionally marginalize large segments of the population.
Did you notice that India's major car-manufacturer announced that it is about to begin sales of a $2,500 car?
This car may well be the Model T of India, putting literally a hundred million Indians on the road for the first time.
Anyway, these economic ideas of the candidates are nothing more than dreams.
Do you have an alternative plan? It is pretty easy to criticize when you don't have a plan.
As far as cap and trade, it is the best option, IMO, we have available without completely shutting down the economy. This plan will provide a clear path to profitability for green companies (being able to sell their ghg credits), and encourage other companies to adopt technologies that reduce their carbon footprint and reduce their need for the credits.
That will increase revenue for the government, which each of these plans reinvest in researching green energy.
Will these plans be perfect? No, it's too late for that. Are these better than what we are doing now? Definitely.
"Meanwhile, what none of these idiot candidates have said is that we import about 60% of the oil we consume daily. In other words, we send billions of dollars out of the country to buy a product that is available here." Yes, actually, all of them have.
"Did you notice that India's major car-manufacturer announced that it is about to begin sales of a $2,500 car?" Yes, and if I remember correctly, it is very fuel efficient and small; probably a good model for American manufacturers.
Please, if you have ideas to improve our situation, share them. Otherwise, stop trolling.
Do I have a better plan? Yes. Of course.
First, however, like I said about the Indian car, it will become the FIRST car for potentially hundreds of millions of Indians. In other words, a rapidly growing group of NEW drivers are going to raise their carbon output from ZERO to whatever flies out the tailpipe of this car.
Yes, it's fuel efficient. But It still burns fuel the drivers were not burning until they bought the car. Thus, India is about to see a huge surge in its economy stemming from the use of energy in transportation. And an increase in carbon emissions.
You seem to think billions of additional people operating energy-consuming machinery for the first time will somehow add up to a decrease in aggregate energy consumption. It doesn't work that way.
My plan? Easy. Let the markets take care of themselves.
Gas is now expensive. Carmakers will have no trouble selling cars that go far on a gallon of gas. Hummer are out. The Prius is in. Of course the Prius is selling for more than its list price because Toyota can't build them fast enough.
Hence, other car-makers have an opening to sell their gas-sippers/hybrids.
Earthlings will eventually consume almost all the oil on Earth. As we approach that point, the price will put the last of it out of reach because far better altneratives will have been developed. That's the nice thing about the market. It works.
Moreover, it's easy to legislate some controls on auto tailpipe emissions. Yeah, the car companies squawk, but it's possible to make incremental improvements in auto efficiency.
However, we still live in a free country, which means people can buy whatever they want if it exists. Thus, if someone wants a gas-guzzling Hummer, well, he should have it.
Anyway, it's not the POTENTIAL gas consumption that matters, it's the actual mileage driven that's important.
A guy who drives his Hummer once a week to the mall is burning a lot less gas than a commuter driving to work every day, no matter what kind of car the commuter has.
Electric cars are still a dream, no matter what anyone says. The issue is, was and will remain BATTERIES.
Battery chemistry is stodgy old stuff and no credible scientist thinks a breakthrough in battery energy-content lies ahead.
Incremental gains, yes. But there's no comparison between the energy in a gallon of gas (weighs bout 5 lbs) and 5 lbs of batteries.
Chicken Littles think global warming means the end of civilization. I see something else.
For starters, more fresh water. Right now -- this year -- a million Africans will die of water-borne diseases. Diseases that do not exist in the US or in any developed part of the world. A million people a year are dying right now from dirty water.
No one is forcing the African governments to clean their water, which is an easy task and one at which the developed world is brilliant. A million people die, but the only action on the minds of people who think they are sensitive, is to plan for a problem that might surface in 75 years. Seems rather callous to me. Nobody cares enough to force action on the offending African governments today.
But you think it's possible to force people to take action against a problem that might have an impact at the end of this century. You think you can change governments around the world and get them to address an issue of no concern to them while they stand by as a million people a year die.
That's just silly.
Like I said, the markets will settle the issue better than any other alternative.
"Thus, India is about to see a huge surge in its economy stemming from the use of energy in transportation. And an increase in carbon emissions." Agreed, but this is an Indian policy issue and is tangential to the discussion of American policy. The only way to handle this issue is through foreign relations which these candidates have said they will be doing.
"Gas is now expensive." Agreed, but gas and coal are still cheaper, significantly, than cleaner options to produce electricity. The funding that these candidates are proposing will aim to reverse that. This is made much more immediate to the market by increasing the now near 0 cost of producing GHG to a price set in part by the market and part by the government through a cap and trade system. If we leave it up to the market alone it will take until oil and coal are almost exhausted to make changes, by which time it will be too late.
"Battery chemistry is stodgy old stuff and no credible scientist thinks a breakthrough in battery energy-content lies ahead." False, there have been steady, significant increases in battery capacity/lb., just look at your cell phone. The trick is not capacity so much anymore, but fueling station infrastructure. This is something being worked on as we speak.
"For starters, more fresh water." This would be great if the water weren't mostly melting into the ocean, thus making it no longer fresh. There are better ways to get fresh water than by heating up the planet, killing unknown numbers of species, and causing inestimable levels of other damage.
"But you think it's possible to force people to take action against a problem that might have an impact at the end of this century. You think you can change governments around the world and get them to address an issue of no concern to them while they stand by as a million people a year die. Thats just silly." You are correct, when they have nothing to lose in the short term. But that is exactly what a cap and trade system addresses - it creates a short term loss and gives an ROI to investing in reducing carbon emissions.
john j, you said:
"...there have been steady, significant increases in battery capacity/lb., just look at your cell phone. The trick is not capacity so much anymore, but fueling station infrastructure. This is something being worked on as we speak."
You're falling for the hype about batteries. If you piled up enough cell-phone batteries to move a car, you would need a large pile. The energy density is nothing compared with gasoline. Neither is the cost.
Then there is the fact that batteries must be recharged, and that means recharging them with electricity produced from oil, coal or natural gas. Thus, batteries, no matter how efficient, do little to reduce overall hydrocarbon use in the economy.
The unmentioned problem is used batteries. Where do we dump old batteries that are no longer usable? They will become the new version of the used-tire problem. But that's yet another issue.
Lithium-ion batteries are promising, but at this point they present a fire-hazard risk.
Anyway, no matter what people want to believe, battery technology is moving ahead at an incremental pace. There is no breakthough coming. Even if energy density were doubled overnight, batteries would remain seriously inferior to gasoline.
The bottom line is that people with no knowledge of science and engineering believe in perpetual motion machines and have no understanding of energy equations, efficiency or entropy.
My undergraduate degree is in mechanical engineering. I conducted a study of electric vehicles for a class project. Even though electric vehicles have improved since then, the improvements have failed to produce vehicles that match gasoline powered versions. Today, the electric car makers are attempting to seduce buyers with hot body styling and other features that mask the fact that these vehicles are still mainly golf carts.
"You're falling for the hype about batteries. If you piled up enough cell-phone batteries to move a car, you would need a large pile." False - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/toyota-to-offer-hybrid-pl_n_81308.html
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/?seo=goo_electric_car
There are a number of examples of electricity only cars, these are just two concept cars being created by major automakers. Right now consumers, particularly in California, are already modifying their Priuses to be plug in (NYT reg required).
"...and that means recharging them with electricity produced from oil, coal or natural gas." Except if the energy is produced from renewable sources.
"The bottom line is that people with no knowledge of science and engineering believe in perpetual motion machines and have no understanding of energy equations, efficiency or entropy." That is a straw man. I haven't said anything about perpetual motion; I've done the opposite by pointing out that getting the electricity to the car is the biggest hold back right now.
"...these vehicles are still mainly golf carts." I would rather buy a golf cart that gives me 100+ mpg (if it used gas at all) and goes 70+ mph than a gas only powered call. The trick on my part is being able to afford it, but I do buy fuel efficient.
Post a Comment