I had this on the schedule as being due on 12/18, but if you need until the 20th it won't be counted late.
The environmental debate used to be a fringe issue that only minor parties like the Green Party took seriously. However, in this presidential election it will be an issue that both major parties have to take seriously.
What environmental issue do you think is most important for the 2008 presidential election? Why? What policy position do you support on this issue? Is there a candidate or candidates that support your position? If so, what’s their stance? If no one supports your position, why do you think they don’t share your position?
Use news articles and research to build your case. I would particularly recommend going to interest group and think tank websites for research for this assignment. I would also recommend looking at the second half of Edwards’ ch 19 for background and terminology for this discussion.
If you are having trouble finding research please see me for help. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Environmental issues are certainly becoming more important in the upcoming election as people are starting to recognize the detrimental effect our everyday lives are having on the environment. I believe that energy is the most important environmental issue in the 2008 election.
To begin with, the United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil each day, incurring a daily cost of roughly $1.4 billion (2) while our nation’s dependence on foreign oil is continuing to increase (3). The United States currently produces only 38% of the oil it consumes and if consumption continues at the current rate, it is expected that the earth’s fossil fuel supply will only last until the year 2050 (1). As global warming is becoming an increasing concern and oil prices are continuing to drive up energy costs, it is important that the nation invests in clean, renewable energy sources to ensure a sustainable future.
It is unreasonable to expect the nation to switch from a fossil fuel-based economy to a nation of wind turbines, solar panels, and biofuel-based cars overnight, especially when such technology is not economically efficient. People will not be willing to use environmentally sustainable fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel, if the price reaches $4-6 to get the same energy as one gallon of oil-based fuel (4). Thus, I think that renewable energy needs to be assimilated gradually, though in a timely manner, while more research needs to be performed to increase the efficiency and affordability of such technology.
Only three presidential candidates showed up at the Grist 2008 Presidential Energy Debate on November 17th. They were democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich, all candidates that have similar energy policy ideas and that have been highly rated by environmental interest groups (5). Clinton, Edwards, and Kucinich have each developed their own energy plans, the Strategic Energy Fund, the New Energy Economy Fund, and the Works Green Administration respectively. All three support implementing and researching renewable energy technology and increasing efficiency standards for vehicles. They also want to create incentives for households and firms that use renewable energy in order to promote it. Furthermore, all three candidates opposed expanding nuclear power as a source of energy (5), which I agree is a good idea because it is not completely sustainable and it carries additional safety and environmental risks. I also looked at Senator Obama’s energy policy plan, which seemed to have many ideas similar to those of the three candidates listed above with the exception of his support for nuclear power (2).
Overall, I agree with the stances of these candidates and think that it is important that the United States implements an ambitious energy policy plan. I think that investing in renewable energy will be worthwhile in the future as fossil fuel supplies dwindle and the detrimental effects of global warming continue to increase.
Sources:
(1)http://www.planning.org/policyguidelines/energy.htm
(2)http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy
(3)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/poweringamericasfuture.pdf
(4)
National Geographic Magazine (October 2007)
(5)
http://www.thedailygreen.org
I think that in the 2008 election, the issue of global warming in general will be the most stressed. This is not because it is the topic that is most urgent, but because of all of the recent attention it has received. The documentaries “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The 11th Hour,” and the Live Earth concert are all examples that demonstrate the increasing awareness of the issue.
According to a New Hampshire poll taken this year, 70% of Republican voters asked and 94% of Democratic voters asked called global warming a “serious threat,” and 96% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans believe that the US should take immediate action to begin reducing carbon emissions (1). It is obvious that this issue is an important one to the voters.
All of the Democratic candidates and most of the Republican candidates for the election also believe that global warming is a reality. According to Senator Barbara Boxer, “I would anticipate that both the Democratic and the Republican nominee will be arguing over who is best to solve the problem of global warming” (2). John McCain and Barack Obama have even authored a bill together with the goal of greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mike Huckabee has signed into law the Arkansas Renewable Energy Development Act (3), and Joe Biden has introduced a resolution for the US to join the Kyoto Protocol Treaty (2).
I agree with a lot of the candidates because most of them believe that something needs to be done soon. I especially agree with Senator Hillary Clinton’s plan. She wants to have the US “lead international efforts to address the problem of climate change,” “support policies to reduce carbon emissions,” and “invest in more clean energy technologies” (3).
1.http://www.greatgreenlist.com/Election-2008-State-Primaries-Environmental-Issues-94.html
2.http://wpherald.com/articles/3107/1/Global-warming-expected-to-be-2008-election-issue/Presidential-hopefuls-take-climate-change-seriously.html
3.http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
I believe that the most important issue during the 2008 presidential election is going to be energy independence and reform. As of 2006, American dependence on foreign oil was at its highest point ever of 70% of oil consumed (1). As the issue of global warming and the prospects of running out of natural resources gain more and more media coverage through the years, the most likely and progressive way to change the situation is with energy reform. Having evaluated the presidential candidates’ stances on the issue, I think Dennis Kucinich and Barrack Obama seem to have the best plan of action that meets mine. Obama supports providing incentives for people to begin using more energy efficient vehicles and appliances, and also has given support to a bill that would require auto companies to make all their cars for 2012 to meet the fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles per gallon (2). Kucinich also supported the Clean Energy Act of 2007, which would increase investment into cleaner energy sources (2). He also supports phasing out nuclear energy and fossil fuels in the name of cleaner, more independent energy (2). The League of Conservation ranked Kucinich, and rated him to be a 92 (on a scale of 0-100), in the matters of making progressive changes for energy and environmental conservation (3). Obama, however, ranked even higher with a score of 96 (3). Obama also supports providing permits and government aid to scientists attempting to produce low-carbon appliances (3).
I think it’s important to address the importance of energy reform on the local level as well as on the federal level. Senator Obama places energy reform as one of his most important acts to be undertaken during the presidency (3). I think that if there is more incentive among the American people as well as American business to try and change our energy policies and strive towards reforming the treatment of the environment.
Sources:
1. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/23/sotu-us-foreign-oil-dependence-has-increased-under-bush/
2. http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/
3. http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html
It is promising that our government is beginning to really focus on the health of our global environment. As the lead producers of pollution and carbon emissions, the United States must be at the forefront to enact responsible policies. I believe global warming to be the most important environmental issues because it has such a large potential for catastrophic ramifications. This is not just an issue of it ‘getting a little hotter’. I just recently read an article about how some species in the Bering Strait are dying because of the large number of animals staying on land instead of swimming through the water to where their mating ground is because there is not enough ice bergs for them to stay on in order to take breaks during their swim. With this said, global warming does not just affect the arctic regions either, "President Bush himself admitted that Americans' consumption of energy has grown 40 times faster than energy production over the past decade. If we don't reduce consumption levels, we'll see violent global upheavals, from dangerous weather patterns to food supply emergencies to new wars over energy sources. We face the end of our own democratic system as corporations gain greater control over ever scarcer resources," said Nan Garrett, Georgia Green and Spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus (3).
I support the Green Party’s policy platform on the issue. Their platform advocates renewable sources, solar power, wind turbines hydrogen, and fuel cell development (3). It also wants to eliminate nuclear power plants. I support their platform on this issue for two reasons. Firstly, this group has been observing global health for years and has a vast depth of knowledge about the ways in which we can positively enhance the earth. Secondly, this issue is deserving of an ‘extremist’s group’ opinion because it will not work to moderately confront such an issue. Unfortunately, the United States has not been taken steps in that direction. Just recently the United Nations convened over ways to confront Global Warming and decided the best way to go about it is to set quotas and restrictions about how much pollution and carbon-emissions a country is putting into the atmosphere. Sadly, President Bush said he was not in favor of such a legally binding international law (1). The Senate, however, has recently finished a bill that set mandatory quotas for carbon dioxide omissions, and to decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by the year 2050. Although there are moderate Republicans who support the bill, the GOP plans to make many amendments to the bill, and some Republicans are already planning to filibuster.
The reason the mainstream presidential candidate does not support my solution is because it would involve radical changes to the way the United States functions. Also, it is very expensive to create and use new forms of energy. Another reason is that many of the candidates are proposing using Nuclear Energy because it does not produce harmful coal emissions. I do not support this because most nuclear power is created from uranium; a byproduct of the fission of uranium is plutonium, which can be used either for fuel in nuclear power plants—or for bombs. In just the year 2000 alone, 310 tons (620,000 pounds) of usable weapon material was produced. Eighteen pounds of plutonium is enough for one Nagasaki-type bomb. Thus, in one year 34,000 potential nuclear weapons could have been made (2). This is not a good alternative to global warming.
(1) Star Tribune “United Nations discusses Global Warming”
(2) http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-energy-&-waste/start/fact-sheet_ne&w.htm
(3) http://www.gp.org/issue/climate.pdf
I think it's important for all of the candidates to take a stance on global warming. The Republican candidates are making a big mistake by not even addressing it. In a debate, the Republican candidates refused to answer questions (1). Mr. Fred Thompson (who was an actor in Hollywood and has had a recurring role in Law and Order...This boggled my mind) said he needed a minute answering it and when the moderator didn't give him that minute he said he would prefer not to answer it (1). The ones who do want to talk about it, don't actually have a solution. They say we should have oil independence. Now if that means that they would like to drill in ANWR then that would not help the environment because this drilling would not only kill animals but would also destroy an area that has not been explored by man yet. Polar bears are still to be put on the endangered species list and now even the US has realized that its actions are killing the environment. Polar bears would die if the US would drill in the Arctic. Barack Obama believes that the US is responsible for some parts of the rapid change in the environment. He would like to cut US' greenhouse gas emissions and work with all of the countries in the Kyoto Protocol. He would also like to pressure the countries that contribute to this emission to work within the Kyoto Protocol and cut down their emissions. He would like to leave the planet clean for the future humans who will live here (3). Dennis Kucinich, who I really like, would like to sign the Kyoto. He also supports a bill in Congress that would cut down greenhouse gas emissions (4)
I think that cutting those pesky emissions would be a better idea than having to drill in ANWR and killing cute polar bears. Even though China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, if it would be the same size size as the US, it would emit less than the US in the status quo (5). If the US will have a new president, s/he should try to cut down those emissions and try to find a way to cut down on oil consumption so we won't see ourselves forced to drill in the Arctic and kill cute baby polar bears!
1)http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1232620071212
2)http://magazine.audubon.org/features0109/arctic.html
3)http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
4)http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/
5)http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0628/p12s01-wogi.html
Way to get our discussion off to a great start Mia, Molly, Liana, Amy & Georgia! Great posts!
(By the way Liana I spelled your name correctly this time. See I can learn!) - Meredith
I think that the most important environmental issues that will come up in the 2008 presidential election will be the reduction of the use of energy and global warming. A
Bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives in hopes of banning the use of regular light bulb. A politician claims this will help limit global warming. A new energy efficient light bulb can cut energy use by up to 20% per light bulb in use. If passed this bill would be ion effect by January 2012. This is just one example of steps that could be taken to help improve the consumption of energy in our country. Global warming has been an increasing topic when it comes to the policy agenda, it was once thought to be an idea of the future but is now upon us; something must be done. I believe that the small steps that can be taken by all Americans will have the greatest impact on the Nation if people are willing to get involved. Once people see how such a small thing as light bulbs can make a huge difference I think people will be more willing to get involved.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070321a.html
I think that global warming will be the most important environmental issue for the 2008 presidential election. I think that this is the most important issue in the upcoming election because of the effect it will have on not only the people here in the U.S. but across the entire world. Also, the effects of global warming are inevitable unless something is done to fix or at least slow it down as soon as possible.
The U.S. should take a leading role in saving the Earth from global warming. Our love for energy has caused the Earth’s atmosphere a lot of harm. The U.S. emits the most carbon dioxide of any country in the world, which is about 5.37 tons per capita (1). Another reason we should lead in the fight against global warming is because we have been a superpower for decades and have led the world many times in ground-breaking ideas and technology. More money needs to be spent on technologies like renewable sources of fuel and cars that are more fuel efficient. We are falling behind other industrialized countries in the research and production of technologies that are good for the environment. The Civil Society Institute, which is a think tank that mainly focuses on energy and ecological issues, has been researching the lack of green technologies that are manufactured in America. This think tank found that only two cars that are sold in the U.S. get a combined gas mileage, which is average number of the car’s city and highway mpg numbers, of 40 mpg or better. Both of these cars are made in Japan (2).
Global warming is seen as a reality by nearly all of the presidential candidates. Hilary Clinton in particular has a very descriptive plan for solving many environmental issues, global warming included, that have arisen recently. A number of highlights from this plan include: “an increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, an energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020,” and “a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy (3).”
Global warming is definitely on the minds of many people in our country. The existence of it is actually being accepted not only in the U.S. but across the world. I think that the U.S. should take a leading role in dealing with the issue of global warming. Finally, politicians are more and more willing to do something to fixing the problems that will and have arisen because of global warming.
(1)http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science
/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
(2)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/
(3)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
Michelle Ludwig
I personally agree that global warming is one of the most important environmental issue for the 2008 presidential debate. I feel that recently many more people have become aware of how dangerous of a threat it really is either through the news, An Inconvenient Truth, or any other source and politicians have noticed the public’s growing concern. 90% of Democrats, 80% of Independents, and 60% of Republicans feel that immediate action is required to stop the affects of global warming. Also, according to a recent poll, 52% of American’s said, generally speaking, that they would support protecting the environment over stimulating the economy, showing how important this issue really is to the American people (1). A poll done by the New York Times found that only 19% of American’s felt that immediate action was unnecessary, and only 1% felt that no steps should be taken (2). The same poll also found that people really want the United States to be a global leader on the issue of global warming (2). Unfortunately, as of right now, the United States is not showing much leadership on this issue. The United States population makes up 4% of the earth’s population, yet our carbon dioxide emissions make up 20%. That is 85% more than Germany, two times as much as England and Japan, and almost ten times as much as China (3). Something needs to be done about America’s pollution.
I strongly agreed with presidential runner John Edwards when he said: “We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We're the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. ... We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries -- including developing nations -- to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.” (4) The United States clearly needs to step up and take action on this issue. For example, the United States still has yet to join the Kyoto Climate Protocol even though it only calls for a mere 5% reduction of Carbon Dioxide, even when a 50-70% reduction is necessary to contain the climate change (3).
Personally, I feel like global warming is such an important issue for this upcoming race, because I feel that the United States has not done it’s fair share to help prevent or even slow down global warming. The effects of this issue may eventually be completely devastating and there is no more time left to ignore it.
1. www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=457424262007
2. www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/27pollcnd.html?pagewanted=print
3. www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753914
4. politics.nytimes.com/election_guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
I believe there is an outstanding environmental issue pressing the next president. According to specialists the category 4 and 5 hurricanes have doubled in the last 30 years, the flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has doubled over the last decade and over 250 species have begun to react and move to the poles. (1) Global climate change has the potential to change the face of our planet and the lives of everyone on it. In the worst predictions a second ice age may come the likes of which we have never seen and would have extremely small chance of surviving.
In light of recent discoveries I believe actions must be taken for fuel efficiency and large scale reductions of Carbon emissions. I believe Clinton is doing a good job of endorsing energy efficiency she has recently proposed that if she were elected she would institute “An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;” (2) I believe this and other strides she proposes would greatly help to reduce carbon emissions.
Bottom line is that this problem is one that is pressing and grave. I believe our next president must take action against this issue before it becomes any more serious and possibly irreversible.
(1)http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
For the 2008 presidential election, I believe that global warming and climate change are the most important issues. In the last decade, average temperatures have skyrocketed leaving many environmentalists concerned about the well being of our future world. Due to greenhouse gasses, emissions caught in the hemisphere creating a hotter earth, the earth's average temperatures have risen (1). This may not be a problem now but if it persists, the rising temperatures may make the earth less inhabitable for humans, plants, and animals. This is a concerning issue due to the fact that out of the five warmest years on record, four of them have been since the turn of the 21st century, 2005 being the warmest. The World Meteorological Organization or WMO announced in 2003 that "Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate chance, the number and intensity of extreme events might increase." (1) Effects of global warming if it is not addressed are: rising sea levels, an increase in pests and diseases, and falling agricultural output which would contribute to the already growing problem of world hunger (1). This is an issue concerning the U.S. due to the fact that we are currently the largest emitter of green house gasses. The US contributes a mere 4% of the world’s population but gives off 23% of the overall global emissions (1).
The way I believe the country needs to address this issue is to take responsibility for our actions and lead the rest of the world into reducing global warming. This is a problem that the US can not conquer alone and therefore we need to use diplomacy and get other countries on board in fixing this problem. The US PIRG, also known as the public interest research group sees the solution to this problem as stabilizing emissions within a decade and cutting global warming pollution by 80% by 2050 (2). By improving energy efficiency of the economy and using renewable energy, we will be able to slowly turn around this problem (2).
Many of the candidates are advocates for the ending of global warming. Those who are not simply continue to believe that global warming does not exist. Among the many candidates, Clinton and Obama strongly favor the funding of replacing coal and oil with new renewable resources (3). Many candidates have added the issue of ending global warming on their platform and also stating how they are going to end the problem. Clinton and Obama have been most outspoken about the issue making it a priority in their campaign (3). They both believe in being forceful with their efforts of turning around our current trend of pollution and the disintegration of the O-zone layer (3). I believe either one of these candidates will do great things to change around the state of our planet or atleast attempt to push for change.
Michelle Howard
(1) www.globalissues.org/Envissues/
(2) www.uspirg.org
(3) www.ontheissues.org
The issue of the environment is not an easy matter by any means. Clearly the state our environment today is not promising, it is rather scary. But the truth of the matter is the majority of these solutions either have sky-rocketing costs or the results will be rather miniscule. I believe our world faces issues such as global warming, water pollution, deforestation, etc, etc. I can list on forever. To me, all these issues are of great concern to me. The issue of our world is/should be a major global concern. And as the United States of America I find that it is our duty to take major steps toward environmental policies and persuade other nations to follow in our footsteps.
In the upcoming election I believe the issue of global warming will be most important. Although all issues are of importance to me, I chose global warming because there are solutions. And not only will it help the environment, they will decrease foreign oil dependency and other hazardous energy resources. President Clinton once said, “Man-made global warming is the greatest threat facing Mankind.” The solution I like most involves marketable pollution permits. First a target pollution level for a region is made, the government then issues just enough pollution permits to reach the pollution target, and then businesses are allowed to trade permits between themselves. A pollution permit is a permit that allows a company to pollute, they have to buy a permit in order to pollute. This “cap and trade” policy will create an incentive for firms to find more efficient and less polluting ways to produce. Other possible solutions include a carbon tax, government transportation, development in hydro-cars, use of other energy sources, and/or uniform abatement policies. Overall, I believe polluters should be liable for the harm they cause to others and their surroundings. My solution will reduce carbon emissions, create incentive, protect people/plants/animals, and decrease our energy dependency on foreign countries. If the US no longer depends on the Middle East, our foreign policy will be so much better and our debt will slowly disappear.
The issue of the environment is on just about every presidential candidate’s platform. It does not matter of what party they represent, they all take this issue seriously and know the public wants something to be done. The thing is, barely any of these candidates offer a long, descriptive proposal on how they intend to solve the problem. But in their defense it is a good thing that they are not making promises that cannot be kept. These presidential hopefuls are waiting to be elected and then to work with Congress to propose some serious legislation.
http://www.cei.org/gencon/025,05532.cfm
http://www.rff.org/
http://www.perc.org/about.php?id=700
www.ontheissues.org
From Kendra:
Global warming is going to be the most important issue in the upcoming election.
The U.S. should:
-join Kyoto
-alternative energy
-increase fuel efficiency standards
-do more research for alternative fuels for cars
-increase mass transit funding
-pressure developing countries like China and India to curb emissions
We all need to do individual things too, like walking to places within walking distance and turning off lights we're not using.
The candidates all seem to be in agreement that global warming is a problem and that we need to do something about it, but they disagree somewhat on the steps we need to take.
I agree most with Edwards, who:
-Supports at least 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050
-55 mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency standard by 2030
-20 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2020.
[ http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD04121607.htm ]http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD04121607.htm
[ http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1631453220071216 ] http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1631453220071216
~This is Kendra
I think that the most important environmental issue in the 2008 election will be global warming. I believe that Al Gore brought global warming to the forefront of US environmental policy after his movie and other works. Many have noticed Gore’s contributions and are starting to follow his lead by urging to take actions to halt global warming (1). The Senate also recently passed a bill that would limit greenhouse gases. This also shows that many politicians are moving global warming up on their priorities (2). Because of all the recent attention global warming has received, I feel that it is the environmental topic voters will be most concerned about. Since voters will have global warming as a crucial issue when they decide who to vote for, candidates will have to establish a policy towards global warming.
I agree with the policy position set forth by John McCain. McCain believes in using free markets and innovation to reduce greenhouse emissions. He also believes it is necessary to listen to the companies which new environmental law will apply to. Also, McCain feels Congress needs to act in a bipartisan fashion for environmental laws to pass (3). I agree with McCain’s stance because he urges maintaining a free market while we attempt to improve our environment. I feel that keeping a free market system in place is necessary to keep incentives for firms to try and limit or stop their damage to the environment. Additionally, keeping a free market also gives opportunities for innovation. Many of America’s greatest solutions have been the result of innovation. Maintaining the ability for innovation is crucial to the development of a more efficient America.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06energy.html
3. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/13/the_turning_point_on_global_warming/
I believe the most important environmental policy that needs to be addressed in the next four years is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is established that climate change is caused by the increase in these gases (1). Therefore, to stop climate change, we must reduce our emissions significantly in the near future.
The policy I believe will be most effective in reaching this goal is cap and trade. In the cap and trade policy, carbon emissions are limited, and permits to emit carbon are auctioned off between carbon producers (3). Using this policy, companies can find their own ways to reduce emissions at the price that will still allow them to be economically efficient (3). Barack Obama has advocated the cap and trade policy, and he believes that by using cap and trade, American can reduce emissions to 20% of the levels in 1990 (2). Using this policy, America can turn this deadly trend around to make our Earth a healthier place.
Sources:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentcc.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=2876&type=0&sequence=1
Our national is facing many serious environmental issues that candidates are taking notice of. I personally think the most important of these issues is the United State’s carbon emissions. This, I believe is the most critical part of our many environmental struggles for two reasons. First of all, carbon emissions are causing the troubling phenomenon of global warming. If we kept our carbon emissions from rising we could limit global warming. The United States is the number one emitter of greenhouse gases which cause a rise in global temperatures. Our emissions grew four times faster between 2000 and 2005 than in the ten years before. We cannot keep going at this rate. The consequences would be disastrous (1).
Secondly, we cannot continue to depend on unstable countries that we don’t even get along with for our main energy source. Americans spend $200,000 a minute on oil not from this country. We are at the mercy of countries who don’t even like us. OPEC can toy with prices however they want. If oil-rich countries really wanted to, they could bring the United States to a standstill. This is too dangerous of a situation to allow to continue (3).
Barack Obama provides ways to take care of both of my reasons for wanting to reduce carbon emissions. He would use a cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. He would also invest $150 million over ten years to finding new energy source. What impressed me is that he would also use this money and new sector of the economy to provide jobs for Americans. Another great idea of his was to create an international council on foreign oil. Not only does Obama want to limit our carbon emissions for environmental reasons, he also wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 35% by 2030(2).
Once again, we have to limit our carbon emissions or we don’t have a very bright future for our kids and grandkids.
Sources:
1. www.newscientists.com/articledn10507-carbon-emissions-rising-faster-than-ever.html
2. www.barackobama.com/issues/environment
3. www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp
I believe that air pollution is the most important issue of the presidential election. Air pollution occurs when car fuels, factory chemicals, dust , and various types of spores are suspended in the air. It is both a mixture of solids and gases that are noxious when inhaled or absorbed by plant life (Medline). I believe that air pollution is the most important issue because it effects the Earth that we all need in order to survive. Green house gas emissions are increased when more factories pump toxic air pollutants into the atmosphere. These green house gases trap an unnecessary amount of heat in the atmosphere causing higher temperatures, melting ice caps, and rising tides. Pollutants released by the hands of humans have, and will continue to throw the Earth's climate off course.
So how should the U.S. deal with this issue of air pollution?
Many candidates have created plans on how to deal with the issue of emissions into the air. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden , and Barack Obama (D.) plan is to reduce the carbon emissions by 80% over the course of the next 42 years ( in 2050). Biden hopes to have the United States lead the way in environmentally conscious actions such as this, stating that, “We cannot exert pressure on these countries until we take meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions here at home (NPR).”
Republicans also believe that a change should be made to fight the negative climate change occurring. But, candidates like Mitt Romney believe that the plan should be carried out by the world, not just the U.S. . At the time of the NPR update both Mike Huckabee and Hunter had no public response on the issue of carbon emissions.
I agree with Joe Biden's plan for cleaning up the oxygen we breath. His plan includes the 80% reduction, an increase in fuel economy to 34 mpg, and leading the way among nations. Biden's plan seems very feasible, and because it is stretched out over a period of time it allows companies to change their habits gradually ( which will cause less opposition) ( NPR).
Pollutants in the air is an ever increasing problem in the world today. The future President in 2008 must be able to deal with this issue efficiently . Air pollution is the most pressing of the environmental issues today.
NPR: Election 2008:President candidates weigh in on climate change http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/climate.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/airpollution.html
It’s hard to pick one environmental issue in particular to be concerned about, as there are so many. But I think the biggest factor in the upcoming election will be how to go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing and eventually stopping greenhouse gas emissions has moved up on the governments priorities list significantly ever since the Democrats took over Congress. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two leading contenders for Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election, have emphasized the issue in their bids for the presidency. It has also been made a priority by Senator John McCain, one of the leading Republicans.
Obama notably sponsored a bill introduced by McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman which would cut emissions to one-third of what they were in the year 2000 by the year 2050. This would come about by using a system that allows companies that cut their emissions sharply to sell credits to companies that fail to reduce emissions.
Legislation reducing greenhouse gas emissions have generally been opposed by Republican Congress members, leading to some difficulty in getting such legislation passed. However, now that global warming has become such a huge issue, even the Republican candidates are taking up the responsibility to stop our country from being the leading emitter of carbon dioxide.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN30347917
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/green-house-gas-emissions
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
As recent as the 2000 presidential election, the environment was considered an important issue that only mattered to some Democrats and the Green Party. However, with the recent publicity of Global Warming, it has become a main stream issue and perhaps an important factor in the upcoming presidential elections. While there are many causes of Global Warming and many things hurting our environment, I believe that th biggest problem is the U.S.’s, as well as the rest of the world’s use of energy.
A clear source of green house gasses is the burning of fossil fuels. While we are making progress towards having cleaner energy sources, it is certainly not enough. Currently, for 99% of all food, oil is used in some part of production (By the Numbers). Indeed 82.5 million barrels of oil are used globally each day. The United States alone uses about 1/4 of all oil used in the world, which seems ridiculous, considering it’s population. Also, if we continue to be almost completely reliant on oil, we could reach peak oil, which would greatly hurt our economy.
John Edwards seems to have a well though out plan for helping our environment. His plan includes capping green house gas emissions with a cap-and-trade system, engaging other countries in environmental treaties, and creating a 10 billion dollar fund for finding and making more available alternative energy sources funded by auctioning green house gas permits to oil companies. I think the 10 billion dollar fund for “Creating New Energy” is essential because if the U.S. and the rest of the world reduces their use of fossil fuels, a replacement will be needed. Also, having a way to fund this project makes it more likely that it would actually be put into effect.
Overall, we as a country need to find a new and better way to preserve our environment. By limiting our use of fossil fuels, we could take a big step towards slowing global warming. In all likely hood, the environment will be a major factor in up coming elections. With luck, the candidate who is elected will have a plan for saving the environment as well laid out as John Edwards.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
http://2facts.com/ICOF/temp/65169tempi1100270.asp
http://2facts.com/ICOF/Search/in111003.asp
http://2facts.com/ICOF/temp/66129tempi0800910.asp
I think the most important issue for the 2008 presidential election will be global warming. I believe that the United States needs to cut carbon emissions and find alternate fuels or create a program that will reduce the amount of emissions that the growing number of cars will create.
Senator Barack Obama has recently introduced a 10-year plan to cut emissions, so he agrees that global warming is a valid concern. He proposes a cap-and-trade system (where industries buy permits in order to expel a certain amount of carbon dioxide) where the industry must buy the permit 100% instead of some being given out for free (1). The League of Conservation Voters has Obama's support in this plan.
Also, on Senator Obama's campaign website, it says he would "Dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity...by 50% by 2030 (2)." A program to cut emissions and improve energy efficiency is what we need to do to reduce the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
(1)http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/09/MN8RSM86B.DTL
(2)http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
I think global warming will be the biggest environmental issue in the 2008 election because it has such a tremendous impact on everyone and everything in the world. An MSNBC story noted that there were more people in hospitals for cardiac and respiratory issues when there was more pollution (4). I support trying to find alternative sources of energy that will decrease the amount of pollutants released into the air, and lead to energy independence for the U.S. I think we need to spend more money on developing technology for alternative fuel sources and environmentally friendly vehicles. I also think that the United States should attempt to take a leadership role in helping the environment. I think a global effort could encourage countries like China and India to reduce their pollution rates also.
A lot of the 2008 presidential candidates agree that global warming is real and that something must be done. Many of them also agree with making the fight against global warming a global effort, one which the United States should lead (1). From their interviews with Katie Couric, I learned about what many of the 2008 presidential candidates had to say about global warming and what should be done to stop it. I really liked what McCain said in his interview with Katie Couric, which was, “Let me put it this way to you. Suppose I’m wrong, there's no such thing as climate change, we adopt green technologies. Then we've just left our kids a better world” (1). Senator McCain also supports the use of alternative energy sources. I also like what Senator John Edwards said in his interview, which was that we should develop technology for renewable energy sources and then share our technology with other countries, including China and India, to make a global effort to improve the environment (1). Senator Hillary Clinton supports energy efficiency, especially though less electricity use and better mileage for cars (40 mpg by 2020). She would also like a global agreement on the environment that would include China and India (1).
Although I think global warming is a serious issue, there is another issue that I think is very important, but is sometimes overlooked. This issue is animal conservation, which is serious because when these animal species are extinct, there is no way to undo the extinction of a species. There are many endangered species, and despite the efforts of many organizations, this continues to be a problem. Poaching and the loss of animal habitats due to human development play huge roles in making endangered species (3). The seriousness of this issue is seen when we see population information like that there are less than 250 Anatolian Leopards living today (3). According to an article from the World Wide Fund for Nature (World Wildlife Fund), a BBC report in 2003 stated that less than 20,000 lions now live in Africa, and hunting of lions for sport was a main cause for the decline in their population (2). Stricter laws and more aid to organizations that are implementing animal conservation efforts is needed. Most of the 2008candidates do not have plans to aid animal conservation. Since there is not a lot of media attention on this issue, candidates aren’t openly dealing with it. This is a big mistake, because animal species that were meant to be here will soon become extinct. We can never fix this problem after it happens, so we have to do something about it now.
(1)http://www.conservationreport.com/search/label/Presidential%20Candidates%20on%20Environmental%20Issues%20and%20Science
(2) http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Nature.asp
(3) http://www.endangeredspecie.com/specieprofile.htm
(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7007637/
As referenced by Barack Obama, “The man-made natural disaster,” that is global warming is commanding attention as a pivotal environmental concern. One of the most pressing issues our world currently faces, climate change is heating up debates as well as deserts. Though some still consider this phenomenon a myth, the facts are clear, and the future does not look promising (3).
Over the past two centuries, humans have been generating carbon emissions. Gradually increasing, these greenhouse gases are become trapped in our ozone, causing the earth to retain more and more heat. Eleven of the past twelve years were among the hottest years to date. Accordingly, recent times have incurred astronomical amounts of emissions. In 2005 the US alone was responsible for producing 7.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. More than half these contributions are generated by industrial sources like power plants. Transportation accounts for about one third of emissions in the US (4). This pollution has taken a large toll on our environment. Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, more severe droughts, more frequent heat waves, and animal extinctions call all be attributed to the rising temperatures caused by our rising emissions. Category four and five hurricanes have doubled in the last thirty years. Over three hundred animal and plant populations have responded to the heat, changing migration patterns and behavior. Scientists say, “More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.” In the next quarter century, human deaths caused by global warming are expected to double to 300,000 people annually (1). Our reaction to this problem cannot be delayed any further, for it will simply be too late.
Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Vice President, Al Gore has championed the issue of global warming. Spreading awareness, science, and appropriately formidable facts, his film and lecture series An Inconvenient Truth offers accessible solutions for the nation. Accordingly, other politicians are following suit (5). Currently, wind energy accounts for only 2% of our energy sources. Our present technology, however, would allow for renewable resources to provide as much as 20% of our energy consumption. Making this switch would reduce our annual emissions by more than 51% (2)! Advocating for renewable energy, among other efficient standards, is presidential hopeful Barack Obama. With a goal of 80% emission reduction by 2050, Obama is optimistic and aggressive on the issue. Under his proposed market cap-and-trade system, total emissions would be strictly limited leaving firms to compete for a percentage or to revamp their technology and reduce their emissions. Senator Obama also supports a significant investment in efficient and clean technology, not only as a favor to the environment, but also in the hopes of creating more jobs. With that, he hopes to reduce our foreign oil dependence by at least 35% by the year 2030. Bettering US standards for efficiency and preservation, he hopes to promote American leadership in combating global warming. On a similar note, he encourages our nation’s involvement in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to maintain a cooperative global effort as well. I am in comprehensive accordance with his viewpoints on this matter. In the words of he himself, Mr. Barack Obama, “Unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe" (3).
Sources
1. http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
2. http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/basics
3. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
4. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
5. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/10/12/gores_nobel_prize_marks_severity_of_global_warming/
I think that global warming is the most important environmental issue for 2008. The ramifications of inaction are on such a large scale that it will effect the entire world. A 2000 US government report predicted that global warming would result in an accelerated rise in sea level, an increase in the spread of disease, a decline in water quality, and an increase in climate extremes in the form of more droughts, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, and storms (1). 100 million people around the world live within 3 feet of sea level-- even an apparently small rise would result in the displacement of millions (2).
As one of the world's largest producers of greenhouse gases, I feel that the US is obligated to take a leading role in resolving the issue of global warming because we played such a large role in creating the problem in the first place. We, as well as the rest of the world, need to take immediate steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent drastic climate change from occuring over the next century and beyond.
Almost every candidate acknowledges global warming is both occuring and that action needs to be taken to curb it (3). However, of all of the candidates, I think Gov. Bill Richardson has the most ambitious vision regarding the actions that need to be taken to curb global climate change; he advocates cutting carbon emissions by 90% by 2050 and raising the auto-fuel economy to 50 mpg by 2020 (4). He also wants the US to obtain 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2040 (4). His former status as Secretary of Energy lends some credence to the feasibility of attaining these goals, which are the most extreme of all of the major party candidates. To accomplish this drastic reduction of carbon emissions, Richardson supports a cap and trade system, which would capitalize on the inherent inequities in the cost of reducing pollution between different companies (5).
(1) http://www.net.org/warming/impacts.vtml
(2) http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/issues/
(3) http://www.cfr.org/publication/14765/
(4) http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/issues/climate.html
(5) http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy
I believe the most pressing environmental issue for the upcoming presidental election is Global Warming. The main reason it will be such a big issue is because Global warming gets alot of media and because of that scares and worries people. Scientists believe that "even if nothing is done to restrict greenhouse gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of about 1°C in the next 50-100 years. Hansen and his colleagues [1] "predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.5 ± 0.2°C, a warming rate of 0.1 ± 0.04°C per decade."
I believe why people are so worried about it is because they dont really no what global warming is but they know it is not good and so therefore they are very concerned.
By the Global temperatures increasing it will cause the sea levels to increse thus causing an intensity in extreme weather. As well with the sea levels rising it will displace many people. Also 40% of our species could face extinction.[2]
So in order to ensure a safer future for us and generations to come the government must take action to protect us.
I have not really establsihed a real solid stance on global warming other than i know we need to do something to fix it.
John Edwards has established a good plan that will halt global warming.
His plan includes:
he Edwards Plan halts global warming, achieves energy independence and jumpstarts a new energy economy by:
* Capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system, and reducing it by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, as the latest science says is needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
* Leading the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution. Edwards will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
* Creating a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. The fund will support U.S. research and development in energy technology, help entrepreneurs start new businesses, invest in new carbon-capture and efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve energy.
* Meeting the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity. [3].
capping greenhouse pollution will help the temperatures from rising.
[1]http://www.globalwarming.org/primer/scienceFAQs
[2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm
[3]http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
I think that the most important environmental issue in 2008 is the expansion of the clean air and water acts. The Clean Air Act was intended to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses and pay more attention to acid rain, carbon dioxide emissions and basic air pollution. The Clean Water Act established procedures for the cutting of water pollution, the reduction of chemical waste flowing into our sources, and standards for enforcement. While both of these acts have made progress in our environment, there are many provisions and loopholes that need to be paid attention to.
While other candidates such as John Edwards keep referring to “energy independence”, Bill Richardson is advocating a new direction in environmental policy. He advocates new “clean energy” in other countries, and wants to renew parts of the Clean Air/Water Acts so that we can provide greater incentives for the use of cleaner fuels and identify violations made by corporations. In addition to Richardson’s endorsement of the Clean Air/Water Acts, he wants to expand the disclosure of toxic pollution to the public and require polluting facilities to report on their emissions at least once a year. Barack Obama also wants to strengthen America’s oil security and focus on independence. This is not entirely the answer. We must work towards not only gaining energy independence but also pursuing our own legislative goals in order to preserve the earth and combat global warming.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/index.html
www.wikipedia.com
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002582.php
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/environment
U.S. dependence on oil is one of the most important environmental issues that must be addressed in the upcoming election. We have a mere 4% of the world’s population, far less than many countries, yet we import and consume more oil than any other country in the world (1). As our addiction increases, we, as Americans, are consuming more oil than ever before. This increased oil drilling has raped the environment and caused irreparable damage to earth’s natural ecosystems. According to the New York Times, oil drilling has caused irreparable damage in Alaska (2), and this is only one example of the negative consequences that increasing oil demands have on the earth. Regrettably, the damaging effects of irresponsible oil drilling are cumulative. We, as members of the world community, must work to stave off our increasing need for oil and make a move towards more socially and environmentally responsible energy sources like solar, geothermal and wind energy. Congress should step up and mandate a reduction in U.S. oil consumption, and make a tangible deadline and feature measurable benchmarks from which we can gauge our country’s progress. A vague resolution is not enough. We need concrete, assessable goals to combat our disgusting overuse of oil.
However, I am extremely worried about elite interests in the federal government combating energy progress. In Bush’s first term as president, the oil industries contributed $270 million dollars to lobby Congress and the White House (3)
As a Fun Fact for readers, it is growing increasingly difficult for me to not tear out my hair and run up and down the streets screaming as I write this last statistic.
Congress has no incentive to lower dependence on oil, as they are figuratively in bed with the oil industries. No single statistic has been so discouraging to me as the factoid about oil industry payments to Congress.
According to author Sheldon Kamieniecki, business influences are having an extremely detrimental effect on the environment. With businesses forced to incur increasing costs as we shift towards a more responsible energy policy, they are lobbying Congress to act against these shifts away from our current state of oil dependency. They also obfuscate clear science showing how badly damaged the environment has become due to increased oil usage. He notes that businesses are using the same tactics that the tobacco industries used in the 20th century to discredit the link between cancer and cigarette use. (4)
With all this negative writing complete, I believe that Hillary Clinton has a comprehensive energy plan that would combat rising oil use. She has a “50 by 25” plan to lower our oil consumption. She says we must decrease our oil consumption by 50 percent by 2025. I believe this to be a solid start. While I believe this to be an admirable number by which to reduce our consumption, I believe that 2025 is too far in the future. We must take concrete steps now to reduce our oil consumption. At least Senator Clinton has a plan that has clear benchmarks and is measurable. (5) If you read the article I link to at the end of my post, you will find she has a very clear stance on energy and oil use in America and believes in reducing our dependence on oil for foreign policy reasons, not just environmental concerns. There are many benefits to reducing our oil consumption, and Senator Clinton has taken a clear stance on what her environmental policy would be when… excuse me, if… she is elected.
-Silas Berkowitz
1.“National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency”, an Independent Task Force Report.
2.“Experts Conclude Oil Drilling Has Hurt Alaska's North Slope”, NYT. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE1D9143FF936A35750C0A9659C8B63
3. http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1660
4.http://press.ucsc.edu/text.asp?pid=949
5.http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255982
I believe that energy independence will be the most important environmental issue of the 2008 presidential election. America currently spends over $200,000 per minute on foreign oil. America’s severe dependence on foreign oil is not only an economic concern but an issue of national security as well. This extreme dependence on oil places the United States in a vulnerable state especially considering that the U.S imports most of its oil from nations that express a certain hostility towards the United States. Furthermore, $12 billion of the $54 billion trade deficit was from imported crude oil. Clearly, America’s excessive oil dependence is a pressing issue that must be addressed in this upcoming election.
In order to begin to solve this problem, the U.S must find a way to make renewable energy sources applicable to our highly demanding transportation system. We must also work towards making cars more efficient and enhancing hybrid technology. A proposed solution that I believe would be effective would be to provide incentives to automakers to make cars more efficient and to raise fuel efficiency standards. Tax incentives could also be offered in order to encourage the production and purchase of hybrid cars. Furthermore, the U.S should continue to research alternative energy sources such as biofuels and hydrogen (1). Although solving this problem will take a significant amount of time and money, it may also solve other problems along the way. Currently, cars are the second largest producer of carbon dioxide and all of this excess carbon dioxide is resulting in the damaging effect of global warming which is also a pressing environmental issue. If we are able to create more efficient cars and find alternative, non-polluting sources of fuel, we may not only be able to achieve energy independence but take progressive steps towards addressing the concern of global warming as well (2).
Most candidates agree that energy independence is a necessity to ensuring national security. Barack Obama has some interesting plans on how to deal with America’s addiction to oil. I support Obama’s stance on how to solve our environmental issues. Along with Biden, Obama wrote the Fuel Economy Reform Act which would require that all automobiles manufactured for 2012 meet the fuel economy standard of 27.5 miles to the gallon. He also wants to reduce oil consumption by 7.64 million barrels per day by 2025. He too believes that we should provide incentives for those who use clean energy sources (3).
In conclusion, achieving energy independence is essential to ensuring national security. America is too dependent on foreign nations for our oil supply. Our excessive consumption of oil is a burden to the economy as well as the environment. It is time to find a solution to this serious issue.
1. http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp
2. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp
3. http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/
I believe that the most pressing environmental issue on the plate of the president to be should be alternative energy. I think the focus should be on creating clean burning and environmentally friendly fuels. We are too reliant on oil supplies from other countries which could be a problem for us in the future. We import around 60% of our petroleum needs from other countries (3). Brazil has solved its problem be completely switching from oil to ethanol (4). Alternative fuel advocates are claiming that the benefits are that the biofuels may aid in regulating prices reduce greenhouse gas and also stimulate rural agricultural economies (3).
One of the problems with switching to biofuels is that they are not available consistently which makes it difficult for anyone to switch to cars or other products that use them (2). Ecologists are warning that replacing oil with biofuels might also be a problem because of the species of plants used to create them. In certain environments including those they would be grown in those species can become invasive. This means that the U.S should make sure the production of these fuels and the crops that support them don’t do more damage to the ecosystem than they are worth(1). The largest inhibitor to the U.S. going green in terms of fuel is the pure quantity of fuel we use. If the U.S made all corn and soy crops into biofuels, the outcome would only replace roughly 12% of gasoline and 6% of diesel fuel (4).
The republican candidates running for president that are most supportive of a biofuel plan are Mitt Rommney and Mike Huckabee. Giuliani says he would like to see something done in the U.S. that is similar to the Brazilian project but he hasn’t taken any specific positions yet. The leading democratic presidential candidates in support for a more active biofuels plan are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. On the whole thought the democrats are in support of more active plans than the republicans and are more active in announcing the amount of barrels of clean fuel they hope to see in the coming years (4).
I support the development and grater use of biofuels in the near future. I think the U.S. needs to plan out and research exactly how we are going to make the switch do that we do not make a bigger mess than we had to begin with. I agree with the more active politicians on this issue because I think we need to get a move on. Energy will remain an issue as long as the climate change is an issue and as long as our appetite for fuel continues to grow (3).
1. http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0922biofuels.html
2. http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/theoryb/node/488
3. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-16-ethanol-2008candidates_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
4. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/biofuels.html
I think the most important environmental issue in the upcoming issue, by far, is global warming. This has received the most attention from media, news, and scholars and seems to be the most pressing issue. A changing global climate will affect the USA, as well as the rest of the world, far greater than drilling in ANWR, for example. Due to the massive impact of global warming, politicians are focusing on this issue above all other political issues. Many of the candidates provide different approaches on dealing with this issue. Generally, the Democrats are tougher on placing standards on businesses.
Based on my limited economic knowledge, a cap-and-trade (CAT) program seems to be the best option. In this system, the government would set a mandatory amount of emissions that all businesses have to comply with. After the “cap,” the government would give X amount of permits to each business depending on many circumstances like size and industry. A permit would allow that business to emit X tons of pollutants, CO2, or other greenhouse gases (1). From there, a market would be established, which would allow the companies to trade these permits. The companies that could eliminate the most CO2, for the least cost, would “trade” their remaining permits to companies that find it harder to eliminate greenhouse gases. Thus, X amount of pollutants is abated, but it is done in a way that is least harmful to the economy (1). This system would have to be regulated and set up, which would cost a substantial amount of money, but it is well worth it. The government could charge a transaction fee on trades or sell extra permits to companies. This would raise a fund, which could be diverted to spending on renewable energy research (1). As this is going on, stricter controls on emissions and waste should be enforced. All of these actions internalize a company’s external costs (1).
This stance is supported by most Democrats: Hillary Clinton (and others) supports the CAT program, and also would require several stricter policies. She would make consumers more efficient by phasing out incandescent light bulbs and putting up tighter controls on appliances. She also supports green buildings, a research fund, and increasing fuel economy standards to 55 mpg by 2030 (2). These policies are all admirable, but I think the most important thing is the business part of her plan. Businesses need to make serious changes and this will trickle down into consumers’ consciences. I am slightly surprised at her policy, because she is notorious for doing whatever is necessary to win her the most votes. One survey said that about 40% of consumers distrust businesses, while 50% do not know whether to believe businesses when it comes to global warming (3). Clinton’s ties with businesses may be distrusted by some voters, but it is certainly a good choice.
John Edwards also supports my plan for environmental change. I have always supported Edwards’ policies, and he is my preferred candidate for President. Once again, I think he proves that he is the most competent. His plan is very similar to Clinton’s in that it endorses CAT, increasing efficiency, investing in renewable research, and repealing oil subsidies. The winning difference, however, is in how he treats other countries in his environmental plan. He wants to have international emission treaties that set up new emission standards and establish ways to enforce them. He will demand that developing countries are also involved in our plan. He offers to share our emission technology with them, and as a last resort use trade agreements to ensure their compliance (4). Kyoto’s largest flaw was that it overlooked developing countries, thus creating inequality and a huge void in emission controls (5). Edwards’ plan seals up this hole. He realizes that we can have the greatest effect against global warming if the whole world works together.
On the other hand, Republicans seem to favor this plan as well. They shy away from government involvement in the energy market, but they realize that real change requires some regulation in this field. Most of the Republicans want energy independence, not necessarily less emissions. Rudy Giuliani, for example, wants to shift toward nuclear energy, but mainly as a competitive policy. He keeps stressing that it is not right that Americans are not as successful as other countries in alternative energy. This competitiveness seems to be the main thing that is driving Republicans toward alternative energy, and subsequently lower emissions (6).
(1) AP Micro/Macro Economics – O’Sullivan
(2) http://www.hillary clinton.com/issues/energy/
(3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/ business/2007/jun/19/climate change
(4) http://johnedwards.com/issues/
(5) AP Gov and Politics – Edwards
(6) http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
Environmental issues are the most prevalent crisis our generation has to deal with. The theory of global warming is not universally accepted, though, making it an often neglected and slowly solved problem. That, and the sheer intimidation of the effects of global warming, makes environmental issues seem unsolvable.
In general, stances on environmental issues are typically very obvious for anyone. Most people don’t advertise a continuation of polluting our planet. A candidate running for the presidency isn’t going to openly oppose environmental causes; no one wants the phrase “Choke Our Earth!” to appear on their billboard or campaign ad. More than any other policy area, environmental issues, like global warming, are given promises in elections, but then once the winning candidate takes office, they fail to make changes on that area. Just because a candidate preaches compassion does not mean they are planning on deliverance. One presidential hopeful I do believe would make changes regarding the environmental policy, though, is John Edwards. Much of Edwards’ campaign is contributed to the issue of global warming, making it a top priority (2). Edwards is one of the only candidates running to have a lain out plan to halt global warming, which promotes new energy research and development and investment in new automobile technology. Also in this plan, he encourages other countries, not just the United States, to commit to a “new climate treaty” to reduce pollution emissions all over the world (1).
Many criticisms label Edwards’ plan as too optimistic and visionary (2). Yes, his ideas are ambitious and expensive. Rather than spilling billions of dollars onto the sands of Iraq, though, Edwards wants to contribute our nation’s valuable and tight budget to a more effective and positive cause. America has made excuses for apathy towards environmental issues for years, budgeting being a prime villain. Moving away from fossil fuel dependency is never going to be easy or cheap. Someone needs to take the initiative in order for things to change; Edwards appears one of the only ones brave enough to do this.
(1)http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
(2)http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2006/12/john_edwards_id.html
I think that global warming is the most important environmental issue in the upcoming election. Global warming affects ordinary citizens in so many ways. It lengthens the growing season and changes weather patterns. Temperatures have increased significantly even from the 1990s (1). The average temperature has increased by one percent since the 1990s. Though this may not seem like much, one percent is a significant increase in temperature for less than twenty years. Global warming is mainly caused by carbon emissions. People don’t realize how much they can do to reduce carbon emissions (4). The policy I support on this issue is a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. A cap and trade system provides incentives for firms to do more research to cut back on emissions at a lower overall cost.
One candidate that supports this position is Hilary Clinton. Though I do not agree with her on many issues, Hilary Clinton has an excellent plan for global warming. In addition to a cap and trade system, Hilary Clinton would help jumpstart research with a Strategic Energy Fund. This would double investment in energy research. Hilary Clinton also addresses an area that I had not previously thought of was that federal buildings should be emission free (2). I think that this is a great idea and that the government should lead by example.
Another candidate that supports the cap and trade system is Barack Obama. Obama’s plan would cut carbon emissions by eighty percent. The benefit of the cap and trade system is that it uses the power of markets to achieve a goal. However, it does this at a lower cost and firms can still make a profit. Obama also proposes using the interest gained from auctioning off the allowances could be used to fund research for cleaner energy (3). It is helpful that Obama is citing where he plans to get funds for this research.
Global warming is an important issue. It has caused disturbances in weather patterns such as more frequent hurricanes (1). Also, global warming poses a problem for future generations. With rising sea levels, those who live near the coast may find that their homes will be underwater 50 years from now. Global warming is an issue that cannot be ignored in the upcoming election.
Sources:
1. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
2. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
3. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30green.html
I believe the most important issue in the upcoming election is global warming. Candidates are constantly being asked how they are going to address the global warming issue. Global warming is becoming a substantial problem. According to the NOAA, every year from 1998 through 2006 ranks among the top 25 warmest years on record for the United States which is an unprecedented occurrence. Also, warming may have lead to the increased drought frequentcy that the Western United States has experienced over the last 30. One recent exampe was the large fires burning in Southern California all due to a lack of rain. Fire-fighting expenditures have exceeded $1 billion per year. Politicians are going to be pressed to create a policy that will deal with this grave issue. In 2006 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California embraced a cap on vehicle and industry emissions as a way to make California a trendsetter in fighting global warming. I believe global warming to be an important issue, however, the candidate who best fits my political ideals does not address a solution to this problem. Rudy Giuliani simply says that he recognizes the problem but has not yet announced drastic implementations to solve it. I believe he has failed to do this because he has focused his campaign on more economic and national security issues instead of the environment. I the near future, I hope Giuliani takes a firmer grasp on helping the environment and reducing global warming or he may receive one less vote.
www.globalwarming.net
www.nrdc.org
www.joinrudy2008.com
I believe the most important environmental issue in the 2008 presidential election is finding and using an efficient, renewable source of energy. Protecting the environment, reducing carbon emissions, and reducing waste are all very important at this time also, but I believe these are all things that should be people realize they effect everyday. I would like to see the 2008 presidential candidates using their political powers to help promote an economic and environmentally friendly source of green energy. Not only will use of renewable energy reduce foreign energy dependency, but renewable energy can also protect ecosystems that are directly at risk of endangerment, and these green energy sources do not directly emit greenhouse gases.
Supporting a renewable energy is important because it will reduce America’s foreign oil dependency. Americans use 30% of the world's oil supply yet only 2% of that comes from our own soil(1). By embracing clean energy, we can significantly reduce our dependency on foreign oil and each barrel’s skyrocketing price.
Renewable energy is also important in protecting vulnerable ecosystems that are directly at risk of oil spills. Any environment is at risk to a spill. Spills can happen on land or in water, at any time of the day or night, and in any weather conditions. Each year the U.S. uses over 250 billion gallons of petroleum oil products and millions more of non-petroleum oils(2). The billions of gallons of oil that are transported across the country, are potential threats to the environment and the safety of all it’s wildlife. Clean energy, for example solar or wind power, have less of a chance of disrupting an ecosystem at the same magnitude.
Most of the energy supply in the United States is generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. In Minnesota alone, 75% of our energy comes from coal(3). These forms of non-renewable energy produce greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Renewable energy does not produce greenhouse gases and are becoming more readily available. Sources of green power include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas and hydro power. In addition to promoting these clean energy alternatives, the Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged the development of new gasoline formulations that are expected to reduce greenhouse emissions up to 25 percent(2).
Barak Obama’s presidential platform is one that I can agree with on this issue. His platform states that he will invest $150 billion over the next ten years to develop and deploy climate friendly energy supplies, dramatically improve energy efficiency to reduce energy intensity of our economy by 50 percent by 2030, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce oil consumption overall by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels of oil, by 2030(4). These are all important to the US and the world’s environmental issues and I believe that he could resolve many issues world wide.
For all these reasons, support for a renewable, environmentally friendly energy source will be a very important topic in the 2008 presidential election. The next president will need to find a solution to this and many other environmental problems while gaining the public support to make it possible.
(1)http://www.campaignearth.org/solutions_ce.asp
(2)http://www.epa.gov
(3)http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/oea/energy/greenpower.cfm
(4)http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
I guess I would have to say that global warming is the most important environmental issue for 2008 presidential election. I believe that global warming is the most important because there are so many things that cause global warming and there are also a ton of things that can be done to make the consequences of our carelessness much less svere.
One of the causes of global warming is pollution. There is alot that can be done to decrease the amount of pollution that we produce. One of those things that can be done is setting regulations on how much people and factories are allowed to pollute. Another way is just helping everyone become aware of the consequences. More people need to start doing their own part in cutting down how much they drive and things like that.
Another way of reducing global warming that i support is having our country become less dependent on oil and putting more research and time into integrating clean, alternative, and renewable energy into everyday life.
I support the views of Dennis Kucinich because he believes that the U.S. should rejoin the Kyoto Treaty. He also recognizes the fact that there are things that should and can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the other thing that I like about his views is that he realizes how important nature and wildlife are important on this planet and he is willing to go that extra mile to protect it.
~Asia
dennis4president.com
Global warming is the single most important environmental issue in the 2008 presidential election. First, ignoring rising carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect will result in devastating consequences for the United States. Second, it is necessary for the President to be aware of an issue that Congress and the world is already acting on. Third, Americans overwhelmingly desire to stop global warming or slow its effects.
The effects of global warming are devastating. Climate change is a severe concern regarding global warming. Extreme weather patterns causes hurricanes, droughts, dry heat spells, intense rain, flooding, and glacier melting. “Super-storms” may occur if global warming is not corrected. The delicate ecosystem will become damaged. Ozone loss, ocean warming, and permafrost thawing will result in the largest animal extinction seen by man. Sea levels, diseases, pests, agriculture failure, and world hunger are likely to increase in the future (1). Failing to resolve the global warming issue will negatively alter modern society.
The President must be in accord with Congress to effectively advance legislation. Congress has already begun to take action against global warming. It is imperative that the President understand and support the efforts of Congress. The bill was aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of automobiles. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer claimed that “The legislation is a historic turning point in energy policy.” Similarly, the President must address global warming as the United States highest foreign diplomat. The Kyoto Conference of 1997 is an exceptional example of worldwide efforts to decrease global warming. (2) World Resources Institute reports that “industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date.” In addition, the United States is the largest contributor of the industrialized countries, accounting twenty-three percent of global emissions (1). The United States is obligated to set an exemplary model in energy conservation and efficiency for the rest of the world. The President must be able to effectively address the situation domestically and abroad.
Finally, Gallup News Service reports “a recent USA Today/Gallup poll finds a tremendous amount of public support for a broad range of measures that would reduce Americans’ reliance on fossil fuels…[and] At least 7 in 10 Americans say individuals should help reduce global warming…[because] 60% of Americans say the effects of global warming have already started to happen.” Over fifty percent of the nation, fifty-eight specifically, claim that “more drastic action is needed” to combat global warming (3). The President is required to address an issue that over the half the nation is avidly concerned about.
I support a policy position that requires the United States government to regulate carbon emissions and global warming from its citizens. Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, and Barak Obama agree.
Hillary Clinton claims on her website that her “plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent…to avoid the worst effects of global warming.” (4) Similarly, Fred Thompson believes that “it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy.” (5)
However, Barak Obama is the largest supporter of global warming and carbon emission reduction through government regulation. He admits that “Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities…[The U.S. must] tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner.” He aims to reduce carbon emissions eighty percent by 2050 through a “100% Auction Cap-and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…[and] make the U.S. a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading a new international global warming partnership.” (6)
Global warming must be addressed in the 2008 election for the President of the United States. I support a policy position that regulates carbon emissions to slow the effects of global warming.
Sources
(1) http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/Intro.asp
(2) www.cnn.com
(3) www.gallup.com/poll/27298/Americans-Assess-What-They-Can-Reduce-Global-Warming.aspx
(4) http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
(5) http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx
(6) http://www.barakobama.com/issues/energy/
In the 2008 election, we have many environmental issues to consider. The most prominent issue facing our planet is global warming. As it is an issue facing the global community, the United States, as a world power, needs to lead by example.
Not only does global warming effect our weather, it can also have extreme repercussions on our health, economy, and ecosystem. (2)
Climate can help limited how far disease spread. If the U.S. continues to have an increasingly warmer climate with heavy, extended rains, the hantavirus was more easily spread. (2) A warmer world will also contribute to the increase of insects carrying diseases to spread to people. With the hot smoggy days from global warming, an increase in lung problems and asthma will arise. Over the past 25 years, the number of people with asthma has doubled. (2) That number will continue to rise unless we take action.
In the winter time, if the temperature gets above thirty degrees and the humidity's high ski resorts cannot produce snow. (2) This will take a hit to our economy as skiing is very popular in the few winter months. Also, with global warming raising sea levels, the demand for coastal property will decrease. (2)
Wineries will also be paying much attention to the climate changes. As global warming brings higher temperatures, more heat waves, and less precipitation, it will be more difficult to grow the necessary grapes for popular wines pinot and chardonnay. (2) As this will effect the ecosystem, it will also take a toll on the economic contribution of wineries. Global warming will contribute to more acidic oceans, stronger storms, and warmer waters, which will diminish many of the beautiful coral reefs. Coral reefs provide about $375 billion to the world economy each year in food and tourism income. (2)
To combat global warming, I believe we need to implement energy efficiency, and manufacture clean cars. (1)
Forty percent of our country's global warming pollution is created through electricity generation. (1) There are two ways we can reduce this emission of carbon dioxide. We can adopt an energy efficiency portfolio standard and adopt energy-efficient building codes. The greatest amount of electricity is consumed in buildings, both residential and commercial. If we adopt building codes for all types of construction, we can require certain energy efficient elements to be included in the buildings. Demanding that new buildings be built with these codes and requiring older buildings to follow standards will help decrease the electricity consumed.
I believe that Barack Obama and I have somewhat similar views on how to handle global warming. (3) He wants to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He recognizes global warming as a threat to the United States, as well as to the world.
(1) http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/
(2) http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/dangers.cfm
(3) http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
I believe that environmental issues will be a super huge issue in the election. Al Gore has brought a lot of attention to the biggest issue facing our planet, global warming. Many species have started to notice the changes in climate and have begun to migrate to habitats that will better suit them in the future(1). The changes in climate due to global warming have led to an increase in hurricanes and other natural disasters.
In order to counter this disaster, we must cut down on energy usage, both with automobiles and at home, and develop more efficient energy sources. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has similar views on this issue. She has stated that, if elected, she would move fuel standards up to 55 miles per gallon, and provide money to companies in order to assist with necessary changes to production (2).
(1)http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
I believe that environmental issues will be a super huge issue in the election. Al Gore has brought a lot of attention to the biggest issue facing our planet, global warming. Many species have started to notice the changes in climate and have begun to migrate to habitats that will better suit them in the future(1). The changes in climate due to global warming have led to an increase in hurricanes and other natural disasters.
In order to counter this disaster, we must cut down on energy usage, both with automobiles and at home, and develop more efficient energy sources. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has similar views on this issue. She has stated that, if elected, she would move fuel standards up to 55 miles per gallon, and provide money to companies in order to assist with necessary changes to production (2).
(1)http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
I believe that environmental issues will be a super huge issue in the election. Al Gore has brought a lot of attention to the biggest issue facing our planet, global warming. Many species have started to notice the changes in climate and have begun to migrate to habitats that will better suit them in the future(1). The changes in climate due to global warming have led to an increase in hurricanes and other natural disasters.
In order to counter this disaster, we must cut down on energy usage, both with automobiles and at home, and develop more efficient energy sources. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has similar views on this issue. She has stated that, if elected, she would move fuel standards up to 55 miles per gallon, and provide money to companies in order to assist with necessary changes to production (2).
(1)http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
I think that global warming is going to be the most important environmental issue for the 2008 presidential election. Global warming is not a myth and it needs to be paid attention to. There has already been evidence collected that confirms global warming is affecting the earth.
Global warming occurs when carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are collected in the atmosphere, consequently causing a thick layer of gas to form and trap the sun's heat (1). The prime culprits in giving off pollution are power plants that burn coal and automobile emissions (1). These pollutants given off into the atmosphere have caused the average temperature throughout the world to increase, and the years 1990 to 2000 were the ten hottest years recorded in all of history (1). Evidence has shown that global warming exists and is causing problems for our society. In 2002, the United States experienced some of its worst wildfires in the Western states, droughts caused dust storms in the Midwest, and intense floods occurred in various parts of the country (1). In addition, the NRDC declared 2006 the second warmest year on record, barely under 1998, the warmest year ever recorded (2).
If we take no notice to global warming, drastic consequences will unfold. For example, the already rapidly melting glaciers on the ends of the earth will cause coastal flooding on the United States's east coast and water shortages on the west coast (1). Hurricanes will gain strength due to higher ocean temperatures and agricultural areas, such as forests or farms, will be ravaged by parasites and pests (2). This increase of insects will cause an increase in disease. Along with this, many of nature's beautiful habitats, like the rain forests and coral reefs will be destroyed (2).
The policy position that I support on the issue of global warming is that we use all we can to quickly halt its momentum. While scanning through the candidate's proposed policies on improving our environment, Barack Obama's policy opinions stood out. He, like me, believes that "global warming is real, is happening now, and is the result of human activities" (3). In a speech he gave earlier this year in Chicago, Obama states, "Unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course of energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe." (3). First off, Obama wants to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and oil (3). Doing so would have less emissions polluted into the air. Next, he wants to implement an economy wide cap and trade policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest $150 billion to create "climate-friendly energy supplies" (3). With this, Obama wants to improve our energy efficiency and depend less on energy systems that give off harmful waste (3).
Unless we start to stop global warming now, it will keep advancing until we can't do much about it anymore. This problem is real and needs to be tended to. Putting the right candidates in office will be most beneficial to stopping the effects of global warming. Banishing global warming will benefit our lives and our future generations lives.
Sources:
1. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
2. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
3. http://www.barackobama.org/enviornmentalissues
The most important environmental issue for the 2008 election is energy independence. We as a country need to stop depending on other countries for our resources, especially with all of the recent conflicts between the U.S. and the middle east.
Hillary Clinton has a plan to become energy independent, while becoming greener and creating as many a five million jobs. Her plan includes a cap and trade system for emissions (carbon) and stronger energy and auto efficiency standards. She wants to reduce the United States foreign oil usage as well as address global warming.
To do this, by 2030 she would like the country to cut two thirds of our country's oil imports that were projected. Senator Clinton would also like to create a Strategic Energy Fund and double investment in energy research. She also plans to increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
Energy
I think the most important issue is reducing dependence on foreign oil. This should be done mainly through research and cost-reduction of alternative fuels, and also putting limits on emissions and increasing fuel efficiency. I believe that this is important because much of the oil consumed each year comes from the Middle East, which is a politically unstable place—giving oil companies and foreign countries power over the United States does not appeal to me. The amount of consumption should go down, but also the comparative reliance of the U.S. on oil as opposed to other fuel sources.
All of the candidates for both sides agree that dependence on foreign oil is not an ideal scenario, but few have a comprehensive plan of how to avoid it. I most agree with John Edwards, who plans to, by 2025, reduce U.S. oil imports by 7.5 barrels per day and have 25% of U.S. energy come from renewable sources. He also plans to use money from polluters to fund research into alternative energy and says he will work with other countries to create a new climate change treaty. How workable any of this actually is may be debated, but all of these are worthy goals.
www.johnedwards.com
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html
The 2008 race for the Oval Office will usher in an election flush with influence from a previously muted issue: environmentalism. Americans have seen only a brief glimpse of environmentalism in the past with presidential hopefuls like Ralph Nader and David Cobb, and the issue has never been on the fore-front of the campaign trail.
2008 was the first year to host a presidential candidate forum focusing solely on climate change and energy policy, an event cosponsored by Grist, an independent, environmentally-oriented journal. David Roberts, Grist Journalist, gives his thoughts on the Democratic candidates (2):
“No matter which way they go, green democratic primary voters are unlikely to be disappointed.”
The truthfulness of this statement becomes apparent when we look at every candidate in comparison. All support energy independence, all offer varying carbon cap-and-trade trade plans, and all recognize the importance of climate-change (2). With every candidate offering environmentally-conscience platforms, which issue will be the most important? Although its public recognition is lower than that of hybrid cars or recycling, I think that cap-and-trade systems will be the most important issue in this presidential race, partially due to the competition between the varying plans of each candidate.
Personally, I support cap-and-trade systems 100%. Although each candidate offers a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by a certain percent, Bill Richardson’s appeals to me the most. He wants to “cut oil demand 50 percent by 2020, cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2040, and generate 50 percent of U.S. energy from renewables by 2040 (2).” Although other Democratic candidates like Senator Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards present similar plans (1), Bill Richardson’s is the most aggressive (which I believe is appropriate for an issue that is hurling itself as fast as possible towards a point of no return) and as a result, most desirable.
(1)http://www.issues2000.org/Environment.htm#Headlines
(2)http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/
I think that one of the most important environmental issues in this election is water availability. With growing population in naturally desert areas of the country such as Arizona, the US definitely has an interest in this issue. USA Today found in a report that Arizona and other states in the Southwest will have extreme water shortages by 2025 (1). Another report claims that 3 billion people will experience water shortage by that year (2). Florida’s Everglades are also suffering a decreasing water-level. Closer to home, Lake Michigan’s water level has been decreasing as well (3).
One of the important ways that the US can conserve water is through more responsible irrigation practices. Chuck Howe, a water resources economist, says that "[t]he basic problem is poverty, not water (qtd. in 1)." Poor countries with inadequate irrigation equipment and practices waste a lot of water. Lake Chad in West Africa has been severely drained as a result of irrigation and a decrease in yearly rainfall (2). Developing nations also lack sanitation resources. About 2.4 million people do not have access to water that is properly sanitized (1).
Right now the US needs to lead the world in water conservation, but the presidential candidates for 2008 seem reluctant. Hillary Clinton said she would divert water from the Great Lakes for the nation to use, but at the same time she respected states’ rights to their own waters. John McCain disagreed with Clinton’s position, and focused on the conservation of water in the Southeast. Obama stressed helping citizens conserve water on a local level. The candidates have to be careful about what they say because they don’t want to “alienate” any state. (3)
I think that Clinton’s statement on water availability is the most specific and the most accommodating and flexible for all. However, she does not address conservation, which is very important. We need to be responsible in our use of this precious natural resource.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm
(2) http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/
(3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21768239/
While national security and social security are important issues, it is so refreshing to finally have the issue of “global security” near the top of the policy agenda. What will it matter if we have a wall keeping immigrants out or a new system of healthcare if global warming kills us all? Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but so is sunburn; and if the planet continues to heat up at its current rate we are all going to be pretty red.
Okay so maybe not “us” exactly, but future generations will undoubtedly feel the heat of this issue if we do not act now. We need to keep up with our changing climate. Throughout the years, numerous acts and agencies have been created by the government in an effort to protect and preserve the environment. These include the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, both created in 1970, as well as the more recent Clear Skies Initiative proposed by President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, these policies seem like idealistic, projected images all too often.
Oil, coal, and other nonrenewable resources are repeatedly made priorities. An example of this is Bush’s support of drilling in the Alaskan Tundra. Instead, I believe we should dramatically move away from foreign dependence on oil and any dependence on nonrenewable resources for that matter. Emphasis and funds should be redirected towards research and development of renewable energy and immediate preservation. I also believe the U.S. needs to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit to cutting greenhouse gasses by 7%.
I agree with Liana in that the only party committed to make such drastic changes in environmental policy is the Green party. Their policy platform states, “We advocate strong public policies to widely deploy conservation, efficiency, and clean renewable energy technologies.” It also points out the idea that, “We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet.” I believe that the environment should be as important as any other issue if not more. After all, wars will come and go, but the environment will (hopefully) last forever.
http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/
http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml
Edwards, Government in America
I feel that global warming is the biggest environmental issue to focus on in the next election. I feel that because so many different smaller issues all contribute to global warming, so a candidate’s overall point of view on global warming is a good judgment on how much he’ll focus on the environment as a whole. If he dodges questions about global warming or seems like he doesn’t know any more than the basics, odds are he doesn’t care about the environment as much as he does some other issues. I’d personally place the environment at #3 on my list of issues behind a candidate’s foreign policy and a candidate’s economic policy. I feel like if a candidate has a brilliant plan put into place to cut down on carbon emissions from the U.S. and slow down the process of global warming, then it would be worth electing him/her to office even if they are unable to solve the healthcare “crisis.” As we all have heard a trillion times in those stories and media clips that are meant to make us feel guilty, America is the biggest user of energy, and is the biggest contributor to global warming. If we can stop hearing that by 2016 the next president will be as respected as some other environment-friendly presidents like Roosevelt the first, and almost Al Gore.
I’m going to assume Al Gore does not count as a candidate here, and say that of all the major candidates I probably support Barack Obama the most for his (underrated) environmental beliefs. He believes a cap-and-trade program is good for America. I feel a cap-and-trade program is also the best way to lower emissions, because it is the most predictable. The government sets the standards, and the companies have to pay for their pollution. Unlike carbon taxes there are limited amounts of emissions under cap-and-trades, and barring unusual circumstances, we can predict the future for a program like this. Besides his long-term views of cutting gas emissions by 80% in the next 40 years, he would also make the country far more energy efficient by the end of his presidency, which will A) cut costs and B) cut emissions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Minor parties play a key role in getting issues ignored by the major parties on the campaign agenda. This is exemplified by the focus on environmental concerns for the presidential nominations. Like many other students, I also believe that global warming will be the key concern because it has massive implications for the future generations. However, I think that we need to attack the source of the problem instead of trying to remedy the negative effects such as endangerment of species. I believe that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to stop global warming. This can be done in two ways. First, the government can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by either planting more trees or increasing the taxes on the trees being cut from the Amazon, which contains half of the world’s oxygen ‘factories,’ making them the ‘lungs of this world’ (3). Some people might say that this would kill businesses. But who really suffers?-Big corporations that already have all the dough. When you compare the costs this would incur on the corporations and the impacts that global warming would have for the survival of this earth, it becomes a pretty clear choice (3)
The next area would be the cap-and-trade policy to abate the level of pollution. This has been empirically proven to be successful on the East coast (1) The government hands out a specific and equal amount of pollution permits to each firm. These firms can then use them or auction them off to bigger firms who have greater demand for it. Eventually, this 1) increases the incentives for smaller firms to pollute as little as possible to reap in all the benefits and 2) it causes the bigger firms to start using more energy efficient machines and this in turn would 3) increases the demand for such machinery and thus increase the incentives for innovation from firms supplying the machines (1).
Kucinich had voted for a couple of reforestation bills (4). However, Obama is the most influential candidate pushing for a cap-and-trade system of pollution abatement. With this and other policies, he hopes to improve energy efficiency by 50% by 2030. We must realize that global warming can be combated by empirically proven methods. Everyone seems to feel fatigued by this imminent threat. In the end, seemingly insignificant things such as turning off the tap water or shutting off the lights can have huge impacts on how we face our future “posterity.”
(1) Our awesome econ book
(2) http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
(3) Impact card from the Trade-off shell
(4) votesmart.com
I think that the most important issue regarding the environment for the 2008 election, is the U.S. dependency on oil and the effects of its overuse. Currently the U.S. consumes 25.2% of the world's oil which is 20,730,000 barrels per day!
Obama has a plan to decrease the U.S.' oil consumption by 35% or by 10 million barrels per day by 2030! Obama would also increase fuel standards in America. By increasing the standards for fuel economy will benefit the environment in the long run by reducing emissions. It would also encourage the development of alternative fuels.
Sources:
(1)http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#set-america-on-path-to
(2)http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Response to Vince the Prince:
Global warming, as defined by Random House is the“ increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect”. I agree with Vince that CO2 emissions is the most important issue environmentally. These air pollutants cause the planet to trap excess heat; which results in melting ice caps, extinction of animals, and an increase in flooding and unusual climate temperatures. These Co2 levels can be brought down by switching to energy efficient items( ex. cars. light bulbs), limiting the amount of carbon emissions allowed by businesses and factories, and by increasing funding for “green” technology to be used in society. (BBC). As stated by “Vince the Prince”, Hilary Clinton has a plan for global warming as well. I would like to elaborate on it a bit more to clarify how she hopes to combat CO2 emissions.
If elected, Clinton hopes to establish a a cap and trade system in the United States. This type of program is largely supported by members of both party's, but differs on the extent to which they hope to “cap” emissions. Clinton believes that an 80% reduction in emissions could be achieved by the year 2050 if the government and corporations work together. This is a necessary goal to try and stop global warming. She also believes that cutting oil imports by 2/3 would help solve our global warming issues. Clinton's plan also offers benefits for people who decide to “go green”. If elected, she would increase funding to Smart Grid City (energy techn.), institute a Strategic Energy Fund, and create a National Energy Council within the White House. Global warming is an issue that must be dealt with soon by the next elected president, because the decisions made in the next few years are vital to the survival of our planet.
Environmental issues are going to be one of the crucial factors that decide who wins the 2008 election. Most of the environmental issues such as global warming, carbon emission and energy crisis are gaining grounds in the political arena. However the most pressing environmental issue in this 2008 election is energy. As oil prices continue to rise and the conflict in Middle East continues, our politicians and leaders are likely to pay more attention to the energy crisis.
United States has an economy that is heavily dependent on oil. The U.S alone consumes 20 million barrels at about $60 a barrel out of the 80 million barrels of oil the world consumes in a day. There are many dangerous side effects of this heavily dependency on oil which includes health problems, and climate changes. Conflict in the Middle East has also contributed to the energy crisis in the U.S.
It is very important for the U.S to commit to the Kyoto protocol adopted in Japan in 1997. This is a formal agreement between industrialized nations to reduce their carbon emission by the year 2012. Although the U.S is not in support of this agreement, the U.S contributes about 22% to the carbon emission in the world. It is the world leader in carbon emissions.
The U.S should invest time and money into finding clean and renewable resources to substitute for oil. Natural resources in the U.S should be preserved instead of exploiting them as proposed by the Bush administration, and nuclear power plant is not the solution to the energy crises. It only contributes to the nations oil problem and energy crises. The U.S should also commit time into solving the conflict in Middle East peacefully and efficiently.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in support of some of my policy positions. They are both willing to commit time and money into finding renewable energy resources. They are willing to commit to reducing carbon emission but not through the Kyoto protocol.
In conclusion to this ever so late post, I do believe the 2008 election will center on the energy crisis since it is very prominent in our society today.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#restore-us-leadership
http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyCrisis/index.html
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/health.html
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast.asp
Energy, being of course the issue of investing in clean and renewable energy sources, will be the most important environmental matter for the 2008 election. The reasoning behind this is simple, America spends absurd amounts on foreign oil and our current energy status is highly inefficient in terms of emissions. America spends 1.4 billion dollars a day for the consumption of roughly 20 million barrels. That can be broken down to 41 million dollars spent for this oil every single hour. This has multiple effects, it not only requires the United States to pay foreign sources for products (meaning that in terms of production our nation does not benefit and GDP is only hurt), and, perhaps more importantly, we are then extremely reliant on other nation for our needs. This would allow foreign nations to influence our policies, as without these sources we would be helpless due to our dependency. While all of this happens our national debt becomes larger as a result of trade deficits, requiring the U.S. to increase the amount of USD in circulation in order to finance our fiascos, depreciating the value of the dollar. Put short and sweet, our reliance on foreign oil is badly hurting the economy, meaning a lower standard of living for individuals, and a less stable nation as a whole. To remedy this predicament, I believe we need to quickly develop alternative sources of energy (in particular renewable) where oil is not needed. Doing such would allow jobs to be creating in the U.S., increasing the value of the dollar relative to other currencies and thus increasing our standard of living, reduce the national deficit, reduce our dependency on other nations, and of course help the environment. With the environment the second part of the issue surfaces, cleaner energy. America has quite the level of carbon emissions, being the top emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (although some believe China has taken the lead). Oddly enough, America is not a signer of the Kyoto Protocol either, an agreement by numerous nations to limit the amount of emissions produced by their country. It is with this that America must work on fighting emission, creating a cleaner U.S., and at the same time providing an example for other nations. For instance, China, another leading producer of emissions, refused mandatory cuts on greenhouse gases, stating that the United States and other industrialized nations should first lead by example. I believe that emissions limits must be made, but I also see a market for such control. On both cases I have candidate that supports my views, senator and presidential contender Barrack Obama. He supports a market-based cap-and trade system to reduce carbon emissions, in the projected hopes of reaching an emissions point 80% below our 1990 levels by 2050. Through this system, the privilege to pollute by whatever amount would be auctioned to polluters, letting the market control what firms would be able to produce emissions. Obama also plans to invest 150 billion over ten years for clean energy, a small price to for the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure. Not only this, but Barrack also plans to reduce oil consumption by 35% (10 million barrels a day) by 2030, offsetting the oil imported by OPEC nations. This is just a small sample of what Obama plans to accomplish, many of the stances I agree with as our country is in dire need of energy reform. Therefore, as one may see, energy will be a key issue in the 2008 election due to its vast influence on not only the American economy and even our nation as a whole, but also from its importance to the world.
• Sorry, the whole document didn’t show up last time…
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#invest-in-a-clean
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=003000620BMX
http://www.american.edu/TED/kyoto-emissions.htm
Sorry- I guess it didn't show up last time. Computers are mean.
The 2008 presidential election will be different from almost all presidential elections in history. We have a variety of candidates- from all different religions, races and sexes, a change in the amount of attention candidates will give to different groups- such as minorities and a change in the issues that the candidates will be focusing on. One of the biggest changes that will occur is how much candidates will pay attention to the environmental issues, which in the past have been ignored. I think that global warming will be one of the biggest environmental issues that is raised in the election.
I believe global warming will be a big issue because it is such an urgent issue that affects everyone and it is getting a lot of attention, and not just from the Green party. Global warming has been a controversial issue in the past, and many people have doubted it's existence and the effect it can have. But, today 85% of Americans believe that global warming is probably happening and 88% think that it will effect future generations. This shows that Americans are realizing the importance, 49% of Americans think that global warming is extremely important, which is up form 31% in 1991.
I agree most with the Green party on this issue. The Green party has made it clear, from the beginning that something needs to be done about global warming and the effects it could have. They believe that a strong target needs to be set early so emissions don’t get out of control. We also need to avoid loopholes, and basically just avoid avoiding the issue. The senate voted 95-0 to oppose any global warming treaty that doesn’t also bind developing countries to specific carbon reductions- which many industrializing countries oppose. This is making it hard to get anywhere with this problem. The U.S. may only have 4% of the world’s population, but we put out 20% of the worlds carbon emissions. The Green party stresses using energy more efficiently and cutting back on the use of fossil fuels. I agree with their position, and I think that that is the way our country should go on this issue.
I agree most with Hilary Clinton’s position. She plans to put a “cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger auto and energy efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding.” Her plan will make us more energy independent and will get everyone to do small things and work together to bring down the level of emissions the U.S. gives out each year.
Sources:
http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753914
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1176967,00.html
Post a Comment