Global Warming Guide to the 2008 Presidential Candidates

[theclimateblog]

Today is Independence Day in the United States, and as Americans celebrate the 232nd birthday of the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the Climate Blog would like to honor the occasion by thinking forward to the 2008 election, which could potentially be a turning point in American energy and climate policy. To that end, I bring you the

Comments

Guide

[gamoonbat]

I just posted, linking to this entry. I think that you might have graded McCain a bit too low. However, he is not placing the issue at the front or speaking out much. So he does deserve to be challenged and forced to explicitly reject the positions taken by pundits and other candidates. If only Gore or Barbara Boxer were running!

Re: Guide

[theclimateblog]

That's what I was thinking - he's been vocal in the issue in the past, but he's not being very vocal about it now. Plus, he doesn't have anything on his platform aside from what he's already doing as senator. I might amend the grade if he comes out with a stronger platform.

I felt like I was grading the dems too low, but I'm really against ethanol as the magic bullet. It sounds rosy, especially when you read Edwards' million job plan, but it's not really that good in the end. It's on my list of things to post about.

Do you think my grades were too harsh in general?

Re: Guide

[gamoonbat]

I have not done the legwork, so I am just going by your summaries, I do not know how hard it is to ferret out the positions. I have not seen enough attention given to the issue in any of the debates. I did see an impressive by Hillary when Al Gore spoke to the Senate a few months ago.

The changes make sense. I was going to say that I might go as high as a B+ on Edwards, but I agree that none of this crop deserves an A. Even Gore probably only deserves an A- in my book. I am not sure about Kucinich. I have been very impressed by Barbara Boxer of late.

Re: Guide

[theclimateblog]

I wonder if people are avoiding the issue in the debates because Al Gore is the unspoken spokesperson for GW?

A site which maps energy consumption and more...

[anonymous]

Check this Map out, has United States Interactive Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

Re: A site which maps energy consumption and more...

[theclimateblog]

That's a very interesting map! Though as a geographer I would say that it might be more appropriate to do a per-capita consumption, which is more corrected by population. That's why some states like Rhode Island or Alaska or North Dakota look so green compared to others, like California.

Still, what is shocking is that even ranked by total amount, Texas still comes out worst! By more than twice that of CA!

[theclimateblog]

I didn't do Kucinich, because at this stage he doesn't have a chance. If things change drastically I'll definitely change the ratings or add new people. But, giving a quick glance over his campaign page:

He wants to increase our renewable energy portfolio by 20% in 2020, which is good, and he's not focusing as much on biofuels, but on wind and solar and new technologies. He doesn't say anything about ghg emissions, or global warming on his campaign page, but there are links to statements he's made that we need to take action. He has a very good environmental record from the League of Conservation Voters and the USPIRG website.

My off-the-cuff grade would be a B-, because I'd like to see more of a detailed plan and platform on the topic, particularly with regards to automobiles and industries. But he's clearly open to the issue.

[tectonite]

I'm looking forward to your discussion of ethanol. I've been wondering about the marketing of corn-based products (ethanol in particular, but also plastics derived from corn) as the Answer to Global Warming. My (old and probably out-dated) understanding was that corn takes a lot of energy (plus pesticides) to grow, and that it really isn't that efficient of a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

[theclimateblog]

Your understanding isn't outdated at all - in fact, there's the added issues of 1) the land use conversion of tilling more farmland (exposed soil releases carbon) and cutting down trees to grow more corn, and b) the socio-economic impacts. An example of the latter: tortilla prices have more than tripled in Mexico since the ethanol craze started, because it's driving up the price of corn. Good for American farmers, but bad for Mexicans!

[tri_blog]

Did you see my post:
Comparing Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. Edwards: the best President on global warming?

It quotes Steve Kirsch:
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparisonFull.htm
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm
http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparisonChart.htm

Also, Why did global warming "tip"?

PBS's "Frontline":

Hot Politics (Watch 1 hour video)
How bipartisan political and economics forces prevented 3 administrations from taking bold action on global warming.

What do you think?

[theclimateblog]

I saw it, but didn't read it, because I'd been planning on doing this for a while and didn't want to start of with preconceived opinions.

I like the Mooney article, and I'd agree with him. We can't give Al Gore 100% of the credit for bringing global warming to the international consciousness, because a lot of people have done a lot of work in so many different sectors. I think it's just that the evidence has been building up in so many different places (health, environment, economics, etc) and it's all congealed.

[tri_blog]

Why did global warming "tip"? (Part 2):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mooney/why-did-global-warming-t_b_55145.html