Week 6 Item 14

As the hour draws nearer as to who our next leader will be, it is still important to see what the next elected president plans to do to better our environment.

In regards to nuclear power, McCain believes that nuclear power and offshore drilling will help ween us off our dependency on foreign oil. Two great ideas...with not so great consequences. Nuclear power is dangerous and volatile and offshore drilling is destructive with adverse affects. Is there really a way for us to save our environment from distegration and at the same time take us away from the current position that we have in the middle east?

According to Grist, on www.gristmill.grist.org, our oil consumption rate is at an all time high. "America's 20 million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and nearly $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour we spend $41 million on foreign oil. America's oil consumption increased by over 20 percent between 1992 and 2005. Our energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by more than 15 percent between 1993 and 2005". Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes has doubled in the past 30 years due to global warming. We are slowly playing a part in our own destruction.

Obama is not completly against nuclear power, but he is a little more leery on the subject than his opponent. As of now, nuclear power represents more than 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. Taking nuclear power off the table completely is unrealistic if we are to try to tackle our current environmental problems. Obama believes that there are four key issues when dealing with nuclear power: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Here are some of the things he plans on doing to address these issues:

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R -- IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

Nobody is positive who the next presidential candidate will be, but regardless of who, let's hope they follow through on their promises of a brighter future and a greener environment.

Week 6 Item 13

Every environmentalist will tell you that one sure way of emitting less greenhouse gases and reducing energy use is to simply drive our cars less, or drive more efficient ones. Obama feels like cleaner transportation should be a key issue during his presidency should he be elected.

If Obama is elected to the US Presidency, we can expect to see his administration work towards the integration of hybrid and alternative fuel cars in our everyday lives. He plans on getting over a million hybrid cars on the road by 2015, meanwhile revamping the nation's standards in regard to fuel efficiency and carbon emissions. To help this initiative, Obama proposes a $7,000 tax credit to individuals who buy these hybrid cars. McCain has a similar initiative that would give taxpayers a $5,000 tax credit to buyers who purchase cars with zero emissions. His senior executive admitted that cars to this caliber do not even exist yet.

Not only will Obama push to see more hybrid cars, but as I discussed in a previous blog, he has also introduced legislation to get oil companies to pay to install alternative fuel gas pumps, which would promote cleaner transportation.

To further reduce our transportation carbon footprint, according to the Matter Network, a Senior advisor to Obama stated, “the need for better community planning to facilitate increases in public transportation, walking, and bicycling.”

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/8/mccain-obama-alike-energy.cfm

Week 6 Item 12

Obama on Renewable Energy


Obama highly supports the use of renewable energy sources in the United States. He has stated on various occassions that the United States should move forward in changing the ways in which we get our energy. On May 23, 2006, , "Obama submitted a piece of legislation which would require oil companies whose profits were over $1 Billion a year to invest at least 1% of these profits putting in fuel pumps which would pump E85, a mix with 85% ethanol and 15% regular gasoline, all over the country, or to put in pumps which would utilize other renewable resource fuels.

In support for his legislation, Obama stated, "For too long, American taxpayers have been forced to pay billions in subsidies to the very same record-profiting oil companies who now charge them record gas prices at the pump. It's time for the oil companies to give something back to America by investing just 1% of their record profits into the cheaper, cleaner renewable fuels like E85 that can finally free us from our dependence on Middle East oil."

His senate webpage estimated that this act alone would cause the installation of over 7,000 renewable energy fuel pumps.

In addition to his efforts to reduce oil usage, Obama calls for the investment of $150 billion in research about renewable energy sources in 2018. He would also require 10% of the nation's energy to come from renewable resources in the next 5 years, and reduce our electricity usage in the next 22 years.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/060523-obama_introduce_7/index.php

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/03/news/economy/obama_what_he_stands_for/?postversion=2008110309

Kyoto Protocol

Week 6 Item 11

The Kyoto Protocol is an issue Obama has had a bit of a conflict with. He recognizes the need for coal in his home state on one hand, but on the other, he realizes that coal burning emits quite a bit of carbon, one of the major greenhouse gases which the Kyoto Protocol calls for reducing.

According to the webiste for the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol calls to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (Carbon, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Hexaflouride, Hydroflourocarbons, and Perflorocarbons) by 5.2% in relation to 1990 emission levels by 2012. Different countries are called to reduce their emissions by different levels based on original emission and country size and population.

In 1998, Obama voted for a piece of legislation which rejected the Kyoto Protocol. It is theorized that he voted this way because of his support for the coal industry. He has not made a public statement explaining why he voted this way, but has since changed his mind, promising to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and do more in order to prevent the United States from releasing even more greenhouse gases than the Kyoto Protocol asks of the United States. On his website, he states that his administration would take steps to reduce emissions in the United States to the levels we were at in 1990 by 2020, but would be reduced to 80% of those levels by 2050. Obama would see to it that businesses would be charged money in order to eliminate greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that technology would be created in order to have liquid coal release 20% less carbon than the current fuels in use in the US.

In addition, Obama would join once again the UN Framework and Convention on Climate Change, commiting to help them create a global energy forum in efforts to maintain the efforts which go along with the Kyoto Protocol.






http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-17-obama-coal_N.htm

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions

"Spread the Wealth?"

Week 6, Item 10


As I was driving to school today I heard some pretty disturbing news about how Obama's “green” plan was to "bankrupt" the coal industry. Throughout the commercials I thought to myself, well, that’s not that bad of an idea, I mean, we don’t actually want to be dependent on coal anymore...or at least not as dependent. Then I got to thinking....I am a full time college student, I work VERY part time, if my small apartment is being heated by coal, what will be used in place of coal? Then I started to freak myself out....since our cheaper method of electricity comes from coal, the new and improved method of electricity is going to be much more costly (although it will be cleaner), am I prepared to pay for the price for it? My parents who are middle class, hard working citizens will be retiring soon. Will they be prepared to pay for cleaner methods of energy? I needed to do a little research of my own to understand, better educate and prepare myself for what may be coming up quickly in our future! Here is what I found....

So...what did Obama actually tell the San Francisco Chronicle?.....
“So if somebody wants to build a coal powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sun for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Pennsylvania, a coal producing state, where a large majority of its residents work in the coal industry are worried that Obama's plan may have them losing their jobs...when, wasn’t Obama's promise to us that he would "create jobs"?

"In a recently publicized video from the Democratic primaries, Se. Barack Obama said the government should drive up through "price signals" in order to force Americans into more environmentally friendly choices. In the Nov. 9, 2007, interview on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," Obama said Americans like driving SUVs and leaving the lights on, but since "it is undisputable that the climate is getting warmer," consumers would have to change their habits. When asked what would make consumers change, Obama said government-created "price signals" would make people more mindful of costs and compel them to start changing light bulbs and turning off light switches."

Ok, well here's my take on this, as stated above, I work part time, go to school full time and was given a car by my parents to get me through my college years. Well, here's my dilemma on Obama's plan....I do not have the money to have my electric bill raised!!!....I do not leave my lights on, I drive an SUV because I cannot afford to buy a different car, it’s got 200,000 miles on it and is probably worth $2,000 which is not going to buy me a nice smaller car, although I'd like one...it’s just not in the cards for me at the moment! A "price signal" would not help me make smarter "greener" choices...I'll tell you what it would do....it'd probably make me have to quit school because I can no longer afford my bills and gas working just part time. However, I pay taxes, and I guess I can rest assured that those not paying taxes, who fall in the poverty line will be getting free college, money given to them that was taken from tax payers in Obama's attempts to "spread the wealth", and supposedly they will "get more money by taking money away from people who pay taxes to directly give it to those who dont pay taxes in the form of a "tax cut." A tax cut? For people who already don't pay taxes? That's not a tax cut, is it? That's more like a... well, a government handout. It's a welfare check."
Please, make up your mind for yourself, but I dont want my tax money given to those who dont pay taxes! I dont want my attempts to get my life started by going to college, working, living on my own, trying to sacrifice things now so that I can have a better future after college to be disrupted because I have such high energy prices and gas prices that I have to quit school to support myself! This country was not built on "spreading the wealth" it was built on an everyman for himself, hard working, money saving, sacrifice today for a better tomorrow outlook!


http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-133046

Has vs. Would

Week 6, Item 9
By, Stacy Jelke


I was looking through the issues regarding global warming and the environment and the two candidate's standings with each. I came across quite a funny outlook. Being someone who doesnt entirely know everything about each candidate's past and their positions on the future, I came to the conclusion that Sen. Obama uses the word "would " to begin a large majority of his sentences, I decided it may be probable that because he really only spent about 100 days in the Senate before he decided to run for President of the United States, therefore, he was left with a very short number of days to actually implement or establish any act or bill. For instance....

Senator Obama....
"Would implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists. Would make the United States a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading anew international global warming partnership. Would establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. Would create a Technology Transfer program within the Department of Energy dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries. Would offer incentives to maintain forests globally and manage them sustainably. Would develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.environment.html


Sen McCain however, HAS ALREADY implemented the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act in 2007. The is basically "A bill to provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes."
Introduced on 1/12/07, this Act will direct the "Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish and maintain the National Greenhouse Gas Database to collect, verify, and analyze information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."

It also establishes a "program for market-driven reduction of GHGs through the use of tradeable allowances." It will require certain "covered entities that own or control a source of GHG emissions in the electric power, industrial, and commercial sectors of the U.S. economy to submit to the Administrator, beginning in 2012, one tradeable allowance for every metric ton of GHGs emitted." It requires the "Administrator to establish a declining cap on tradeable allowances to reduce GHG emissions over time. Allows tradeable allowances to be sold, exchanged, purchased, retired, borrowed, offset, or otherwise used as permitted by this Act."

The act also proposes to aid in enhancing studies, research and technologies to help get these emissions lower.

This was just a summary of what McCain's plan imposed, how it was carried out and how it will be carried out in the future. Much like McCain, Obama wants to use the cap-and-trade plan, so really my research has led me to believe McCain and Obama hardly differ on their plans to reduce global warming, however, what I do find different in their plans, is their experience levels. What they HAVE done already is more important to me than what they SAY they will do in the future.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-280&tab=summary

McCain on The Lexington Project

Week 5, Item 8
By, Stacy Jelke

In class we spoke briefly on The Lexington Project and McCain's support of it. I decided I needed to know a bit more about it, along with possibly most of the class in order to better judge or support it. Here is what I found:

I love this quote from the McCain website mostly because it is understandable and can be supported by both Democratic and Republican parties together.
"Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio."

Senator McCain has imposed a plan called the Lexington Project; by following this plan he has hopes (and dont say hope is not enough you Obama supporters :) for strategic independence by 2025. "Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States. And never again will we leave our vital interests at the mercy of any foreign power."

How will we achieve independence by 2025!? Here's what McCain implies, " by authorizing new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us. Much will be asked of industry as well, as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power. And a great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good."

As presented in class, this topic of global warming and alternative fuels isn't a rightist or leftist idea. This topic is one that is real, it was brought on mostly by the American people and our way of life. Unlike many Republicans McCain is very persistent in his ideas about global warming, he is ready to handle it, and ready to make American cleaner while being less dependent on foreign sources.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771-aec271bf823e.htm