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

Week 5 Item 7

Off Shore Drilling

By *Stacy Jelke

As discussed in the blog below, much of the information regarding the two presidential candidates views on global warming is becoming a little repetitive. As brought up in one of the presentations in class, McCain is an advocate for off shore drilling. This interested me and will produce definite changes in global warming so I decided to further my research and find out just what McCain's plan is with drilling off shore.

"McCain advocates offshore drilling not as a complete energy solution, but as one component of an “all of the above” strategy that would include increased conservation, alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels, and more traditional sources such as coal and nuclear energy."
The article I read stated that the move to drill off shore is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. "In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade. " McCain goes on to say there are 21 billion untapped barrels of oil in the United States and that its time for the ban on off shore drilling to be lifted. Many environmentalists are getting upset over McCain's ideas about drilling off shore and they are afraid the wild life will be tremendously disturbed. While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.

This was a tough research topic for me because I do side with McCain on many of his ideas, however, this one I am stuck on. It just doesnt seem logical and like we'll be getting enough out of it in the end to justify the sacrifices made on the environment and wild life. I do understand using the oil offshore along with foreign oil, so that we wont have to rely on and buy as much foreign oil, although, like I said before, I'm not 100% condifent the environmental/wildlife issues at stake are worth risking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731_2.html?sid=ST2008061700079&s_pos=

Week #4 Item #6

One of the biggest challenge that we have found while researching for our blogs is that it is really hard to find current news that concerns the elections and environmental issues. Especially with the General Election coming up, the candidates have put their focuses in other prime areas of the presidential debate. This next article that I am reporting on was published last year in October. Although it is not exactly a current article, I find it important in understanding the cap-and-trade program better. The cap-and-trade program often came up in the discussion of environmental policies, for example in one of the earlier blogs by McCain reporter Stacy Jelke, but it was a program that I was very unfamiliar with.

As I had reported in my earlier blog, the conflicts between oil and foreign affairs are probably one of the biggest challenges that we have as a nation. There are ways to be less dependent on foreign oil, but programs such as the coals-to-liquid program will not help our greenhouse emissions, but can maybe even worsen it. The cap-and-trade program is a system that we can build on domestically to cut greenhouse emissions.

Under a cap-and-trade plan, companies that produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases receive or buy credits that give them the right to emit a certain amount. Companies that emit less carbon than their credits allow can profit by selling any excess credits on the open market, while those that exceed their emission allowance have to make up the difference or face heavy fines.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-calls-pollution-cap-and-trade-program/story.aspx?guid=%7BE704950B-F8D6-49EB-9C20-BCCECEB72374%7D

To ensure that all violators pay for all the emissions their companies emit, Obama would require that all "credits" be auctioned on the open market. The higher the need for these emissions, then the higher the cost it will be. He hopes that in doing so, companies will find more environmentally friendly ways to operate. The differences in Obama's cap-and-trade program and his rivals is that all businesses will have to pay a price, there will be no one business that will not have follow these rules. There are many opponents to Obama's plan, one is President Bush, he believes that "such a move would hurt the economy and put the United States at a disadvantage to rapidly developing economies."

Under the Obama plan, the government would set annual reduction targets and would require that overall emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and would be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050....Obama's plan would also spend $150 billion over 10 years on the development of climate-friendly supplies and technologies and sets a goal of reducing overall oil consumption by 35%, or 10 million barrels, by 2030. It also calls on the United States to lead a new international partnership to combat global warming.

After reading this article, it made me a lot more hopeful for the outcome of our environment if Obama was to be elected. I agree with him that we need to take action, even if it does mean that it might hurt the economy now, but in the long run it is what's best. If we continue going down the route that we are going now, then we will never be able to fix our past mistakes and show the world that we are forward-thinking in our quest for a better environment-not just for Americans, but for the world. We are the top leaders in so many areas, and I don't think that environmentally friendly issues should be an exception.

Week 3, Item #5

"We are not acting as good stewards of God's Earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet."
-- Oct. 14, 2007, in a speech at an interfaith forum on climate change

This blog is focused on an interview between Amanda Griscom Little and Senator Barack Obama on the website Grist and Outside , a non-profit organization that focuses on environmental news located in Seattle, Washington.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama/

Through a series of question-and-answer, Little offers an excerpt of the Senator's beliefs and goals for the United States and its standings in the environmental affairs. He is not only proud of his good track record in environmental issues but realizes his obligations in upholding the task of voting on environmental-friendly bills. Some of his biggest contributors and endorsers of his campaign are groups like the Sierra Club and the LCV. Obama believes that environmental issues are apart of the "three most important issues" that we face here at home, along with a good education system and better health care. With that said, he also recognizes that the war in Iraq will be one of our biggest challenges as a nation, he believes that the American people have been able to witness the problems of this dependency on foreign oil through the war and the economy.

Q. You've received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven't retracted it. Why?
A. I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid were higher than gasoline, we couldn't do it because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that, because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting CO2 emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.

The Senator received some backlash on the issue of CTL (coal-to liquids) technology from environmental-activists. Although the plan would limit our dependency on foreign oil, the greenhouse effects are much higher. Some critics also feel that his stance is partially affected by the fact that his home state of Illinois, is the coal capital of the country. They believe that it would "benefit industries in his home state of Illinois but do little if anything to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions". To me, the issue of CTL comes down to the problem of the lesser-of-two evils, as a country and part of the world, is it more important for us to reduce the damaging emissions, or is it more important for us to be less dependent on foreign energy.

My reaction to this interview was very ambivalent. I felt like the Senator had very many promising objectives but his plan at times seemed a bit vague. However, we do have to keep in mind that it was probably a short-term interview done over the phone. Obviously, not enough time to go into details about his cap-and-trade program or his proposal on National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Although I do realize that I am not an expert on a lot of these subjects, I do think that the environmental issue is something that the Senator is passionate about and it is something that is on the top of his agenda.

Week 2 Item 4

Even if it isn't real, would it not still be beneficial: McCain on Global Warming

By, Stacy Jelke

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction - toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world." John McCain is reaching out to both independents and green social conservatives and expresses that global warming is real, undeniable and this country has to take steps to control it while still adhering to free-market principles. McCain says no in expanding nuclear power, we have the ability to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also would like to set a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990. He is also promising to challenge China and India, two economic rivals who are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.
McCain has long believed for global warming to be a real and serious threat and he argues even if its not as problematic as we assume, acting as if the planet's temperature were increasing would only benefit the environment. As states in previous posts, McCain's solution is to impose a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions. "As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt - and that is good economic policy." McCain closed his speech in Oregon by telling the people, if walrus, polar bears, and birds can adapt and respond to their new and dangerous conditions, than humanity can as well.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/national_world&id=6136494

Week #2 Item #3

The LCV

While researching Obama's position on global warming and other environmental factors, I found that I came across the acronyms "LCV" a lot. The League of Conservation Voters, the LCV which it is commonly referred to, is a political advocacy organization that supports pro-environmental candidates. One of the biggest accomplishments of the LCV is publishing the National Environmental Scorecard, a system of scores that helps rank candidates on their support for a better environment. It is interesting to note that through the LCV's endorsements, candidates have a better chance of succeeding. For example, in the 2006 elections, 8 out of the 12 candidates on the LCV's "Dirty Dozen List" went down in defeat. The Dirty Dozen list "targets current and former members of Congress-regardless of party affiliation-who consistently vote against the environment and are running in races where LCV has a serious chance of affecting the outcome" (http://lcv.org/2007-scorecard-overview.html).

Currently, Senator Barack Obama has the highest lifetime rating, and it is pretentiously shown throughout their organization's site. They make it very clear that they are pro-Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

The League of Conservation Voters has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President because his plan to stop global warming pollution will break America’s addiction to oil and will create jobs across the country. Moreover, Sen. Obama’s plan is more than words, it is backed by a strong environmental voting record and forward-looking policy proposals for America’s renewable energy future.
In his time in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama has been a consistent supporter and co-sponsor of pro-environment legislation, serving as a strong advocate for the environment. In the Illinois Senate, then State Sen. Obama earned a 100 percent “Environmental Voting Record Award” from the Illinois Environmental Council in 2003, which highlights his commitment to the environment at every step of his political career.

http://lcv.org/obama/obama-facts.html

And this is what they had to say about McCain and his relations to environmental change:

While the League of Conservation Voters recognizes Sen. John McCain is a candidate who is willing to engage in discussions on global warming, energy, and the environment, he repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues. In his 25 years in Congress, McCain has faced 294 crucial environmental votes and he voted in favor of the environment only 71 times -- earning a lifetime score from LCV of just 24 percent.
In 2007, Sen. McCain scored 0 percent, due to missing all 15 votes scored, including the key vote on repealing tax giveaways to Big Oil -- a measure that failed by just one vote.1 This year, instead of exerting leadership on the key energy challenges facing the nation, Sen. McCain has offered a series of harmful policy proposals recycled from the Bush administration including an massive expansion of offshore drilling and major tax breaks for oil companies.

http://lcv.org/obama/mccain-facts.html

Although I do think that the LCV can be somewhat bias and it is clear which party they are more likely to support, it is easy to understand why. Not only do they support their candidates, they are endorsed by them also. If you go on their 2008 Endorsements Site, it is easy to see how they aggressively "craft a pro-environment Congress".

Week 2 Item 2

McCain's Plan....Cap and Trade it!

By, Stacy Jelke

What is John McCain’s big plan for helping slow global warming? Much like his opposing candidate Barack Obama, he supports a “cap and trade system”. In this system:
A cap is a set, enforced limit on the amount of greenhouse gasses an economy can emit each year. Over time the cap gets tighter and the limit decreases until a target amount is hit and a cleaner economy is launched. Energy efficiency standards for vehicles will be instilled; smart-growth plans, building codes, transit investments, tax credits
for renewable energy, investment in energy research and development, utility
regulatory reforms—all manner of public actions can move us toward our climate
goals. But the cap is our only guarantee that we will get there.
The trade means that, by law, companies can exchange the permission to emit greenhouse gases.
The whole point in putting a price on polluting is to motivate people to find ways to reduce their carbon emissions. Many people believe this plan will raise energy prices even higher. This is false. Fossil fuel prices are already at an all time high just because of basic supply and demand. A cap and trade will probably just maintain the high prices not raise them further. A well designed trading system will encourage efficiency, innovation and low cost solutions. In the long term, cap and trade will reduce the demand for dirty energy and make new and upcoming cleaner technologies more affordable and more available.
Most importantly, a well-designed cap-and-trade climate policy will allow us to “take
charge of our energy future, rescuing ourselves from our fossil-fuel dependence.”

So why would McCain support a ‘cap and trade program’?
n brief: Why cap and trade?
1.) It’s been tested and proven. A cap-and-trade system worked cheaply and efficiently to
reduce acid rain pollution in the United States in the 1990s.
2.) It’s cost-effective. A cap provides market incentives to steadily reduce pollution in
a cost-effective and efficient manner, encouraging a healthy shift away from the insecurity of fossil fuels.
3.) It’s economically sound. Today, we produce the highest amounts of pollution ever had. A cap and trade allows our businesses and families to get used to using less CO2 slowly, at a gradual
pace that is safe and manageable. We can adjust through fuel efficiency and
increased renewable energy resources like solar and wind power.
4.) It’s a cautious, long-term investment. The key to our long-term fortune and a stable
economy is a shift away from oil. This shift can work for businesses and consumers, allowing us to take charge of rising energy costs, invest in new technologies, and ensure a smooth transition. Right now, we’re sending billions of dollars a year out of local economies to pay for dirty energy.
5.) Most importantly, the cap is a solid boundary to the path to success. No policy
measure can substitute for setting a solid cap on the greenhouse gas emissions that
are allowed into the atmosphere; it’s our firm guarantee that we will meet crucial
pollution targets.

http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/cap-and-trade-101/Cap-Trade_online.pdf

Week 1 Item 1

An Interview W/ Sen. McCain

By, Stacy Jelke

I am an avid listener of the Glenn Beck radio program. Recently I heard an interview he conducted with Senator John McCain. I found this interview online written out word for word and this is a small portion of the interview composed of what Mr. Beck and Sen McCain said regarding global warming (which is the topic of this blog).

SENATOR McCAIN: But in the long term we've got to reduce, we've got to develop alternate energy forms, methods and technologies, and anybody that believes that America can't do that, then I don't think they have the confidence in America, innovation and technology that I do.

GLENN: You know, there's a new peer reviewed study out today that says global warming now looks like it's going to be on hold for ten years. Does that buy us any time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security and fix some of those things that are right around the corner?

SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, Glenn, but where we may have a disagreement, I believe that the development of green technologies such as General Electric, the world's largest corporation, has dedicated to the development of nuclear energy as the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There's no reason why America shouldn't.

GLENN: Oh, I'm with you on that, yeah.

SENATOR McCAIN: So if we develop green technologies, and see, many people say it's going to cost us a whole lot more money. I don't agree with that. I think every time we've made technological advances in this country, over time it has reduced rather than raised costs and so in the name of national security and our dependence on foreign oil and in the name of handing our kids a globe and a planet that has less greenhouse gas emissions, I think the encouragement of alternate energy is a long-term solution to both a national security and an environmental challenge.

I found extremely interesting, because I feel many people who support Sen. Obama feel strongly about the warming environment! Many Obama supporters that I know have almost a wall built against seeing Sen. McCain as an advocate of global warming. I know many Republicans feel Global Warming may not be one of the most important worries for the country right now considering we are looking at possible recession, wars, etc. But I feel stongly that McCain is taking global warming seriously and I feel he truly does plan on striving to find alternative sources of energy.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/9456/