Since, for once, the May 6 North Carolina presidential primary is important, wouldn’t it be nice if people knew what they were voting for, or against, when they head to the voting booth?
Unfortunately, the media, which showed marked improvement in the earlier primaries by covering substantive issues, have reverted to their old habits. Lately, real issues have taken a backseat to irrelevant back-and-forth accusations from the Clinton and Obama camps (with the Clinton folks being the most aggressively negative), while the media wallows in immaterial gotcha stories that make no difference to voters who want to learn more about the candidates’ positions on important issues.
Environmental issues have been routinely ignored during the 2008 debates, while the highly paid members of the press corps push each other aside so they can be the first to ask yet another question about angry preachers, flag lapel pins, or Hillary’s “misspeaking” about her 1996 trip to Bosnia.
A study by the Natural Resources Defense Action Fund was enlightening albeit depressing. The NRDAF found that Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week, Bob Schiefffer on CBS’s Face the Nation, FoxNews’ Chris Wallace, and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, have asked the candidates well over 2,000 questions between them. A grand total of 4 of those questions were about the environment. In short, if you’re not clear about the presidential candidates’ positions on the environment, it’s no big surprise.
This is our humble attempt to remedy that lack of reporting by the mainstream media. What follows is a recap of where Clinton, Obama, and, for good measure, John McCain, stand on some of the main environmental issues, most of the information having been gathered by Tara Lohan at Alternet.
Carbon emissions
Clinton: She is a co-sponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the strongest global warming legislation introduced in the Senate. She supports a mandatory cap on carbon emissions and an 80 percent reduction by 2050, a position that is in line with most environmental groups. Overall, she gets a lifetime score of 90 (out of 100) from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
Obama: He also co-sponsored the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, and favors the same policies as Clinton as regards carbon emission caps and reductions. He received a 96 lifetime score from LCV.
McCain: He introduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which would cap emissions at 2004 levels by 2012, followed by a 30 percent decrease by 2050. His lifetime LCV score is 26.
Fuel efficiency
Clinton: She supports setting a fuel efficiency level of 40 mpg by 2020 and 50 mpg by 2030, essentially in line with most environmental organizations.
Obama: He supports a fuel efficiency level of 40 mpg by 2020, but only 32 mpg for light trucks.
McCain: He says he supports raising standards but hasn’t offered specifics.
Energy consumption and renewables
Clinton: She supports the United States getting 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025, a $50 billion investment fund for renewables, and a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2020.
Obama: He advocates 25 percent renewables by 2025, a heftier $150 billion investment fund for renewables, and a 50 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2030.
McCain: He supports renewable energy sources but has not offered a plan.
Coal
Environmental organizations support a moratorium on all new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon, i.e., they have to get rid of their carbon emissions. Carbon capture technology, however, has so far remained unproven at the industrial level. Enviros reject plans to store carbon underground, and they condemn current practices for extracting and cleaning coal, which involve blowing up mountains, polluting watersheds, and wreaking environmental and cultural havoc in Appalachia.
Clinton: She supports a phase-in on the requirement to capture and store carbon at plants, supports investing in liquid coal, if it reduces pollution by over 20 percent from gasoline levels — which, as of now, it does not. She supports the concept of “clean coal,” which does not take into account coal’s destructive extraction and cleaning costs.
Obama: He says he would consider a moratorium on new coal plants if it doesn’t slow construction of them. You figure out what that means; I can’t. He also supports investing in liquid coal, with the same conditions as Clinton. His position on liquid coal is also identical to Clinton’s.
McCain: He supports making full use of the nation’s huge coal supply, including “clean coal” and coal-to-liquids.
Biofuels
Many environmental groups are against biofuel production, which they say has caused destruction of virgin forests around the world, is pesticide- and water-intensive, and takes agricultural land out of food production.
Clinton: She is in favor of increased use of biofuels, including aiming for 60 billion gallons to be available by 2030.
Obama: His position is identical to Clinton’s.
McCain: He favors increased use of biofuels but has not offered specifics.
Nuclear power
Clinton: She has not taken a solid, consistent position on nuclear power.
Obama: He supports increased use of nuclear power, including giving generous subsidies to the nuclear industry.
McCain: He supports increased use of nuclear power, including giving subsidies to the nuclear industry.
OK, that’s all we have room for, so see you later, and happy voting!
This article appears in Apr 23-29, 2008.
