Contributing Monkie G Living Staff Monkies
Published on January 16, 2008
Okay, so maybe you’re already tired of the campaign season. But one issue that has been getting shorted in the “I’m human” vs. “I equal change” vs. “I love the middle class” political drama is the environment. Back in November, the League of Conservation Voters hosted a forum in LA, where Clinton, Edwards and Kucinich outlined their support of the environment. The League invited all candidates on both sides, but only these three responded. Here’s what they had to say:
Clinton: 55 mpg by 2030; reduce overall emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below that by 2050; create a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund from reducing tax breaks on oil companies; allow companies to buy pollution credits.
Edwards: also supports trading pollution credits but would cap emissions in 2010; no more nuclear (pronounced “new-klee-er”, not “new-kyoo-ler” as our current president likes to say) power plants; reduction of emissions per international protocol; and the creation of s $13 billion per year New Energy Economy Fund from selling pollution permits.
<>p>Kucinich: abolish nuclear weapons; inject environmental standards into trade agreements; and re-join Kyoto.
After some digging, I found out where Obama stands on the environment: same emissions goals as Clinton and Edwards; require 25% renewable electricity by 2025; develop and deploy clean coal; set preferences for biofuel; and lead (as opposed to follow) on international climate issues.
Baby steps and rhetoric from everyone. So, if you demand more, look deeper. And don’t forget, the Republicans are concerned about the environment, too… well, sort of.
For more on the Democratic candidates, check out Wikipedia – included are links to the campaign sites.
Here is some information about the national press not covering climate issues, which seems to suit the candidates just fine.