Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Believe it or not, it is possible to discuss the energy and climate policy differences between the Republican and Democratic candidates without mentioning a certain Alaskan governor, of whom we've all heard far too much already. So let's get down to it.
First, we have John McCain's recent backsliding on energy policy. There was a time when he was at least somewhat open to the idea of embracing the mission of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and leading the shift to clean renewables. But as has been ably pointed out by others, something has changed, leaving us with three explanations: 1) McCain was never serious about the ecological threat posed by climate change or the national security threat posed by imported petroleum products but used them to bolster his "maverick" reputation; 2) He was once serious but has since changed his mind; or 3) He still cares a lot, is using simplistic slogans like "drill here, drill now" to help him win the White House and will return to reason once there. I can think of no other viable theories.
For those who rank energy and climate policies at the top of their priority list, options 1 and 2 disqualify McCain for consideration for the presidency, and option 3 disqualifies him for being untrustworthy regardless of your policy preferences. As the New York Times' Thomas Friedman wrote last week, "McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate." See also Grist's summary of his convention acceptance speech, which contained not a single mention of climate change.
That leaves us with the question of whether Barack Obama's ostensible commitment to seeing us through the remaining seven or eight years we have left to put the energy transformation in gear is genuine. In other words, is Obama just another politician who thinks of climate change as nothing more than:
...the younger brother that your mother makes you take to the movie when you're about to go with your friends when you're a teenager and have a good time and you're really not happy about it and you're irritated about it and, if you can, drop him off somewhere along with way will and pick him up later. (That from Joseph Aldy of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements in a recent Nature podcast.)Well, his campaign website is chock-a-block full of relavitely well-explored positions, policy specifics and numbers. More revealing, however, are his answers to two of the 14 questions posed to him and McCain by the Science Debate 2008 group. Here's part of his response to the question of what he'd try to do about greenhouse-gas emissions:
I will implement a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. I will start reducing emissions immediately by establishing strong annual reduction targets with an intermediate goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.His acknowledgment of the need to begin bringing down emissions immediately is telling. While no one knows for certain just how close we are to climate tipping points — or for that matter whether or not we've already passed one of more of them — Bill McGuire's guess that emissions must start falling no later than 2015 is as good as guess as anyone's. On that point, Obama seems to understand the dire consequences of delay.
His answers on energy are a bit more complex. While it is theoretically possible to reduce our emissions without ramping up renewables dramatically, relying on efficiency and conservation strategies alone is a risky proposition. And yet Obama sets very modest target for renewables: "10 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025."
Compare that with Al Gore's challenge of getting rid of all fossil-fuel-generated electricity by 2018. The end of the next presidential term may not seem like all that far away, but a mere 10 percent by then seems like chump change. Surely we can do better. And if we're not significantly further along the road than 25 percent by 2025, we can pretty much kiss the current climate goodbye. This is why James Hansen would place a moratorium on all new non-CCS coal-fired plants in the U.S., shut the existing ones down by 2020, and do the same in the rest of the world by 2030.
So does Obama really understand what it's going to take to avoid the really bad stuff that's in the pipeline? I'd have to say he pays more than lip service to it, although at this point it's unclear whether he has the courage to lead us where we need to go, as quickly as we need to get there. It not, then it probably doesn't make a difference who wins in November. But at least there's a decent chance with Obama, and you can't say the same of McCain.
Environment
Comments
I also wish Obama would put more HEART into his green position. But at least both he and Biden seem to believe in SCIENCE ... and that is a really important first step. I wish he could say he would have Friedman, Gore, Lovins and others like them as advisors.
Fred in Herndon, VA
Posted by: Fred Moore | September 8, 2008 9:04 PM
"This is why James Hansen would place a moratorium on all new non-CCS coal-fired plants in the U.S., shut the existing ones down by 2020, and do the same in the rest of the world by 2030."
The US and Europe? Maybe. China and India? Good luck.
Posted by: Matt Springer | September 8, 2008 10:57 PM
I see no reason to encourage denialism. When your political support comes from oil and coal companies, you do what the oil and coal companies want, regardless of what you may believe. Furthermore, you had better figure out a way to believe something compatible with what you will certainly find yourself doing.
Regardless of who wins, we have a global disaster on our hands. If McCain wins, we must work against it while being undermined by the U.S. federal government; if Obama wins, we must work against it with perhaps some indifferent help. Either way, our work is clear. Politics is a distraction.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | September 9, 2008 2:48 AM
Matt's pessimism regarding China, India et al. is understandable. But we do have some leverage against them. A 'carbon tariff' could be levied upon goods from countries that emit too much carbon. I know there are plenty of factors involved, but we as a country need to become a leader in this area.
Posted by: darth | September 9, 2008 9:07 AM
The offshore drilling song.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | September 9, 2008 9:37 AM
"But at least both he and Biden seem to believe in SCIENCE..."
There's that phrase again, "believe" in science...can we stop playing into the creationists' hands with such phrasing? How about "understand the importance of the scientific data " or maybe "realize the facts as brought out by the science"?
After all, we're looking at the data and surmising the implications of the data, not believing in a religion called Scientism. This is the Fundies primary assertion about science and phrases like "believe in science" come across as statements that prove their assertion is true inside the scientific community.
If they can push that point over on the American public (and to a large degree they already have), it's an easy step to say that climate change is also just a belief, and you don't have to believe in it.
Big Oil and Coal will be your BFF if you help them push that propaganda. And McCain and his sidekick the Lipsticked Pit Bull understand that quite well.
Posted by: yogi-one | September 9, 2008 11:36 AM
Yogi-one brings up a fine distinction in the rhetoric, but he fails to understand its consequences. "Believe in science" is absolutely the correct wording.
You can look at data and surmise implications all you want, but acting on that data or surmise entails an act of belief: i.e. that the surmise is correct, or at least worth acting on. It's an essential act of faith because it assumes the legitimacy (which I am not disputing) of scientific methodology. I agree that science is useful. I agree that it is necessary. Hell, I even believe that science the most valid way of gaining new knowledge. But science calls for one to strive for objectivity and to question all assumptions. I would be a poor scientist indeed if I failed to question the assumptions on which my belief is based by failing to admit that any such belief exists. Awkward rhetoric like "understand the importance of the scientific data" and "realize the facts as brought out by the science" only obscure the truth that science is something to be believed in.
Perhaps if those of us that do believe in science would acknowledge this truth and stop acting (and yes, believing) as if it were something to be taken completely for granted, it would help us in the ongoing struggle against fundamentalism and other forms of closed-mindedness which we often empower by underestimating.
Posted by: Scientism's Acolyte | September 9, 2008 5:50 PM
I'm not quite so pessimistic about Obama's low 'targets'. If the carbon tax / cap and trade is more than a pittance and will increase predictably (not just be shot down by the next pres or congress), then it should do 90% of the job regardless of what the energy source mix the government requires in the power they buy (which really is all the targets are).
What targets do provide is a good minimum baseline of guaranteed demand. Higher would be better, of course, but the goal is to make alternative energy competitive and have it meet much more than than just the demand the government has direct control over.
Posted by: travc | September 10, 2008 12:43 AM
CCS (after perusing the wikipedia entry) does not seem to be a permanent solution for the expense involved. All that sequestering only pushes the problem off into some vague IPCC likely or very likely future and actually requires the use of more fossil fuels for the same power output.
Try again.
Posted by: Oldfart | September 10, 2008 5:55 AM
During the last 8 years the environment got shoved off the back burner, and many Americans are adamantly denying that any change is even remotely acceptable. Republican strategists have fear mongered people into thinking that anything good for the climate is bad for the economy. They have the Sarah Palin view of climate change.
To win the election, a full green policy would not easily sell in the USA. McCain tossed green out. Obama keeps green in but takes care to not over play this beyond what people will accept. I suspect that during his first year he will "discover" that renewable energy can be incorporated into the grid in larger and larger amounts, then work his way up to mostly renewables, with very limited reliance on fossil fuels.
I would not be surprised to see Obama and Hu having a contest to see which country could produce more wind power over the next year(looser buys dinner).
Posted by: John Taylor | September 16, 2008 4:15 AM