My latest DeSmogBlog piece is now up--as I say, I'm surprisingly optimistic that a lot of the GOP candidates actually seem to take global warming at least somewhat seriously. Except for the real right wingers. Anyway, can you believe Mike Huckabee said the following?
"We ought to be moving rapidly towards energy sources that don't have a greenhouse gas effect. Aggressively set the goal that within a ten year period, we should move a way from a fossil fuel culture to one that has alternative energy resources."
You can read the entire piece here.
Mike Huckabee makes the most sense to me overall in this given group of Republicans.
Re Mike Huckabee:
I've heard him on the radio ("Wait, Wait! Don't Tell Me" on NPR). He's got a terrific sense of humor, and he has a quick wit.
But he doesn't accept the theory of evolution. Just imagine what he could do to science and education if he becomes the next "decider."
We have to be a bit careful about what these floks who tout "alternative energy" for energy independence mean. It often includes climate busting sources such as coal to liquids, oil shale, and tar sands, as well as the greener variety.
Speaking of ANWR, this is one issue I part from the liberal view. I've felt that we need to drill there -not because it might supply 5% of our oil needs, but actually because the paltry 5% increment might actually force the wing-nutters to admit that we can't drill ourselves to oil independence. I'm beginning to think I may be wrong about the psychology though, maybe these folks are so fargone that even that demonstration wouldn't bring them around. In any case I long thought that a grand compromise on ANWR, with say at least a $10/barrel fee going to alt energy/conservation might be a net positive for the environment.
Chris -- In your DeSmog piece, you helpfully link to this summary of the candidate's positions. Did you notice that none of the Democrat candidates have stated any interest in expanding nuclear energy? What does that say about the seriousness of their commitment to reducing carbon emissions?
If we harvested your organs, and distributed them among people who need transplants, I think that would probably be a net positive for the electorate.
So, do you support this course of action?
caledonian your comment seems inappropriate. The net environmental harm from ANWR would be small, not catastrophic. If we were to charge a high price for the oil, and make sure the fees went to an increase (and not a diversion from other funding) in conservation and green energy programs the result could on net be quite positive. In any case I think the time for this compromise was several years ago, I don't think it will be likely during the next decade. In any case, oil in the ground will only get more valuable with time (and less disruptive extraction technology as well), so delaying the extraction for a few decades isn't such a bad thing.
I find myself agreeing with Neuro- if Global Warming is such a big problem that it warrants the huge costs of switching off Oil than they should be happy to look at Nuclear power. At the moment, it just seems they are pandering to the netroots.
"Chimpy" writes, agreeing with Neuro:
Is this another "If you're not with us, you're against us" proposition?
I'm looking for a nuanced position on nuclear power, one that recognizes concerns like proliferation, waste disposal, and public safety in case of accidents, as well as considers the benefits to our economy -- we can sell a lot of reactors to China -- and reducing CO2.
I'm a Democrat who happens to think that nuclear belongs on the list of possible solutions because those negatives can be addressed, but I would put it at lower priority than other technologies
I haven't heard Democratic candidates discussing it much, perhaps because they all see its pluses and minuses. It's not the kind of issue that resonates in the primary.
Well, is it not to early to fault the Republican canidates for seeming to hard lined on the issue of CO2 emmisions when they are trying to plat to there base as well? If we are going to be examining the GOP side of things, I think it is only fair to apply the same scrutiny to the Democrats.