Hippies for Hillary

Well, after a sad review of the current candidates’ websites, I have come to the conclusion that a one Mrs. Hillary Clinton has risen to the top for her environmental concerns and solutions. Check out the sites for yourself [Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Barack Obama], but here’s what I like that Hillary’s got:

1. Her Strategic Energy Fund (SEF) will be paid in part by oil companies and will fund alternative energy investment. This isn’t chump change either. It’s $50 billion right out of their pockets and into a cleaner future.

2. Amen to ARPA-E, a research agency like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, but with a focus on the Environment. My question is why has this taken so long to be introduced?

3. The goal of jumpstarting green collar jobs with 20 million low-income homes in order to make them more energy efficient. This is probably my favorite effort of her list - there is a real lack of attention to the low-income families and their access to a green lifestyle. In addition, Hil is suggesting a Connie Mae-style program specifically designed to help low-income homebuyers to buy greener buildings or retrofit their current houses with green improvements.

4. Creation of the National Energy Council to follow through with all of this.

5. And the pièce de résistance: “A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.” Now that one’s little lofty, but frankly, I like it and we need a few lofty ideas.

As a caveat to these points, I must add the following:

1. John McCain had no specifics regarding the environment, so I discounted his site from the get-go since there’s just nothing there.

2. Ralph Nader, however, sort of fits into a different category in his approach, obviously as an independent, he would naturally be different anyway. I like his carbon tax, but other than that, he doesn’t put much focus into the environment. Still, there are a lot of environmental concerns wrapped up in other points that he gets at. For one, in ending corporate personhood, we could avoid much of the environmental degradation that has occurred as a result of weak business regulation. Additionally, with our oil dependence has come a love-hate relationship with the Middle East, which his goal is to remedy. While he outright ruled out Nuclear power, which I think there is still hope in, he is in support of solar energy - certainly promising. I generally like that he has laid out the basic problems of our current government with a hopefulness of bringing about change in 8 years or less. Cheers to that.

3. Barack Obama had some excellent things to say. However, many of his ideas mimicked Hillary’s - not that he copied her answers, but nothing stood out. For instance, his $150 billion investment in alternatives is great, but he forgot the part about oil companies chipping in for 1/3 of that. Also, he’s paving the way for the “clean” coal agenda. Sorry, but no thanks. I like his idea about creating the Global Energy Forum to discuss these issues globally. He’s also right on point about the problems of deforestation, so his idea to encourage farmers to plant trees, etc. - that’s good news. I believe Barack has the best chance for this election, and for the most part, he’s got the right ideas, a rational outlook, and the motivation to make things happen. Still, when I’m being critical of the government for their lack of environmental prowess, I can be a little picky. So really, none of these candidates fits the bill for me on this huge issue. But we have to elect one right? Maybe Barack’s a little better-all-around than Hillary, but she’s at least got the stronger goals on her website. That’s all.

~ by madeleinehawks on March 28, 2008.