2008 presidential Democratic candidates' environmental plans
H= Hillary and B= Barak (duh...) H: Industries pay for GHG emissions 100% B: Industries pay for GHG emissions 100% H: Reduce GHG emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 B: Reduce GHG emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 H: 25% of electricity from alternative energy by 2025 B: 25% of electricity from alternative energy by 2025 H: Funding 10 "smart grid" cities* B: Invest in a digital "smart grid"** H: All new fed buildings have to be carbon neutral after January 2009 B: Reducing electricity demand 20% by 2020; making all new buildings carbon neutral; improving energy efficiency 50% in new buildings and 25% in existing by 2030 H: $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund & $150 for green energy research funding B: $150 b invested in clean energy switchover; double green energy research money from current levels H: Get away from nuclear plants B: Use of clean coal plant H: 60 b gallons of biofuel for vehicles by 2030 B: 60 b gallons of biofuel to be in use by 2030 H: Cars 55 mpg standard by 2030 B: Double car fuel economy standards by 2026 B: Address and reduce deforestation & promote carbon sequestration with incentives for farmers and "forest owners" *Hillary’s smart grid is a city where there is peak demand has protection against blackouts; there are plug ins for hybrids (wassup wit plug-in hybrids? Why not simply, plug in vehicles, as have already been in the past?) as well as making other green technology easier to use. **Barak’s smart grid is referring to the grid of electrical power that connects cities where renewable energy is a part of the grid and more accessible. They are nearly the same, even the numbers and years. My problems with the plans are as follows: Couldn't they have been more creative? As well as, SOMEBODY is copying off someone else's test paper. I feel like a high school teacher who caught someone cheating. Biofuels produce CO2 & take up a lot of room to grow. Stop acting like they are the answer, unless they can come up with something that is super duper presto whammo biofuel. They should only be used for mass transportation if necessary. 55 mpg as well as double the current standard for car fuel efficiency, is still pathetic. With technology even as it is today, this should be much higher in the future. If you want to use coal, tell it like it is. It produces CO2 and unless you capture its emissions, don’t act like it’s a good thing to use it when you are trying to reduce GHG. If you are going to promote the use of electric cars, go for it and promote completely electric ones. The hybrids produced now do just fine with recharging their own batteries and switching over to fuel. You do not need to plug them in. This is just people who obviously do not know how a bloody hybrid works, apparently, writing this stuff. Dang. The good stuff: 100% industry responsibility for producing GHG rocks. Nuclear plants do suck for environmental reasons, as well as, they don’t really make a profit even. Sod the "smart grid" thing. If you are going for a better system, make the power system for the whole damn country work. And quit using corny catch phrases. (no one ever really keeps those catch phrase promises anyway, do they? Shut up.) The real answer: Make the oil industry pay for what it has done. It’s kinda like the cigarette companies making ciggies more addictive and then our being able to sue them for getting cancer. They lobbied for the ability to have bigger cars and SUVs. They lobbied against greener technology for many years. Make them pay for ALL the research as well as all the money needed to build greener cities, power plants, etc. They can afford it: they made more money than any other industry, what the past 2 years and running?
Comments