election

What Will McCain and Obama Do About Nuclear Power?

jplatt — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:34:26 -0400

When it comes to the environment, few topics cause as much debate and friction as nuclear energy.

On the one hand, nuclear energy is relatively clean, creating no emissions and running at relatively low cost.

On the other hand, the byproducts of nuclear energy production take hundreds of years to become safe. They pose security questions, and no one seems to want the waste stored in the backyards.

Energy policies are obviously critical to this election, so it might come as a surprise to you that both candidates are actually pro-nuke.

Both McCain and Obama told ScienceDebate2008.com that nuclear power is critical to this country's ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. Says Obama, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option."

But Obama takes a hard-line look at nuclear security: "However," he says, "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation."

As for McCain, he tells ScienceDebate2008.com it's time to "recommit" to nuclear energy. He says he will "put the country on track" to build 45 new reactors in the next 20 years. Obviously, that's well past any term he would serve, but if he puts the investment in during his time in office, it's unlikely that any future administration would pull the plug.

So how about the issue of nuclear waste storage? Writing on his web site, Obama says he does "not believe that the current Yucca Mountain site is suitable." He promises to develop requirements for waste storage "using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available." McCain has historically been pro-Yucca Mountain, but he has also called for the creation of an "international" site, although he has also suggested opening an international center overseas to store nuclear waste. (In other words, "Not in my backyard.")

So how do you feel about nuclear power? Will either candidates' position sway your vote? Let us know!

What Will McCain and Obama Do About Plug-In Hybrids?

jplatt — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:00:00 -0400

With four weeks to go until the presidential election, it's time to start thinking about the potential impact that Barak Obama and John McCain will have on the environment over the next four years. One area where both candidates see a future is in hybrid vehicles.

Each candidate has expressed a desire to bring plug-in hybrid cars off the drawing boards and into our garages.

McCain's plan is simpler, and hinges on the thought that plug-in prototypes are not quite ready for prime time. McCain told ScienceDebate2008.org: that he would create a "$300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. -- a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency – and curb the dangerous effects of global climate change."

Obama, on the other hand, is ready to start buying hybrid vehicles right now. According to his web site, Obama wants to use government buying power to jump-start the commercial market for plug-in hybrids. He promises to convert all White House vehicles to plug-in hybrids within one year (as long as that doesn't create any security issues). After that, he says he'll mandate that half of all new vehicles annually purchased by the government are plug-ins in just four years.

Obama's energy platform promises a $150 billion investment over 10 years which will, among other things, "accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids." He wants to put a million plug-in hybrids on the road in seven years, and will push for a $7,000 tax credit to help make that happen. He also promises $4 billion in "retooling tax credits" to manufacturers so they can be ready to put plug-ins on the road and repair them.

Interestingly, neither the Green Party nor its candidate Cynthia McKinney appear to have a specific policy about hybrid vehicles.

Top 10 Signs You’re Not Running a Green Campaign

kbutler — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

In this workaday world, it’s hard to please all voters on all issues. And green candidates have their work cut out for them. The following is a tell-tale list of signs that might make green voters reconsider their options.

TOP TEN SIGNS YOU’RE NOT RUNNING A GREEN CAMPAIGN

10. Your slogan is: “Trees are lame.”

9. You’ve pledged a bigger, better, smokier Industrial Revolution for America.

8. Your only endorsement is from a former director of FEMA.

7. You say things like “We’re good. It’s not like there really is a Mother Earth.”

6. The only people who have heard of you live on Superfund sites.

5. You’ve made the Nature Conservancy very upset. And you don’t want to see the Nature Conservancy very upset.

4. You have to ask your spouse to stand beside you when 60 Minutes discovers a cache of whale oil, several endangered pandas, and billions of dollars from an oil company buried in your back yard.

3. In the debates, you ignored all questions with the words “save” “the” and “earth” in them.

2. Your campaign promises to show the positives of global warming. “After all, who really likes winter?”

1. Your plan for economic recovery makes people glow.

Want to learn more about Eco-Politics?

Check Out Obama’s Global Warming Plan

See What McCain Will Do About Climate Change

Hillary Clinton on the Environment

New Report: Doubts Grow About Global Warming

There’s More Than One Way to Hug a Tree

Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall… Who’s the Greenest President of Them All?

The Primary Issue

scleaver — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

January15^th was Michigan’s primary day. The number one issue here in Michigan is the economy, which got me thinking: should the number one issue in Michigan be food? And what if it was?

As a whole, Michigan is just starting to maximize its local food potential. Farmers are just starting to market their local produce in grocery stores, and consumers are learning how to choose a Michigan apple over one from, say, Argentina. Researching an article about local food over the summer, I came upon some interesting statistics, some of which, I imagine, relate to other states as well:

As the auto economy slows, agriculture could save Michigan. Cars bring in around $80 billion each year, food is a close second, at $60 billion. And, the state has agricultural diversity that’s second only to California. Suffice it to say that it’s not far fetched to think that Michigan could soon be known as much for its blueberries and food tourism as for the Big Three.

Even now, if each of us in the state spent $10 a week on Michigan products, whether that’s honey or apples or crafts, we’d put $36 million back into the state’s economy each week—no small change for a state still recovering from a budget crisis. To break it down a different way, if one of our meals in every ten came from the local food system, we could support all the farmers in the country successfully—without big corporations or farm subsidies.

Looking at local food, we also need to invest in our farms. We currently lose about eight acres of farmland each minute, and by 2040, we’ll likely lose 71% of our mid-sized farms, those between 50 and 499 acres.

There is good news. Sales are increasing, according to the Select Michigan campaign, in 2004 sales of Michigan foods increased 8.6% at Meijer and Spartan stores in Grand Rapids and Detroit. The fresh asparagus market has increased, from selling 5% of their crop to grocery stores in 2002 to 25% in 2005.

As the race heats up, it’ll be interesting to see if this issue even gets addressed in Michigan, and nationwide. In the meantime, off to the ballot.