Democrats Offer Plans for Climate Change

By Renee Schoof

WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on the basics of global warming. Both believe scientists’ warnings that it poses a catastrophic threat. Both demand urgent action, and both think there’s still hope of escaping the worst consequences through technological advances, developing new energy sources and sharply reducing pollution.

In speeches and papers on their Web sites, the Democratic presidential candidates spell out what they’d do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the country’s energy supplies more secure. Both embrace the emission reduction goals that the world’s scientists agree must be reached by mid-century to give the planet a chance to avoid irreversible climate dislocation.

Some economists say it’s too tall an order. Obama and Clinton acknowledge that they’re counting on some technologies that don’t exist yet. But both say that their detailed plans, combined with a mighty mobilization akin to the nation’s entry into World War II, will get the country on track to lead the world in doing what must be done.

While key parts of their plans are similar, each candidate offers some new ideas.

“We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that have touched the lives of millions across the planet,” Obama said in his key energy speech. “And when that planet is challenged or when it is threatened, the eyes of the world have always turned to this nation as the ‘last, best hope of Earth.’”

“This is the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation,” Clinton said when she rolled out her energy plan in Iowa. “It is a challenge to our economy, to our security, to our health and to our planet, and it’s time for America to meet it.”

The next president will face a leadership test next year, when the world’s countries, including China and India, try to set up a new international system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and energy companies, declined to comment on the Democrats’ individual plans, but he said that the task before them is huge and complex.

The U.S. is tightly integrated into global markets. It imports 60 percent of its oil and is on track to import significantly more natural gas than it is now, Yergin said.

“The major issue is how we manage our energy security and how we ensure we have resilience, how we have diversification, the importance of our relations with our suppliers, while at the same time maintaining this increased commitment to energy research and development. … For the foreseeable future we’re going to be a significant importer of energy,” he said.

Obama’s and Clinton’s plans look beyond the near term and cover many parts of an emerging shift to how energy is produced and used.

Neither candidate rules out nuclear energy, although both warn that problems of waste storage and security must be worked out. Obama says it’s unlikely that the world can meet climate goals without nuclear power. Clinton opposes new subsidies for nuclear power but supports more research to improve safety.

Another uncertainty is how they’d handle pressure for new conventional coal plants, the source of half the nation’s electricity and much of its greenhouse gas emissions. Both want to speed development of a system to capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, and store it permanently underground.

But that system is years off. Cambridge Energy Research Associates reported that “even in the best case, carbon capture and storage is at least two decades away from meaningful deployment.”

Originally published by McClatchy Newspapers.

(c) 2008 Sunday Gazette – Mail; Charleston, W.V.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.