With the first presidential caucus and primaries only a few weeks away many undecided voters are scrambling to make up their minds. These undecided voters may still have many questions about the candidates, and their positions on the issues. The goal of this article is to put to rest any questions voters might still have about the candidates' positions on two issues related to global warming: greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and the Kyoto Protocol.
The United States must take immediate action to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions if the worst consequences of global warming are to be avoided. The countries that have signed Kyoto have committed to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2012. The U.S. signed, but never ratified this agreement. If the U.S. were to ratify Kyoto, it would be making a committment to reduce GHG emissions to a level 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Furthermore, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would show the rest of the world that the U.S. is serious about fighting global warming. Right now the U.S. is the only industrialized country in the world that is not participating in Kyoto, despite the fact that our country is responsible for producing around 20 percent of the world's total GHG emissions annually.
The following summary provides information about the specific goals each candidate has set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also provides information about each of the candidate's positions on the Kyoto Protocol, or lack there of.
Barack Obama's Plan:
GHG emissions: Obama's plan to fight global warming calls for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The plan also calls for the U.S. to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
The Kyoto Protocol: Obama's plan does mention Kyoto at one point: "Obama will build on our domestic commitments by creating a negotiating process that involves a smaller number of countries than the nearly 200 countries in the current Kyoto system. Obama will create a Global Energy Forum - based on the G8+5, which included all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa - of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues."
More information: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
Hillary Clinton's Plan
GHG emissions: Clinton's plan also calls for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
Kyoto Protocol: Her plan makes no mention of the Kyoto Protocol.
More information: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
John Edwards:
Side note: The League of Conservation voters has called Edward's plan to fight climate change "...the most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date."
GHG emissions: The Edwards plan calls for a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. It also calls for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050.
Kyoto Protocol: Edwards' plan makes no mention of the Kyoto Protocol.
More information: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
Bill Richardson's Plan:
GHG emissions: Richardson's plan calls for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, by 80 percent by 2040, and by 90 percent by 2050.
Kyoto Protocol: Richardson's plan makes no mention of the Kyoto Protocol.
More information: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy
Dennis Kucinich's Plan:
GHG emissions: Supports the goals contained in the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for the U.S. to reduce GHG emissions to a level 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Kucinich also supports the goals outlined in HR 1590, the Safe Climate Act of 2007. The act provides the following goals for GHG emissions reduction: "(1) In 2010, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions shall not exceed the quantity of United States greenhouse gases projected to be emitted in 2009. (2) Beginning in 2011, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced by approximately 2 percent each year, such that the quantity of such emissions in 2020 does not exceed the quantity of United States greenhouse gases emitted in 1990. (3) Beginning in 2021, the quantity of United States greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced by approximately 5 percent each year, such that the quantity of such emissions in 2050 does not exceed 20 percent of the quantity of United States greenhouse gases emitted in 1990."
Kyoto Protocol: As president, Kucinich would support U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
For more information: http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-sustainable-future/
Chris Dodd:
GHG emmissions: Dodd's plan calls for an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. It also calls for the realization of the following short and mid-range goals: "By 2020, the U.S. must reduce its emissions by 15% of 80 percent below 1990 levels; by 2040, emissions must be reduced by 2/3 of 80 percent; and by 2050, emissions must be reduced to a level that is 80 percent."
Kyoto Protocol: No mention of the Kyoto Protocol.
More information: http://chrisdodd.com/issues/energy_independence
Joe Biden:
GHG emissions: Biden's plan calls for reducing GHG emissions to a level 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Kyoto Protocol: No mention of the Kyoto Protocol.
For more information: http://www.joebiden.com/issues?id=0011
What do you think of the Democratic candidates' goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions? What about the fact that only one of the Democratic candidates for president supports ratifying of the Kyoto Protocol? Is the issue of global warming important to you as a voter?
Our World is published weekly to Gather.com by David Anderson. David is one of Gather's political correspondents. The focus of the column is on environmental politics. David is also a political science graduate student. You can see past editions of the column by clicking here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
Kyoto may be flawed, but it must be addressed in the next administration. I understand candidates not wanting to single issue their foreign policy (which this could do), but they should speak to it once the primaries are over.
Research is happening as a matter of course. What is urgently needed now is rapid deployment of existing technologies.
Energy is the most important issue in this election. It impacts all other major issues: global warming and quasi-natural disasters, the economy and jobs, foreign policy and mideast "resource" wars, environment and public health, and even education and increased study of sciences and math.
Not really. Wind energy has already become cost-competitive with natural gas in some areas of the country. Many businesses and residences are opting for wind power, even at slightly higher prices, because utilities can give them a 10 year fixed price. That is a more attractive option than dealing with uncertainties of natural gas price spikes.
Solar energy is still mostly cost prohibitive without subsidies, which several states offer. Solar is doing very well, for example, in California, where "solar homes" are selling very well, despite a depressed housing market. Also, I've seen two separate sources forecast that solar will be cost-competitive within most U.S. locations within a decade. Much more is happening than is reported in the mainstream media.
Douglas: "Hybrids most people cant afford."
Toyota Prius just keeps on going
"...the Prius is selling at a pace any car company would call hugely successful. Of all hybrid vehicles sold in America so far this year, more than half were Priuses and, thanks to increased production, Prius sales this year are up 76 percent so far this year."
"The Prius is the company's third best-selling car here so far this year. With sales of 124,620 cars, it ranks behind only the Camry (324,000 cars) and Corolla (262,000)."
Douglas: "Lets say we all start driving electric cars. Well that means we need more electric power plants...."
Well, I'd rather go with hydrogen fuel cell cars. There's enough wind energy in the Dakotas alone to produce enough hydrogen to run every transportation vehicle in the U.S.
Winning the Oil Endgame (p.240).
Douglas: "Lip service wont save panet earth. Like Ronald Reagan said put up or shut up; show me the money."
Alot of private investments are flowing into renewables. Widespread deployment of renewables would happen faster with better incentives, which is what you'd expect more from democrats than republicans - note the energy bill that just passed. A couple of excellent sources for developments in renewables and efficiencies are:
The Rocky Mountain Institute
Renewable Energy Access
There are many problems with cap-and-trade approaches, and Sam Carana has made a good case for a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade approach.
Douglas: "Creating a New Energy Economy Fund by...repealing subsidies for big oil companies."
That was one of the sticking points for senate republicans and w. re: the energy bill. They weren't about to repeal those subsidies for oil and coal companies.
Douglas: "Meeting the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity."
Efficiency + renewables is called micropower, and it's the fastest growing energy solution worldwide. A couple of good articles on this:
What Can We Do?
More in depth:
A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition
Instead I find this great little compilation of the candidates' positions and policy plans regarding green house gas emissions, and what they have (or don't have) to say about the Kyoto Protocol.
Good one. Thanks.
According to my calculations, Douglas, electric cars emit only half the CO2 of a conventional car, even when the electricity that powered these electric cars came from coal-fired power plants. Furthermore, electric cars could be recharged at night from idle capacity in the current power grid.
Also, electric cars may cost more at the moment to buy, but people spend more on consumables (gasoline, maintenance, insurance, etc) than on purchase and finance cost. The cost of driving an electric car is far less than the cost of driving a gasoline car.
I agree, and your comparison to the Apollo space program is exactly right. That's why I keep presenting information about energy efficient and renewable technologies, because those are the solutions.
This article presents information about the commitments presidential candidates have to this issue. Also, The League of Conservation Voters has just released their voters guide on global warming.
On the topic of Kyoto, I am of mixed views. On one hand, it is sort of a mark of seriousness- if you are unwilling to take a position on it, is that being a chicken? On the other hand it is sort of last week's news in a sense. We were just talking in Bali about what needs to Follow Kyoto- something that will be implemented not only by industrial nations, but also by the developing world- no exceptions, no whining about the other guy, just getting down to business. The USA is so far behind Kyoto, thanks to George W. Bush and Congress, that we have no real prospect of catching up short term. Long term could be very different, but that
Its a bit of blindfolded poker, this holding presidential candidates to their word. If you listened to GWB back in 2000, you would have figured that he was willing to take strong action on climate change, whater means necessary. that lasted maybe a week; the first chat he had with cheney, no more good intentions, its payback Exxon time. So it's not only What they Say, but also, can you actually Believe what they Say.
The big question, of course, is not whether they have written down some sort of "plan", because frankly it doesn't take too much effort to present some sort of plan during an election season. The real question is whether any of these policy statements can be translated into reality. The short answer is no. In part because setting some sort of benchmark that cannot be implemented is a sham. What really is needed from our future president is a commitment to work with Congress, with the scientific community, with the international and supranational political and scientific communities, and with the public at large to show the leadership necessary to make real change actually happen. I'm still looking for that person who has the right combination of leadership capacity, experience, and vision to make things happen in a world where we have come to expect Congressional inaction and Executive ideology.
Chris W. - I think Kyoto is still very relevant. For one thing it calls on countries to meet their targets for GHG emissions reduction between 2008 and 2012. In terms of the Bali process Kyoto matters because U.S. obstructionism sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world. In addition, the implementation of Kyoto was one of the big topics up for discussion at Bali, and the U.S. had no role to play in those discussions. While the U.S. is looking towards future agreements the rest of the world remains focused on the current one, Kyoto.
I have to agree with those who are concerned most of the candidates' plans provide long term goals, but have little to say about the near future. How exactly any of the candidates can ensure that reductions will take place 10-40 years from now, when they would no longer be president, is beyond me. There is nothing wrong with setting such goals, but how about some focus on the 2009-2013, period, when the candidate will actually be in office?
I have noticed a lot of people saying that John Edwards would support Kyoto. I think this is correct, yet he makes no mention of it in his plan. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate who has made supporting Kyoto the centerpiece of his plan to fight global warming.
I do not mean to belittle Edward's plan, which is admirable. But in terms of the short term it provides no concrete goals for GHG emissions reduction until 2020. Kucinich's plan to implement Kyoto embodies a commitment to reduce emissions by 7 percent by 2012.
If you want to talk about weather though, here in central Virginia we set new high temperatures twice. The first day was in August when we reached 104 degrees. The second day was here in December, when we reached 78 degrees. Not exactly a cold wave, the year 2007. It was definitely in the top ten hot years ever measured here.
I think you've hit on something here. The US has expertise, dollars, and need to make this work (global inter-dependence for trade is fine, but security is based, in part, on independence). What the business community seems to lack is a reason to invest in the future, which means diverting some profits today.
Commitment requires looking beyond greed.
Looking forward to the Republican summary, David.
We must have a progressive candidate rather than the Centerist Lady and her past president, whose programs that pleased the Republicans enough to get passed have now come home to roost and women with children are on the streets.
NAFTA... need I say more? Bush bragged about fashioning CAFTA after NAFTA. What does that tell you about those plans, if Neo Cons adore them?
Obama has carisma to match Bill's but wait.. he needed "more time" for concrete plans, especially health care. And he's got all Bill's old advisors ready to trot out more of the same. Deliver us from Centerists and lead us in the paths of progressive, inclusive government for our sanity's sake. Nobody taught them you can't please all of the people any of the time.
Great and informative article, thank you. We DO need action sooner rather than later but we need both because sooner solutions are not nearly as good as later solutions that are not fully operational yet. Conservation of our resources is one answer as well.
For those of you in Iowa and New Hampshire, please seriously consider John Edwards.
Thanks!
Merry Christmas! Happy Holidays!
ho!ho!ho!
I saw Obama last week in Portsmouth. I felt he had a sincere desire to stop Global Warming. I am keeping my options open.
Thanks again.
In considering Obama, keep in mind he supports coal liquidification and nuclear, two of the most destructive environmental directions to take re: energy. Yes, keep your options open - there are better choices!
Kyoto is inadequate, and it's the wrong approach, IMO. While capping CO2 might help, the long-term solution is to transfer our entire economic structure to a renewable energy foundation. It is a fallacy that that can't be done, or that it can't be done relatively quickly, or that fossils/nuclear energy are indispensable.
Economy is not looking good, and we need someone who can just deliver it !
Who Can Deliver the goods?
Hairstyles For Square Faces
Conquering Your Fear
I don't mean to answer for David, but on the issue of global warming, The League of Conservation Voters has issued a voter's guide for all the candidates. David also has indicated that he will write an article this week (?) for the republicans candidates.
Thanks again David amd good luck getting anything but fear out of the Republicans.