The Green Glance | Election frontrunners finally address environmental issues

Nathan Zucker Opinions Editor

Without a doubt, the two terms of the Bush presidency have been extremely negative from an environmental standpoint. The Bush Administration has denied the threat of global warming, attempted to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and handed America’s natural resources to timber, mining and energy companies. Fortunately, the 2008 presidential election promises change; all of the frontrunners have been discussing significant reforms that will benefit the planet’s health. Although some of these environmentalist efforts appear sincere, it is naïve to assume that the candidates are as green as they claim.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer similar solutions to society’s ecological and energy woes. Both candidates want to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2050; this is in line with what climatologists think is necessary to prevent global warming’s worst effects. They propose to do this through increased fuel economy standards, an industrial cap-and-trade system, ecologically-designed buildings and new research into alternative energy. The two Democrats are also set on creating a “green” economy, one that will emphasize both prosperity and sustainability. Overall, Clinton and Obama receive an endorsement of over 90 percent from the League of Conservation Voters, an environmentalist organization that rates candidates based on how their voting record affects ecological well-being.

Although all of this sounds quite impressive, that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of skeletons in Clinton and Obama’s environmental closets. Both candidates have extensive connections to the coal industry, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Clinton has been heavily endorsed by America’s Power, a coal advocacy organization that attempts to convince the public that coal is much cleaner than it really is. Obama is closely linked to southern Illinois’s coal industry and has stated that his administration will continue to expand this business.

Most environmentalists want a complete moratorium on the construction of new coal plants. This is especially important because the coal industry hasn’t yet figured out how to sequester its excessive carbon emissions. However, Clinton and Obama have not agreed to such a moratorium, instead relying on the distant promise of cleaner coal, one that may be years away from realization. In effect, the two Democrats will allow the industry to continue to pollute the environment while claiming that clean coal is “in the works.”

John McCain, the clear frontrunner in the Republican race, has presented himself as an environmentalist candidate as well. Indeed, he has broken with the rank-and-file of his party on many ecological issues, coming out in favor of addressing climate change and preserving open space. McCain sees himself as the carrier of Theodore Roosevelt’s conservationist legacy; he views environmental protection as a “patriotic responsibility.”

However, McCain’s actual policies leave something to be desired. He supports cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2050, a much less ambitious plan than that which has been endorsed by the Democrats. According to leading scientists, such a small reduction in emissions would probably not be enough to turn the tide on global warming, although it would certainly be better than nothing. McCain has also failed to offer a specific plan for increasing fuel efficiency standards or supporting renewable energy.

Furthermore, McCain is a supporter of the mythical idea of “clean coal” and is also a proponent of liquifying coal for use as gasoline, a process known to consume excessive amounts of energy. He has also proposed a climate bill that would give huge subsidies to the controversial nuclear power industry, one that has been propped up by the government for far too long. Helping nuclear plants this much could reduce the incentive to develop sustainable technologies such as wind and solar.
Clearly, the mainstream candidates in the 2008 election are far from tree-huggers, but they have all made at least some commitment to protect the environment. They should be applauded for this commitment, which is a dramatic change from Bush’s “do nothing” policies. With the right amount of prodding, perhaps a new president will lead America to a sustainable future after all.

—Nathan Zucker ’10, a Latin American Studies major, is writing about environmental issues that affect both the Vassar community and the world at large.