Climate change: pick a leader for America!

September 25, 2007 at 3:32 am | Posted in America, BBC, Climate action, Climate change, Democrats, Global warming, Leaders, Polls, Presidential candidates, Republicans, UN, Uncategorized, United Nations, United States | Leave a comment

The New York Times has an Election Guide 2008, to help us understand what the U.S. Presidential candidates stand for on various topics. Climate change is the most important subject from now on, and the NYT has an excellent section covering all The Presidential Candidates on Climate Change.

Below is my slightly edited version e.g. correcting spelling ‘Appolo’ to ‘Apollo’, and grammar ‘THEY SAY’ to ‘HE SAYS’ regardless of the gender of the candidate, and slimming down the HTML code for the table. I rearranged the images for better fit in my narrow post here😉

I hope the table below helps people get a grip on the candidates’ stances (try saying that with a loose tooth), but more than that, we have to take every opportunity to VOTE!

UN HQ NY High-Level Event “The Future in our Hands ~ Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change” 24 September 2007

The debate about what action to take to combat climate change is likely to heat up this week because the United Nations held a special session on climate change at UN Headquarters in New York, High-Level Event “The Future in our Hands: Addressing the Leadership Challenge of Climate Change” on 24 September 2007.

From the BBC article announcing the results of a new Climate change: global poll [PDF 1.02MB] today:

On Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the highest-level UN gathering on climate change that “the time for doubt has passed”.

Mr Ban is hoping to inject a sense of urgency to the political negotiations on global warming that are due to be held in Indonesia in December.

“If we do not act now, the impact of climate change will be devastating,” he said.

Representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, held on the eve of the UN General Assembly.

(President Bush will also hold a two-day summit of “major emitters” at the White House in Washington DC on Friday.)

According to the results of the new Climate change: global poll, conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland between May 29 and July 26, 2007, American public opinion is similar to public opinion in other countries:

United States
Americans agree with most other world publics that human activity contributes significantly to climate change and that major steps should be taken immediately to address the problem. A majority also supports a deal that would provide financial assistance and technology to developing countries that limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Seven in 10 Americans (71%) say that human activity is “a significant cause of climate change.” By a margin of 59 percent to 33 percent, Americans say it is necessary to take “major steps starting very soon” rather than “modest steps over the coming years.” Only 6 percent say “it is not necessary to take any steps.” Three-quarters (75%) agree that “because total emissions from less wealthy countries are substantial and growing, these countries should limit their emissions of climate-changing gases along with wealthy countries.” Similar numbers (70%) support a deal that would provide developing countries with financial assistance and technology in return for an agreement to limit their emissions. Nearly nine in 10 (89%) Americans say they have heard a great deal (59%) or some (30%) about climate change.

Guess who is way out of touch with reality and the views of the American public? (Talk about a “Leadership Challenge”. We have a ‘leadership’ challenge.)

According to today’s NYT:

A growing environmental awareness among Americans has brought the issue to the forefront of the 2008 presidential campaign. Both Republican and Democratic candidates have been asked to explain their stance on global warming during the debates and on the campaign trail:

    • most of the Democrats say the United States should lead the global effort to curb greenhouse emissions and advocate federally mandated emission laws
    • the Republicans, many of whom are unsure about the human role in climate change, tend to emphasize energy independence and efficiency
HIS STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AND AMERICA’S ROLE
IF ELECTED, HE SAYS HE WOULD … HIS PAST ACTIONS ON THE ISSUE

U.S. MUST LEAD GLOBAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSION; WOULD INSTITUTE CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM

The United States, as the strongest nation in the world, must return to a leadership role to solve global warming. Containing greenhouse gas emissions within our own borders is a necessary and important start. … Developing countries — China, India, Mexico, Korea and Brazil — will soon be the greatest source of greenhouse gas pollution. They must be a part of the solution. But we cannot exert pressure on these countries until we take meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions here at home.

Campaign Web site

Institute cap-and-trade system to trade the right to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Regulate emissions and support investment in technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dramatically increase investment in energy and climate change research and technology.

— More information

Joseph R. Biden Jr.Joseph R.
Biden Jr. Democrat

 

Sponsored Senate resolution in 2007 pressing President Bush to curb climate change.

Co-sponsored the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” of 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

U.S. NEEDS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE, SENSIBLE STEPS TO SLOW AND ULTIMATELY REDUCE EMISSIONS

The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: we are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences. We need to take immediate steps to address this problem. Critics contend that action will be too costly, but I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity. By putting the right incentives in place, we will drive American businesses to innovate, creating new products and new jobs. Failing to act is the riskier course to both our environment and our economy.

Statement on a United Nations report on climate change, Feb. 2, 2007

Given the scientific evidence that we have and the potential consequences of continued warming, I strongly believe this nation needs to take sensible first steps to slow and ultimately reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change.

Statement on a United Nations report on climate change, Feb. 2, 2007

Have the United States lead international efforts to address the problem of climate change.

Support policies to reduce carbon emissions and other pollution that contribute to global warming.

Establish a national market-based program to reduce global warming pollution.

Invest in clean energy technologies.

Increase fuel efficiency.

 

More information

Hillary Rodham ClintonHillary Rodham Clinton
Democrat

 

Co-sponsored the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” in 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Co-sponsored the “Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007,” which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050.

Sponsored the “Strategic Energy Fund Act of 2006,” which would have established a $50-billion fund to create a research agency focused on reducing the threat of global warming and to invest in clean energy technologies.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

ADVOCATES ENERGY PLAN THAT FOCUSES EQUALLY ON GLOBAL WARMING AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

I believe that turning back the clock on global warming and reducing our dependence on foreign oil must be dual goals of any commonsense energy plan. Thankfully, there are existing and exciting new technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil while reducing global warming risks. My administration will focus on these technologies.

grist.org, Aug. 2, 2007

Today we have the polar caps melting, we have greenhouse gases that are accumulating at record levels way beyond expectations. We really have the dual responsibility here of reducing the polluting effects of depending upon fossil fuels and also allowing us to develop the alternative technologies that would allow us to move beyond this issue.

CNN debate for Democratic candidates, June 3, 2007

Reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Eliminate U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 2015.

Enact a carbon tax.

Increase efficiency standards for consumer products.

Raise car fuel economy to 50 mpg by 2017.

Impose tough standards for new coal plants.

Increase access to mass transit systems.

More information

Chris DoddChris Dodd
Democrat

 

 

Co-sponsored the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” in 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

U.S. MUST LEAD GLOBAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSION; WOULD SET TARGETS FOR CAPPING GREENHOUSE POLLUTION

I believe America has to lead the way in dealing with the crisis of climate change and global warming. We are four percent of the world’s population, but we emit as much as 25 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. We have no credibility with the rest of the world on this issue right now. We’re the worst polluter on the planet. America needs to lead by example. … We must lead the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries — including developing nations — to reduce their pollution. I will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, by offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.

Scienceblogs.com, July 2007

Cap greenhouse pollution starting in 2010 and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050.

Lead the world toward a new global climate change treaty.

Create a $13 billion-a-year fund, financed by polluters, to be spent on renewable energy and other initiatives.

Invest in renewable sources of electricity.

Reduce oil imports by 7.5 million barrels a day by 2025.

Raise car fuel economy to 40 mpg by 2016.

 

More information

John EdwardsJohn Edwards
Democrat

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Security Policy” bill of 2002, which supported oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. MUST REDUCE CARBON FOOTPRINT; GLOBAL EFFORT MUST INCLUDE CHINA AND INDIA

We must reduce America’s carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions and improve energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources.
However, any legislation will have little impact on the global environment if we do not work together with other global polluters. Today, China and India are surpassing the U.S. in carbon emissions. Fighting global warming can only be effective if it is a collective global effort.

Campaign Web site

Cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Work with other global polluters to fight global warming.

Launch global scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil.

 

gravel2008.us

Support a carbon tax, which would raise the price of gas, which he would also support because it would better reflect the costs associated with the war in Iraq.

 

Democratic debate

Mike GravelMike Gravel
Democrat

Did not vote on a windfall profits tax on the oil industry in 1980, but took a position against the bill.

Did not vote on the “Synthetic Fuels/Defense Production Act” of 1980, which would have encouraged the development of synthetic fuels and solar energy.

Voted yes on the “Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act” of 1973, which authorized construction of a 789-mile pipeline to transport oil from the North Slope of Alaska to the port of Valdez. Environment groups had fought the pipeline, fearing oil spills and damage to tundra and wildlife. Introduced amendment to bar further court review of environmental questions raised by construction of the pipeline, which passed.

U.S. SHOULD LEAD THE EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE OTHER COUNTRIES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES

I am one of those Democrats who sees the world as being interconnected and interdependent. America has a moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change since we create so many greenhouse gases here and have a very large carbon footprint. … We need to work with the world community to lower greenhouse gases, reduce the carbon footprint, to bring forth new energy technologies. The world is ready for this. America needs to be ready for it and they are waiting for leaders who are ready to do it.

Interview with the B.B.C., Jan. 2007

Would immediately put the United States in the forefront of solving the global warming crisis by rejoining the Kyoto accord and implementing its recommendations.

Strengthen environmental laws and increase penalties on polluters.

Institute a “Global Green Deal” to use America’s leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs at home

Increase independence from foreign oil, and aid developing nations with cheap, dependable, renewable energy technologies like wind and solar.

Establish Works Green Administration, which would put people to work building a sustainable and renewable energy economy, retrofitting homes and businesses.

 

More information

Dennis KucinichDennis Kucinich
Democrat

 

 

Introduced resolution after Hurricane Katrina, requesting that the White House submit to Congress all documents in their possession relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States.

Signed statement in 2005 urging Congress to reject any proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development.

Co-sponsored the “Clean Smokestacks Act” of 2005, which would have reduced emissions from power plants.

Voted
yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have raised automobile fuel standards to 33 mpg by 2015.

U.S. MUST LEAD GLOBAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE EMISSION; WOULD INSTITUTE CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEM

Strengthened institutions and invigorated alliances and partnerships are especially crucial if we are to defeat the epochal, man-made threat to the planet: climate change. … As the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, America has the responsibility to lead. While many of our industrial partners are working hard to reduce their emissions, we are increasing ours at a steady clip — by more than ten percent per decade. As president, I intend to enact a cap-and-trade system that will dramatically reduce our carbon emissions. … Getting our own house in order is only a first step. … We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.

Wrote in the Foreign Affairs magazine, July/August 2007 issue

Support implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Would require all transportation fuels in the United States to contain 5 percent less carbon by 2015 and 10 percent less carbon by 2020.

Would establish targets for annual fuel economy increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets.

Would give automakers health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Support alternative fuels.

 

More information

Barack ObamaBarack Obama
Democrat

 

 

Co-sponsored the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” of 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce its emissions by 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Co-sponsored the “Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007,” which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050.

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

U.S. SHOULD JOIN THE KYOTO TREATY AND EXCEED ITS LIMITS AND PLACE HIGHER EMISSION LIMITATS THAN MANDATED TO MAKE UP FOR LOST TIME

This planet is revolting against the use of fossil fuels and against manmade pollution. And we have to fight global climate change. And we have to have an international effort to do it. And it means mandating the reduction of carbons and caps and emissions and the pollution that comes from fossil fuels and vehicles. It has to happen. … The first thing a president does on the global climate change is say we are going to follow the Kyoto Treaty, but we are going to exceed the limits because we’ve lost six years.

At Drake University, March 2, 2007

Reduce oil imports from around 65% to 10-15%, in part by getting the 100 mpg car into the marketplace.

Double automobile fuel economy standards to 50 mpg by 2020.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2050.

 

More information

Bill RichardsonBill Richardson
Democrat

Entered New Mexico into a five-state agreement to lower greenhouse gases in Feb. 2007.

Signed executive order to reduce greenhouse gases in New Mexico by 267-million metric tons in 2006.

Established energy efficient building standards in state buildings in 2006.

Required increased use of renewable fuels in state government in 2005.

HIS STANCE ON GLOBAL WARMING
AND AMERICA’S ROLE
IF ELECTED, HE SAYS HE WOULD … HIS PAST ACTIONS ON THE ISSUE

U.S. SHOULD DO ALL IT CAN TO REDUCE WARMING WITHOUT HURTING THE ECONOMY

Global warming has occurred. We have far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we had 100 years ago. That’s factual. A number of people question how close the linkage is [to global warming]. It’s prudent that we do everything we can without killing the economy to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of how you look at the correlation.

U.S. News and World Report, Aug. 2006

It seems to me just prudent that we recognize we have climate increase and temperature change. We have CO2 loading and we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

At Iowa, Jan. 2007

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Give tax credits and incentives to encourage hybrid vehicles.

Encourage domestic oil production to reduce dependency on foreign oil.

Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.

Push for more ethanol and biodiesel production and continuation to produce electricity from coal.

 

More information

Sam BrownbackSam Brownback
Republican

 

 

Co-sponsored the “Dependence Reduction through Innovation in Vehicles and Energy Act” of 2007 which would have reduced oil consumption by 2.5-million barrels per day in 10 years through expansion of renewable fuels and new technology.

Co-sponsored the “Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act” of 2005, which would have reduced oil consumption by 10-million barrels per day by 2031.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

U.S. SHOULS ADDRESS WARMING IN A WAY THAT ALSO ACHIEVES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE; ADVOCATES MEASURE SIMILAR TO THE APOLLO PROJECT

I think we have to accept the view that scientists have that there is global warming and that human operation, human condition, contributes to that. And the fact is that there is a way to deal with it and to address it in a way that we can also accomplish energy independence, which we need as a matter of national security. It’s frustrating and really dangerous for us to see money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries. We should be supporting all the alternatives. We need a project similar to putting a man on the moon.

Republican debate, June 5, 2007

Whatever your scientific conclusion about global warming, whether it’s manmade or it isn’t or whatever, the reality is … if you don’t have restrictions on China, if you don’t have restrictions on India, our contribution, ultimately, is going to be minor. We could put all these restrictions on ourselves and have just as much arguable global warming if China, India, some of these other countries that are going to be contributing a lot more to this don’t become part of some kind of system to create alternatives.

“Kudlow and Company,” CNBC, March 26, 2007

Support energy independence because of its importance to national security.

Supports greater reliance on nuclear power, ethanol-based fuels and hybrid vehicles.

Support alternatives to oil.

 

The New York Times, June 13, 2006

Rudy GiulianiRudy Giuliani
Republican

 

 

Affiliated with law firm that lobbies for coal-fired power plants, heavy emitters of air pollutants and carbon dioxide, a gas associated with global warming. Environmentalists say the firm played a significant role in persuading the Bush administration to roll back major provisions of the Clean Air Act. His consulting company has also represented energy clients.

 

The New York Times, May 2, 2007

U.S. SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS ENERGY SOURCES THAT DO NOT HAVE GREENHOUSE GAS EFFECT

We ought to be moving rapidly towards energy sources that don’t have a greenhouse gas effect. Aggressively set the goal that within a ten year period, we should move a way from a fossil fuel culture to one that has alternative energy resources.

Denver Post, March 9, 2007

I don’t try to get into the middle of the science of global warming. … There may be [a human role in climate change]. But whether there is or there isn’t, it doesn’t release us from the responsibility to be good stewards of the environment. It’s the old boy scout rule: you leave your campsite in as good or better shape than how you found it. It’s a spiritual issue. [The earth] belongs to God. I have no right to destroy it. I think we work toward alternative energy sources. [We need to make it] like the Manhattan Project or going to the moon. We need to accelerate our energy independence.

Newsweek, March 7, 2007

Pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.

Achieve energy independence by the end of his second term.

 

More information

Support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Move away from a “fossil fuel culture” to alternative energy resources within 10 years.

 

More information

Mike HuckabeeMike Huckabee
Republican

Signed into law the “Arkansas Renewable Energy Development Act” of 2001, which requires electric utilities to offer net metering for alternative energies, enabling customers generating more electricity than they use to run their electric meters backward.

Supported the Southern Governors Association 2001 report on energy policy, which called for conservation, energy efficiency and clean energy policies.

 

 

EMPHASIZES ENERGY INDEPENDENCE; SAYS THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what’s happening. And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding — how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don’t think you have to answer that question to do what I’ve recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent.

Concord Monitor, Jan. 27, 2007

Set goal to move away from a fossil fuels to alternative resources.

Reduce taxes to zero for alternative energy sources.

Want licensing “from our laboratories that goes to the private sector” to go the American manufacturing sector for energy systems.

 

Republican debate

Duncan HunterDuncan Hunter
Republican

 

 

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have raised automobile fuel standards to 33 mpg by 2015.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have eliminated the authorization for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

U.S. SHOULD WORK TOWARDS A GLOBAL EFFORT THAT WOULD INCLUDE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

I believe climate change is real. I think it’s devastating. I think we have to act and I agree with most experts that we may at some point reach a tipping point where we cannot save our climate. I don’t think we’re there yet, but the overwhelming evidence is that greenhouse gases are contributing to warming of our earth and we have an obligation to take action to fix it. I believe that America did the right thing by not joining the Kyoto Treaty. But I believe that if we could get China and India into it, then the United States should seriously consider — on our terms — joining with every other nation in the world to try to reduce greenhouse gases. It’s got to be a global effort.

Video on campaign site

Advocate a global effort that would include developing countries to reduce greenhouse gases.

Limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster.

Reduce dependence on foreign suppliers of energy.

 

More information

John McCainJohn McCain
Republican

 

 

Co-sponsored the “Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007,” which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050.

Sponsored an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005” which would have capped greenhouse gas emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Co-sponsored the “Climate Stewardship Act of 2003,” which would have capped 2010 emissions at the 2000 level.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have increased automobile fuel efficiency standards to 40 mpg by 2015.

DOES NOT BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY A MAJOR ROLE; ; SAYS THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING

I don’t think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument. … [If the government were to play a role] then you have to deal with the volcanoes and you have to deal with the pollution of China. So, do you want to invade China to make sure they don’t pollute? And what are you going to do about the volcanoes? They are all contributing factors to global warming. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do what we can to slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.

 

“Real Time with Bill Maher,” H.B.O., March 30, 2007
[Global warming] is a problem. The environments are always better taken care of with strict property rights. Under property rights, you are never allowed to pollute. … What has happened in industrial revolution, big business and government got together and permitted pollution. You ought to be able to stop a neighbor from polluting your land immediately. Just like if your neighbor dumped garbage in your yard, you could call the policemen; that’s the way you should have protection of water and air.

Campaign stop in Iowa, May 3, 2007

 

End hydrocarbon subsidies.

WMUR-TV, April 27, 2007

Ron PaulRon Paul
Republican

 

 

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have raised automobile fuel standards to 33 mpg by 2015.

Voted no on the “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill” of 2001, which would have continued to prohibit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

EMPHASIZES ENERGY EFFICIENCY; U.S. SHOULD NOT ACT TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES UNLESS DEVELOPING NATIONS ARE NOT COMMITTED TO DOING THE SAME

You’re seeing the climate get warmer or climate change is occurring and I believe that human activity is contributing to that. I don’t know what proportion of the change is due to human activity but my policy is to adopt what I refer to as a ‘no regrets policy’ — to take action that allows us to become more energy efficient and ultimately become energy independent as a nation. … I would like to see us work on a global basis on this effort. I really don’t think it’s productive for us to act solely on a unilateral basis to reduce our greenhouse gases if we have developing nations like China and India continue to increase their output of greenhouse gases and not be party to a greenhouse gas effort.

Business and Industry Association National Leaders Forum, May 29, 2007

Advocates U.S. energy independence as a “strategic imperative.”

Supports alternative fuels, including biodiesel and ethanol, nuclear power and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

More information

Mitt RomneyMitt Romney
Republican

 

 

Proposed “Climate Protection Plan” as Massachusetts’s governor in 2004, which said the state must consider the impact on greenhouse gases when state regulators evaluate highway projects and other public construction plans. The state never implemented the provisions.

Backed out of regional pact to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants because of concerns that the emissions fee would drive up the already-high price of electricity.

 

SAYS THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING; BLAMES IMMIGRATION

I have no doubt that global warming exists. I just question the cause and what we can do to ameliorate it. But I wonder why the Sierra Club isn’t going crazy about the environmental aspects of massive immigration into the U.S. The fact is, Americans consume more energy than anyone else, so if a person moves here from another country, they automatically become bigger polluters.

Time, May 31, 2007

First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you it’s happening and that it’s our fault — and they’ll stack up to here in this reports — I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite. I don’t believe that — well, I’ll tell you this, I don’t know whether or not we are responsible, we the human race, are responsible for global warming. It certainly could be happening, it certainly could be a natural phenomenon.

Republican Debate, May 15, 2007

 

Support reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum products, which would reduce carbon emissions and enhance national security, if it’s determined that global warming is caused by humans.

 

Republican debate

“Pay attention” to climate changes and study them, but would not impose a “litany” of state, federal and international restrictions.

 

 

Associated Press, March 12, 2007

Tom TancredoTom Tancredo
Republican

 

 

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2005,” which would have raised automobile fuel standards to 33 mpg by 2015.

Voted no on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have eliminated the authorization for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

SAYS THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. NASA says that the Martian South Pole’s ice cap has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle. Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our solar system have in common. Hmmmm. Solar system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus. Ask Galileo..

Paul Harvey Show, April 13, 2007

NO STATED POSITION ON WHAT HE WOULD DO

Fred ThompsonFred ThompsonRepublican

 

 

Voted yes on an amendment to the “Energy Policy Act of 2003,” which would have eliminated the authorization for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Leave a Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: