Obama’s Plan to Fight Global Warming

October 06, 2008

According to the transcript of the first presidential debate, GOP candidate John McCain was the only one to actually mention global warming as an issue — but he did so only in passing, as an additional justification for his plan to build 45 new nuclear power plants, which we discussed in last week’s blog. As McCain explained,

Nuclear power is not only important as far as eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, but it's also responsibility as far as climate change is concerned and the issue I have been involved in for many, many years and I'm proud of the work of the work that I've done there along with President Clinton.

I have to point out that while nuclear power may make sense as a measure to combat global warming, the argument that it will free us from dependence upon foreign oil is pretty much nonsensical.  According to U.S. Department of Energy data, the U.S. gets only about 50 million megawatt-hours of electricity from burning petroleum — a minuscule amount compared to the more than 2 billion megawatt-hours that are produced by burning coal, the fuel upon which we rely most heavily for electricity generation. Additionally, McCain didn't mention the estimated $315 billion cost, or how it would be funded (a hint: taxpayers may ultimately be on the hook for much of it). Or what he would do about disposing of nuclear waste, though he’s recently looked at shipping it to Siberia.

But I digress. We’re looking at Democratic candidate Barack Obama this week, and his approach to combating global warming.

Obama’s energy plan sets a goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050, a more ambitious cutback than the 50 percent target set by the G-8 major industrial nations, which President Bush agreed to in July. Like McCain, Obama would establish a cap-and-trade system under which the government would set a ceiling on carbon emissions, and then issue permits to emit carbon. That, in turn, would allow companies to make money by reducing their emissions and then selling their permits to others. Unlike McCain, who would initially give away the permits, Obama would auction them off from the get-go, which he argues would ensure that polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, giving them an even bigger incentive to clean up their act. Obama also would require that utility companies generate at least 10 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and geothermal sources by 2012.

Unlike McCain, who likes electric cars and alternative energy technology but isn’t eager to fund its development beyond offering tax credits, Obama would invest heavily in these technologies, putting up $15 billion a year out of revenues from the carbon permits auction. In particular, he would aggressively promote the development of plug-in hybrid cars, with the goal of having a million of them on the road by 2015, by providing $4 billion in loan guarantees and retooling tax credits to U.S. car manufacturers. To entice consumers to buy plug-ins, he would offer a $7,000 tax credit. Obama would also mandate that half of all cars purchased by the federal government be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.

Contrary to McCain’s assertions, Obama isn’t opposed to nuclear power, though he has expressed concerns about safety and the question of what to do with the waste. But he places much more emphasis in his plan on reducing the nation’s energy consumption, and ergo carbon emissions, through an aggressive energy-efficiency program. Obama would aim to reduce energy consumption from the DOE’s projected levels by 2020, which would have the effect of eliminating 5 billion tons of carbon emissions. In part, he would accomplish this by setting more stringent energy-efficiency standards for everything from appliances to buildings (he would aim to make all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030). He’d also expand a federal program that helps low-income people to upgrade their furnaces, fix windows and add insulation to make their homes more energy efficient.

Finally, Obama would attempt to engage other nations diplomatically in efforts to curb climate change, an avenue that the Bush administration — which pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto accords — until recently spurned. He wants to become an active player in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the major international body working on the issue. Additionally, Obama would create a “Global Energy Forum” of the world’s largest polluters, in an attempt to get them to work together on reducing their carbon output. That makes a lot of sense, since unless the rapidly growing economies of China and India reduce their emissions, the effort to stop global warming is doomed to failure.

Obama’s plan in a nutshell: Cap-and-trade, invest the proceeds from auctioning permits to develop alternative energy sources and electric cars, and simultaneously reduce our need to burn carbon fuels by promoting energy efficiency. Would that work better than McCain’s nuclear-power push? Express your opinion below.

Photo: iStock

Comments

[Nick Young]

I think Barack Obama's plan for fighting global warming makes a heckuva lot more sense than what John "Drill Here, Drill Now!" McCain is advocating. An aggressive effort to improve our energy efficiency is cheaper and easier than rushing out and building a bunch of nuke plants. Besides, if we don't improve energy efficiency, energy use will simply rise to consume whatever additional capacity we create.

[Mothra]

Wind, solar, geothermal, and increased conservation are definitely the way to go. Obama/Biden 08!

[Will Morris]

Obama mentioned some of this in last night's debate--the part about energy efficiency in particular. I think he's got the best plan by far.

[Zack Rambo]

It sounds like the two candidates are both advocating a lot of the same things. The only difference is how they pay for them. Obama would use government money, while McCain would depend upon private sector investment.

[That One]

I really like Obama's idea of auctioning off the carbon permits, rather than just giving them away. Companies are making money by pumping carbon into the atmosphere, so why shouldn't they be taxed to support the development of non-carbon energy sources? Besides, having to pay for the permits gives them more of an incentive to clean up their emissions.

[Janine Robinson]

Obama's plan for fighting global warming and achieving energy independence is vastly superior to McCain's plan. Obama would have the government take an active, aggressive role in promoting development of renewable energy, while McCain would sit back and hope that the private sector does it on its own. We don't have time for that. Obama would get it done.

[Clewiston]

McCain's plan is better. Nuclear power is the only proven alternative to coal.

[Sam Smith]

McCain's plan is terrible. As is McCain. Obama-Biden 08!

[Joe from Wilmington]

Obama's plan is better. Plus, you have to remember that if McCain gets elected, Caribou Barbie may end up serving out his term, and she doesn't even believe that carbon emissions are causing global warming.

[Joe from Wilmington]

Let me rephrase that...in the unlikely event that McCain gets elected. Increasingly unlikely with each passing day, in fact.

[rahul sharma]

this is not a proper soluation to control global warming but he is a good strart for control the global warming.

[Brent]

With Obama as President, we're much more likely to make progress in fighting global warming.

[Marci]

Obama, McCain on energy: Together in words, apart in deeds
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:10/11/2008 08:41:53 PM MDT

Joe Biden thought he was flaying John McCain's approach to energy development when, during the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate, the Delaware Democrat summed up the GOP policy as "drill, drill, drill."
But McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, corrected her opponent. "The chant," she said without a trace of irony, "is 'drill, baby, drill.' "
That adaptation of the '60s race-riot slogan, "burn, baby, burn," swept the Republican convention a month earlier. Delegates' shouts seemed determined to resurrect McCain's failed "drill here, drill now" policy he tried to pass off in summer as a solution to high gasoline prices.
Now, McCain has intensified his platform, promising to rid the nation of foreign oil, clean up the air, address climate change and ensure Americans have dependable energy sources. So has Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama - with many similar suggestions.
So how do the two contenders stack up on energy?
Their differences lie essentially in emphasis, with Obama trying to convince voters that renewable, cleaner energy deserves as much if not more attention as conventional carbon-based choices.
"Obviously, our top priority should be to replace our reliance on fossil fuels," he told the Greeley (Colo.) Tribune.
The Illinois senator's voting record has been solidly behind this approach. He wants 25 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. He wants to improve energy efficiency by 50 percent by 2030. And he wants to end business as usual with oil companies.
In June 2007, Obama voted to remove oil- and gas-exploration subsidies. The same month, he voted to make oil-producing and -exporting cartels illegal. He also backs windfall profit taxes on petroleum companies.
McCain, too, vows to push alternative energy, though his record is less clear.
His campaign Web site depicts wind turbines, but the policy statements are mostly about helping the nuclear industry build 45 new reactors; McCain sees nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.
The Arizona senator has voted against 20 solar or renewable-energy incentive bills. He advocates a market approach and wants renewable energy to go head to head with the wealthy carbon industry.
"We need to unleash the competitive forces of the free market to encourage clean alternatives - wind, solar, tide, nuclear and clean coal," McCain said in June.
But it wasn't until the renewable-energy tax credits were tacked on to the Oct. 1 financial-bailout bill that McCain finally voted in favor of renewables, as did Obama. The bill includes a one-year production tax credit for wind energy, with an eight-year extension for investment tax credits for solar projects.
The market responded immediately to the provisions, with share prices of solar-energy companies shooting up 10 percent. That looked like vindication for Obama's position that the government should have a role in promoting renewable energy.
In 2003 and 2005, McCain voted against offshore drilling and against Bush energy bills. Obama backed the Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act, which included a directive to develop oil shale and tar sands. Obama said his yes vote hinged on the renewable-energy provisions in the bill. McCain said the bill was corporate welfare for "Big Oil giveaways."
For years, McCain massaged his maverick image by opposing tax cuts for oil companies. This year, he accepted millions of campaign dollars from Bush-backing energy interests, according to the Center for American Progress.
While McCain has pocketed more money from oil companies, Obama has received more contributions from Big Oil employees. An August report from OpenSecrets.org shows McCain has scooped up $1.3 million in oil-related contributions to Obama's $394,000.
That could be fallout from Obama's push for greater fuel economy in vehicles. Four years ago, Obama said he wanted automakers to increase standard fuel economy to 40 miles per gallon and would require ethanol in the fuel supply. In 2006, he sponsored legislation raising the standard fuel economy 4 percent a year until 2018. In June, he advocated $150 billion to focus on clean-coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power and other measures.
In February, Obama sponsored a successful bill that gives a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol pumps at gas stations.
McCain has shifted his ethanol position at least twice. In 2003, he declared ethanol wouldn't boost energy independence. During an Iowa campaign appearance in 2006, he called ethanol "a vital alternative energy source." This year, he reverted to anti-ethanol.
The Democratic and Republican nominees do sometimes agree.
Neither wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both want to curb industrial emissions. Both want to auction pollution rights in a cap-and-trade system. Both would further investigate "clean-coal" technologies.
Neither has taken a position on oil shale, a crucial question for Utahns, though both voted to end the shale-exploration moratorium when they answered "aye" to the $700 billion financial-bailout bill.

[Maryann Jozviak]

Both of them say they favor alternative energy but I trust Obama to actually make it happen.

[Rysyn Los]

I completely trust Obama to make every word of renewable energy possible.I trust him to end big oil companies feeding of the USA.And I trust him with every cell in my body to STOP GLOBAL WARMING IN THE USA!!!

[Brittany Wahl]

I think it says it all when you look at McCain's voting history on the topic of alternative energy. He's voted several different ways several different times AND voted against renewable energy incentive bills at least 20 times.

And then there's Palin.... She doesn't even believe humans are impacting global warming because she doesn't believe carbon emissions are effecting the environment! Well Ms. Palin, this is one aspect where believing in something doesn't make it true. Believing this is true is not an option, it's scientific fact.

I fiercly support Obama and his plan to fight Global Warming.

[Chris Riordan]

Folks, It's unfortunate that politicians are typically lawyers because the understanding of many aspects of something technical is lost on them. Obama's energy plan is decent. But there are several things that people need to realize. We need to look to ways to truly find renewable energy as well as make better use of the energy at hand through conservation. Better utilization should be step one. For instance it has been shown that 20% of our current energy needs could be satisfied by recycling waste heat from power plants, refineries, steel mills, and other power generating units. Add wind power to that and without hoping for technology to mature, we could alleviate 35% of current energy demand soon.
Solar does have potential, including something called nano antenna based infrared solar power. When developed this technology would draw power from solar both day and night. The panels would be very inexpensive and could be incorporated into many structures.
Finally, there is a misunderstanding about electric and hybrid cars. Electric cars make less efficient use of power than gas powered cars because of the inefficiency of delivering electric power. Much energy is lost in those high pwoer lines. Hybrids come down to MPGs. The diesel engine is thermodynamically most efficient so a diesel hybrid running on a 20% bioblend would make the most sense. And where the government truly needs to get involved is building a railbased tranportation network. A diesel electric locomotive may run at 90% efficiency and can move more people from point A to B using less fuel than the equivalent number of one r two passenger autos.

I favor Obama's stance on energy, but I find the discussion lacking from both sides. I truly wish a sober 3rd party existed to open the discussion beyond our politics of one side stinks so the other side must be good. Niether side may be good enough and America was given no guarantees. Let's hope someone gets this right enough.

[Patrick Kiger]

Thanks for the insightful post, Chris. You mention several ideas that might be good subjects for future blogs.

You raise an interesting point about energy loss from transmission via power lines. What's the cause of that phenomenon? Is there a technological fix available for decreasing the loss? Would a smart grid with a variety of distributed sources (including renewables and cogeneration from fuel cells in homes and businesses) help?

[MarkusWelby,MD]

Patrick,Everything Chris sez is pretty dead on. Anything that transmitts or uses energy has power losses unless they're 100% efficient(find me ANYTHING 100% efficient) because of losses due to resistance, hysterysis, friction, etc.
ALL(even gold)conductors have resistance, only supercondutors come close and we all know the story there, until research comes up with a room temperature superconductor(they need super refigeration to go with that superconductor title), we're stuck with what we've got, the best electric motors are 97-98% eff.-
But your comment about distributed sources is dead on. the closer one is to the source the less loss incurred, Diesel/flexfuel Hybrids would be the quickest and the best thing as far as dramaticaly reducing our fuel imports and consumption, and once fuel cell technology becomes available in cars, U come home from work, plug 'em into the house and they themselves would provide power to our own homes and back into the grid once we parked them in the driveway and (provided ANY of these politicains provide money for research into alternative energies). Of course your going to hear about the costs of a fuel cell that has to be replaced every 8-10-13 or 14 years for $3000. or batteries that wont last. It's all a matter of demand for ourselves. if we want it/demand it, they make it. (Anybody remember a flathead V-8? those first VCR's- Beta what?)
We dont need to drill for oil, we have more coal then we need for 100years, and there are scrubbers that can clean those emissions completely,(Believe me,find a use for anything that is a result of genration and they'll recover it and sell it; see "Fly Ash")
Then there are the simple cost energy reductions we can do in our homes, quickie example;at current cost per Kilowatthour, replace 20-standard 100watt light bulbs with 27watt compact flourescents(which have the same lumens or light output as 100w incandescents, >hopefully Ur not burning 20 100watt bulbs ANYwhere<) and you'll save over $1000 a year in electricity! now if you read any sale papers at all, you'll see that almost any home supply, Home depot, lowes, Ace, almost always has packs of 6 or more 13watt compact flourescents(60watt equivalent)on sale for $10-$12. Do the math. Businesses, there are thermostats that are not only prgrammable, but have light or motions sensors built right into them for $200 or less! that may seem a little heavy, but if you figure that HVAC is 35-40% of your electric bill in a commercial building, and one of those will save you 30% of that sayyy 35%(500 x .4=200 x .35= $70? a month? Now start adding zeros to that.)And don't get me started on how much energy is wasted EVERY day at your favorite eatery.
But back to the Alternatives, thats the future we need to pursue, Wind farms and especially the sun, technology there WILL be the major solution given costs per watt ((grid parity) come down and they will, just get a cell thats 30% efficient on the market and whatch out! and oh, Big oil doesn't need to worry, if people realized just what portion of a barrel of oil actually went into our tanks, all you tupperware partygoer's and naysayers, a not so average guy has actually started making flexible polymer/dye based solar (PV) cells off of what would be considered a modified high volume printing press(think newspapers)whatdaya think that'll do to the cost of your average PV(solar)cell.
Look how far we've come in aviation in just a few years, from first flight to supersonic to the moon in less than a lifetime, The Wright brothers' heads would spin at the technology that evolved from that first flight.
And for those of you born 1985 and later. Imagine calling something with a 25' cord attached to it and your tv a remote.
Everyone needs their good health, and we use energy to do that, and our health is tied to our environment, indoors and out, Environment tied to our waste, and Research is tied to it all. Make sure our goverment invests in all of it. Didn't we just spend 700 million or billion on bailing out something?

[Patrick Kiger]

Hey, Dr. Welby, thanks for an interesting and informative post. I hope that you'll make a lot more house calls here.

[investment costa rica]

Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation

[christian louboutin]

I am totally immersed myself in the excellent stuff.It is our great pleasure to share the wonderful blog with you. Best Regards!

[yiwu fair]

According to the BBC, Indian Foreign Ministry official note 13, the U.S. government to place just one month after another senior diplomat in India in two airports in the United States was "strictly searched" dissatisfied.

Reported that the recent presence of United Nations special envoy in India, Sikhs Puri Airport in Houston, Texas in the United States in transit, for religious reasons refused to take off his head while being detained and forced header search.

Last month, the Indian ambassador to the U.S., Ms. Hill presented the Dakar after diplomatic status by the United States remains strong airport security personnel search. This makes India very dissatisfied.