The greening of the nation hit its tipping point about a year ago.  Since then the environment has grown into a major issue for most Americans—and the politicians have taken notice.  This issue pits the well-being of the environment—both domestic and global—against the potential implications—both economic and political—of government intervention.  Part of this issue is addressed in our Energy section, so if you’re interested in what’s going on with CAFE standards, renewable portfolio standards, drilling, and alternative energy sources, check it out.  This page will deal with land use, water and air quality, endangered animals, and other environmental issues. 

What's the Issue?
When it comes to environmental issues, the presidency matters.  Not only do they have the discretion on signing international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, but they appoint the Secretary of Interior (which needs to be ratified by the Senate) and have the power to issue executive orders. President Bush did just that in 2007, mandating four federal agencies to develop regulations for a cut in greenhouse gas emissions from new cars.  Interestingly enough, this executive order was required by the Supreme Court, which charged the Bush Administration with ignoring its duties set forth in the Clean Air Act when it refused to regulate emissions from cars.


What the candidates take issue with spans a range of issues from energy to air and water quality, to regulations on how National Parks should be used.  The range of issues that fall under the environment is so great, and given the capacities of the different positions they have occupied (congress, governor, mayor), the issues each group had to deal with are quite different.  For that reason, this section will not go through each specific issue, but rather focus on each candidate’s past record as a means of understanding how they approach the environment.  

Additionally, because there are different options for handling emission reductions with different economic and environmental implications, we’ve listed the two major contenders below. 

Cap-and-Trade vs Carbon Tax
Any new proposals that the future government takes up will likely require reduction in power plant emissions.  How that reduction is achieved, however, has an economic impact on the plants.  Possible contenders are cap-and-trade, which would require capping emissions at a specified level, and taxes on carbon emissions. 

Cap-and-trade
If plants are able to lower emissions below that level, they can then sell the unused pollution to power plants that are unable to reduce emissions to required levels.  Cap-and-trade achieved much success in reducing acid-rain causing sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1990 Clear Air Act amendment.  Cap and trade’s benefits include predetermined limit on emissions that would not be exceeded.   Most politicians favor a cap-and-trade system.  Opponents to cap and trade say that it would be open to manipulation by special interests.  Additionally, some opponents argue that what worked for sulfur dioxide, a small program, would not work for a much larger cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions.  The European Union implemented their cap-and-trade system in January, 2005.

Carbon Taxes
Carbon taxes would tax any carbon emissions.  Supporters of a carbon tax argue that it’s more economically effective than cap-and-trade and would produce more reliable pricing over time.  Opponents say it’s politically unfeasible, as people and companies are tax-averse.  Furthermore, environmentalists are opposed because it wouldn’t guarantee a reduction in emission levels. 

Why Should I Care?
Regardless of whether one believes that climate change is anthropogenic (caused by humans), the quality of life that we experience is due in large part to the way that we, as a nation and as a planet, manage our resources.  Though the U.S. has many remarkable achievements in terms of protecting resources, as a nation we generate more carbon emissions than any other nation.  This not only potentially affects the global climate, but definitely affects air quality.  Finding a cost effective way to manage our waste and protect our resources is key to a future that encourages growth and maintains resource quality.

 
Furthermore, because climate and resources are not mindful of borders, how each nation treats its resources affects another nations.  West coast residents might become increasingly aware that China's growing pollution  affects their own air quality.  Additionally, as global leaders work on agreements on tackling climate change, emissions allocations are likely to come up.  While some (such as the U.S.) will argue for emissions reductions to be allocated from the present onward, some countries, especially developing ones, are likely to argue for emissions standards based on past emissions, of which the U.S. has already had more than its fair share.    How a future president handles global negotiations on environment regulation will likely have major implications for the U.S.


What are the Candidates Saying?
Joe Biden
Joe Biden has a strong pro-environment record.  He says that energy security is his top priority.  On environmental matters, he is very supportive of an international agreement to take on climate change post-Kyoto protocol, and introduced S. Res. 312, Sense of the Senate, to that effect.  The resolution passed.  Biden also signed on early as one of the nineteen cosponsors to the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which has yet to leave committee. Provisions include a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, and requiring the U.S. to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  Biden is a big supporter of ethanol, biofuel accommodation, and electric cars.

 

Clinton has a solid record on environmental protection, often linking problems in the physical environment to preventable health ailments (and thus to her pet issue of health care).  She was one of 19 cosponsors of Clean Power Act of 2005 and introduced the Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network Act of 2005, neither of which made it out of committee.  She supports the provisions of the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, which sets regulations on greenhouse gas emissions mainly through tradeable allowances.   She was one of 69 cosponsors (remember, only 100 Senators…) of the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate but never became law.  Clinton opposes drilling in ANWR and supported a bill protecting the roadless areas of the National Forest Systems.  She voted against confirming the conservative/libertarian Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior and for including oil and gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. 


John Edwards
John Edwards is committed to environmental protection and trying to halt anthropogenic causes of climate change.  His website lists a thorough plan  to reducing carbon emissions both in the U.S.  In particular, he sees a need to take “moral leadership” and entice developing countries to also reduce their emissions by sharing clean energy technologies with them.  Edwards favors emissions caps and the auctioning of pollution permits.  Proceeds from the permits would be used to start a $10 billion/year New Energy Economy Fund used to jumpstart new technologies.  Furthermore, he sees the caps and the ensuing New Energy Economy Fund’s technologies as a business opportunity, not an economic burden.   The creation of a Greencorps, to be a part of AmeriCorps, will provide opportunities for AmeriCorps volunteers to bring an environmental bent to their work. 

Rudy Giuliani
As mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani took the environmentalist-angering actions of spraying for West Nile Virus-bearing mosquitos and constructing a new power plant in Manhattan.  However, he also privatized the management of Central Park’s 843 acres, legitimizing an 18-year trend of private maintenance from the Central Park Conservancy.  Yet, he also sanctioned the destruction of many of New York City’s community gardens to build low-income housing units.  He acknowledges climate change and believes that humans do play a role in it,  however he believes that there needs to be a global solution involving other major polluting countries such as China.

Mike Huckabee
As a governor, Mike Huckabee hasn’t voted on many of the issues that his colleagues have.  However, he has, with the National Governors Association, adopted several of their position papers, including ones supporting the reauthorization of the 1972 Clean Water Act and state autonomy in brownfields.  He believes in Boy Scout stewardship—that we should live our environment better than when we found it, though he is uncertain as to whether climate change is mainly caused by humans.  He adopted the Southern Governors Association resolution against controlling the flow of the Mississippi River, ostensibly for business and trade purposes, though he seems to be against intervention in natural resources—he wrote in his book, From Hope to Higher Ground, “while I understand that building dams on streams can sometimes be useful in flood control, the creation of water reservoirs necessary for sustaining life, or for the production of electricity, we must be careful to balance our use of those resources to ensure that we do not lose all our natural treasures by altering them.”

Duncan Hunter
Though Duncan Hunter has 20 main issues displayed on his website, including concerns over funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, he does not mention the environment (nor energy for that matter).   He’s acknowledged global warming’s existence, and expressed wanting to bring taxes on alternative energy resources down to zero, in the hopes of becoming energy independent.  He was one of 137 cosponsors of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, which environmentalists opposed because of its disregard for endangered species.  Proponents cite its intended role in reducing catastrophic wildfires (though it seems not to have done much good in CA) and protecting watersheds and reducing hazardous fuels on National Forest Systems lands.  He did vote to designate areas of New Hampshire’s White Mountain National Forest as wilderness, which means that the roughly 30,000 acres of newly designated land is permanently closed to mining, logging, road construction, vehicular traffic, and building construction.  That bill never became law.  

John McCain
Like his hero, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain takes a great interest in the U.S. National Parks.  He’s called for new investment in the parks, and the creation of capital development bonds to refurbish the parks.  These bonds would contract with private fund-raising groups to issue the bonds that would be backed by park fees.  However, McCain did vote to repeal President Clinton’s executive order prohibiting construction of new roads in pristine wilderness, saying that such a mandate should not come from the President.  McCain has sponsored a resolution for the International Whaling Commission saying that the U.S. opposed commercial whaling and illegal trading in whale meat.  He’s supported legislation to give grants to brownfields which passed the house but never became law.  Lastly, McCain has supported making the EPA a cabinet-level position.

Barack Obama
One of seven co-sponsors of the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act (never passed), Obama has been somewhat involved in environmental issues from when he was a young volunteer in the Bronx trying to convince minority students to recycle.  He’s voted to include oil and gas smokestacks in mercury regulations that would limit mercury emissions from smokestacks through a market-based cap system. That resolution never passed.  He was one of nineteen co-sponsors of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act  which has yet to make it out of committee.  He was also an original cosponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (also hasn’t made it out of committee).  Obama has also been very active in lead reduction, forcing the EPA to publish rules for how contractors involved in the renovation of homes should deal with lead paint hazards.  He also sponsored the 2005 Lead Free Toys Act, and the 2006 Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, and cosponsored the 2005 Home Lead Safety Tax Credit, all of which never made it out of committee.  

Ron Paul
When it comes to the environment, Ron Paul believes that the best method of ensuring environmental protection is through increased property rights—rather than having the EPA divvy up pollution permits, laws that prohibit one from impinging on your neighbor’s property, including air and water pollution, would decrease environmental harm.  He believes in free-market solutions as well, and does not see climate change as a major threat.  He has, however, supported a bill prohibiting the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.

Bill Richardson
When it comes to environmental issues, Bill Richardson had advocated for green initiatives from lifestyle incentives to water regulation.  He’s touted the benefits of creating more bike lanes and bike commuter facilities.  He’s suggested a President-led Apollo-like program  designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil from 65% to 10%.  Seizing on a growing issue in the West, Richardson has called for a national water summit to address water sharing between the water-rich northwestern states and their more parched southern neighbors.  He’s also called for elevating the Bureau of Reclamation to a cabinet-level post. 

Mitt Romney
Though Mitt Romney has argued that Kyoto protocol-type regulations would strangle industry and hurt growth, he also had introduced a climate protection plan while governor of Massachusetts that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010.  The Plan points to the predictions by the International Panel on Climate Change that temperatures could increase five to nine degrees by 2100 if emissions are not curbed.  However, Romney did pull out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, on the basis that it would cost Massachusetts residents, who already pay high prices, even more.  He also opposes the Cape Wind project, which would build the nation’s first offshore wind farm and provide about 75 MW of electricity (about 75% of the total demanded by Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard). 

Fred Thompson
For the most part, Fred Thompson seems not to be concerned with the environment.  His past voting record includes yes votes for drilling in ANWR, defunding renewable and solar energy, and approving a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain that would require the sole discretion of the President.  He views climate change as a solar system-wide phenomena  that is affecting Mars and Jupiter as well.