Listening to an episode of Fresh Air on NPR with Jeff Goodell the other day, I heard that, in spite of a evidence to the contrary (like League of Conservation Voters’ naming him as their candidate of choice), Barack Obama’s stance on the environment is actually a bit contradictory. On the one hand, he advocates reduction of dependance on Middle Eastern oil. But in order to do this, he supports the US’s continued reliance on coal to generate electric power with coal-to-liquid programs which produce diesel fuel out of coal. What the US public does not consider is that coal-to-liquid conversion produces greenhouse gases and seriously increases the detrimental effects of global warming. So what looks like a good policy on the surface (‘decreasing our reliance on foreign oil’) is actually bad for the environment (increases global warming).
This made me think about the particularly thorny Environment Issue in general. It is one of a few places in which all candidates take a similar stance (no one is ‘anti-environment’, after all, and if you look at most candidates’ websites they have to at least give a symbolic shoutout to the issue). Most of the public, too, has realized the seriousness of the issue, and has some general feelings about conservation. However, in reality, the specific policies which candidates suggest may appear like a good idea, but could be seriously flawed when dissected by an expert such as Jeff Gooddell. The environment isn’t exactly an issue that the average voter can decipher with a gut feeling or moral compass, like they can abortion or gay marriage.
So how does Hillary measure up? Is she really proposing viable solutions, or is she merely making sure to fit in with the public’s newfound post-’Inconvenient Truth’ eco-friendly speculation?
Back in November, it seems as though Hillary started making some overtures , saying that she is against drilling for oil in Alaska, thinks that tax-credits should be doubled for buying energy-efficient vehicles such as hybrids, and claims she wants to “”to get America on track for a smarter, more secure, and cleaner energy future.” However, as the Grist article points out, such claims could be a bit more specific and are far from a real plan. Hillary hasn’t made the environment one of her top issues in the past, so developing tangible policies would be a new challenge for her.
Now, much later in the game, Hillary and all of the other candidates are proposing much more serious measures. As this ABC article suggests, the environment has become a central issue for the first time in a presidential campaign, and is no longer a topic taken seriously only by the softies and green-partyites. Most notably, Hillary stated that she wants to tax the windfall profits of oil companies and put the money into a Strategic Energy Fund that will be used to research and fund alternative energy sources. Basically, the extra profits from oil companies would be put toward weaning the US off of non-renewable energy sources.
Is this a viable policy? It sounds very good in theory, but may not go over smoothly. There are already voices suggesting that ExxonMobil’s extremely bountiful profits do not belong to the government, and appropriating them would cause all types of woes by upsetting the market. Fear of government regulation in this matter is expected, but I think it’s absolutely necessary. We’ve proven well enough that the environment is just one thing that the free market won’t take care if left to its own devices, at least not in the near future and not without some beginning incentives that may seem drastic. However, I understand the main fear associated with a tax on oil companies: if oil companies are losing money, their consumers will inevitably suffer. What they have to pay in taxes we eventually have to pay at the gas pump. Hillary’s proposal might mean a rise in gas prices. On the other hand, oil companies would have the choice of not paying the tax and instead investing in alternative energy on their own. If companies chose this route, research for alternative fuel would happen in the private sector, probably making it highly effective and eventually beneficial to all involved.
Overall and given my lack of expertise on the scientific specifics of environmental policy, I have to say that the jury is still out on Hillary’s alternative energy fund and her other promises. I’ll keep you posted if I hear more. But I have to say, I think her interest in the issue is genuine. I mean, she’s certainly no Al Gore… but I suppose that may just help her with the whole ‘winning’ thing.
