Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:40 am
Butrflynet wrote:

In the first 4 months of Obama's official candidacy all his rally events were free but required a ticket (sign up on website to receive ticket emailed to you for printing) to gain entrance (and build up the base of email addresses for later use) and crowds swelled to 20,000 to 25,000 for events. When he was given Secret Service protection they were alarmed at the growing size of the crowds and it was decided to charge nominal fees for the entrance tickets as a method of crowd control.


Thanks.

Well, it's certainly a different way how candidates get elected here and there. But I really would look flabbergasted if someone want me to elect her/him, and I had tp pay for listenng her/his arguments or join a discussion with her/him.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:48 am
sozobe wrote:
Interpreter is all set!

Whee!

Does that mean they have one, or does it mean you volunteered for the job to get the best possible look at him? I guess it's the former, but I wouldn't put the latter past you, either.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Fri 12 Oct, 2007 07:54 am
Heh.

The former.

Although in terms of getting up close and personal, if I sell 100 tickets I get to go backstage and meet him/ have picture taken with him -- and if I put out the word to the deaf community it's somewhat slightly possible that I'd sell 100 tickets...

Not planning on that though.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 14 Oct, 2007 06:36 am
Thought I'd toss this in as an example of a democratic/citizen positive (youth activism, youth voting) being turned into a target for slime...
Quote:
Carlson: Obama campaign's targeting of young voters has "a Khmer Rouge quality to it"
Summary: On Tucker, discussing the targeting of 17-year-old Iowa voters by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, Tucker Carlson said the practice has "a Khmer Rouge quality to it," adding, "t's scary." He also stated, "f a right-wing candidate came and targeted my kids, I'd be mad about it. I don't want my kids near political candidates. ... They're creepy."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200710110003?f=h_side
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sun 14 Oct, 2007 09:25 am
Saw that a couple days ago in my emails and decided it was not worthy of any reaction other than disgust that someone would find fault with young citizens of the U.S. being inspired to get up off the computer chair to campaign/vote for a presidential candidate.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Wed 17 Oct, 2007 10:07 am
Small world. "Obama a distant cousin to Cheney, Bush" by David Edwards and Jason Rhyne
Published: Wednesday October 17, 2007

Vice President Dick Cheney and aspiring Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may not share a political philosophy, but they do share a family tree.

The vice president's wife, Lynne, said during an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday that her husband and Obama were eighth cousins, a fact she discovered while researching family ancestry for her new memoir.

"This is such an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family lines for lives that have taken such different and varied paths as Dick's and Barack Obama," she said.

Ginny Justice, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Cheney, told MSNBC that Obama is a descendant of French Huguenot Mareen Duvall, whose son wed the granddaughter of the Englishman Richard Cheney in the 1600's.

Fox News on Wednesday also cited a report last month in the Chicago Sun-Times, which indicated Obama also had a distant genealogical connection to President Bush. The two are 11th cousins, according to the paper.

"Every time some new president gets installed -- elected to the United States presidency -- somebody does the whole lineage and, invariably, it leads back to the Queen of England," said Fox and Friends co-host Steve Doocy. "Everybody's always related to the Queen of England."

An Obama spokesman commented that "every family has a black sheep."

The following video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on October 17, 2007.
link
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Thu 18 Oct, 2007 11:13 am
Sen. Obama told Jay Leno that he was "OK with" being related to Cheney, but noted that he wasn't eager to be "invited to the family hunting party."
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 18 Oct, 2007 04:12 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Carlson: Obama campaign's targeting of young voters has "a Khmer Rouge quality to it" [..]

He also stated, "[..] I don't want my kids near political candidates. ... They're creepy."

You wonder, if he finds politicians so creepy, why he chose to make a living following them, huh?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 20 Oct, 2007 07:09 pm
This pretty much sums it up for me..

Quote:
HOPE SCHMOPE:

TNR The Plank
17 October 2007

There's a front-pager in today's Washington Post exploring the possibility that Obama's message of reconciliation, while warm and fuzzy, lacks gut-level appeal for a party that's suffered seven years at the hands of an arrogant, ethically challenged, wildly incompetent Bush administration.

This seems dead on to me. High-minded talk about bipartisanship and national healing is lovely, but it's the rare Democrat who isn't legitimately brassed off at what has happened under this regime. And unlike in 2000--when George W. vowed to help us forget the personal tackiness and impeachment horror of the Clinton years with his compassionate conservative b.s. about being a "uniter not a divider"--people today are up in arms over Bush's job performance in areas ranging from health care to stem cell research to Iraq Iraq Iraq.

Unlike Bill Clinton's zipper problem, these aren't issues that have America obsessing about the politics of personal destruction or the moral shortcomings of our commander-in-chief. Clinton fatigue stemmed from the wearying sense that our 42nd president brought trouble upon himself (dragging us through the muck as well) with his reckless personal behavior and ethical flexibility. As he prepared to leave office, there was a faint hope that maybe if we chose a less-polarizing, better-behaved successor, the partisan craziness would die down and we could all get some rest.

By contrast, Bush fatigue stems from the terrifying sense that this administration is out of touch and out of control. And as the W. era ends, there's the belief that it will take a hard-charging, hard-nosed leader to repair the widespread, concrete damage that this regime has wrought.

To be sure, much of the Bushies' misbehavior involved Rove and his winged monkeys' sleazy attempts to use the machinery of government to advance their party's fortunes. But combined with all of W.'s other screw ups, those partisan shenanigans seem only to make voters (not to mention donors) even more convinced that Republicans must be taught a lesson. Forget healing. America wants to see some corrective corporal punishment in action.

Few would deny that Obama is more inspirational than Hillary. But inspiration doesn't seem to be what Dems are most in the mood for now. Sure it would be great if Obama could change the tone and bridge the divide and all that good stuff. But many, many Dems want their chance to land a few punches first.

--Michelle Cottle
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 20 Oct, 2007 08:23 pm
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 07:03 am
I'm definitely discouraged right now. I still see a possible rationale for it, and it may even be a valid rationale. Become known as widely as possible, then kick things up a notch. When? I don't know. In the next month or two, it'd have to be -- before Iowa. If not, and if he doesn't do well in Iowa, I think that is pretty much that.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 09:56 am
Good analysis, nimh. Sorry to see you discouraged, soz.

His campaign, and the campaigns of all the others who are trailing, are at a clear disadvantage. The Clinton people have apparently been working on her 2008 bid for many years. They are very smart and experienced and have, over these years, built up a huge, serious and well funded machine. Normally, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with all this (I'd love something far more revolutionary) but in the circumstances of the present, I'm not.

Obama is, as nimh's analysis says, stepping more lightly than he might and more lightly than the others competing. Certainly that is due in part to who he is as a person and hence the persona and style his campaign has decided to center on. I think too, there must be a particularly strong agreement between the campaigns (looking/planning past the primaries and forward to the general election) to present the party as unified, which projects certainty/strength and which minimizes self-inflicted wounds which would be exacerbated by Republicans in the general.

The 'revenge' vs 'peace and love' point brought up in one of nimh's links is interesting and relevant. I'm pretty deeply in the revenge camp because I think the left must be merciless right now for reasons of justice, transparency, and survival. The modern conservative movement has evolved into something very ugly indeed (Krugman's new book is right on point) and it needs to be seriously wounded and demoralized.

And there is the deficiency I find, and which I think Marshall and Iglesias also voice, in Obama's campaign. It is probably, if sadly, naive to move forward assuming the modern right has any intention of compromise or of doing things in a non-confrontational manner. This is, as I tried to convince Craven four years ago, a street fight. Initially, with Obama's decision to run, because the man holds such promise, I suffered a romantic relapse and hoped that hope might be enough.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 10:03 am
I'm not discouraged because of nimh's posts btw, I'm discouraged because of the campaign. I've been saying for a while now that a) I'm not impressed with his campaign staff (though I understand that Hillary and Edwards had probably already claimed the best talent and he may not have had much choice in the matter), and that b) I understand why he'd want to tread lightly at first, but am ready for him to take things up a notch or 10. I haven't really seen that increased intensity yet.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 10:17 am
Quote:
I'm not discouraged because of nimh's posts btw, I'm discouraged because of the campaign
Yeah, I know.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 10:18 am
'K. :-)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 07:13 am
blatham wrote:
Good analysis, nimh.

Thanks Blatham. Since I was quoting bloggers, I was ready to get pilloried again for relying on "gossip columns". But if I quote bloggers it's because I happen to think their analysis is either interesting for some specific reason or, in this case, simply spot on. Glad to see I'm not the only one here sharing these impressions.

I honestly think that posts like these, in all their momentary sketchiness, simply say more about who Obama-the-candidate is, and how that's working out, than things he wrote years ago when he was still "free". Running for President has a way of changing a man.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 07:28 am
But OK, on a less discouraging note.

When it comes to energy policy, at least, Obama is proposing a plan that "in many ways .. goes a lot further" than what Edwards and Hillary have come up with.

And he delivered his plan in a rousing, inspiring speech.

Here's a short summary/analysis:

Quote:
OBAMA AND ENERGY.

David Roberts and Brian Beutler have much more on the energy plan Obama released yesterday [see here, here, here and here - nimh], but here are the basics:

  • He supports a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, and he wants 100 percent of those carbon credits to be auctioned off.

  • He wants the up to $50 billion-a-year generated by auctioning those credits over the next 10 years to be used for research, development, and deployment of clean energy technology, as well helping low-income workers both transition to a new energy economy and afford higher energy bills. That's $150 billion for clean energy over the next 10 years, which makes his plan the most ambitious we've seen so far.

  • He wants to create a Clean Technologies Capital Venture Fund to help get green tech on the market, and he wants to commit to drawing a full quarter of our electricity from solar, wind, geothermal or other renewable sources by 2025. He also hypes energy efficiency, which not nearly enough politicians talk about, and wants all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030. As for transportation, he promised to raise CAFE standards and even mentioned policies to reduce our reliance on personal automobiles for transportation.

  • He calls for the a ban on "new traditional coal facilities," which means he would require that all new facilities be Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles plants, but he doesn't go so far as to call for a ban on all new plants unless they are equipped to capture and sequester their carbon emissions. While IGCC plants are a slight improvement over traditional plants (about 10-20 percent less carbon emissions), unless the new plants have CCS, they're not going to do much to stop global warming.
In some areas, it overlaps with the policy coming from both Edwards and Clinton, but in many ways, this goes a lot further than they have. Calling for 100 percent auction on carbon credits is big, and his push for investment in research, development, and deployment is equally impressive. It would be nice if he called for an all-out ban on new coal-fired plants until CCS is in place, as Dodd has, and it could use a more solid plan for fuel efficiency increases, but it definitely raises the bar for Edwards and Clinton on the climate and energy front.


Read the full plan here.

And here is the full speech:

Quote:
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future

Monday, October 8th, 2007
Portsmouth, NH

Two weeks ago, representatives from some of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases were invited to Washington by the President for a global conference on climate change.

For a brief moment, there was a hope that maybe this conference would be different -- that maybe America would finally commit to the steps that nearly every scientist and expert believes we must take; that maybe the planet's only superpower would finally lead the world -- or at the very least, follow it -- in taking on the planet's greatest threat.

Instead, the world traveled thousands of miles to Washington only to find that Washington is still miles away from the world in its willingness to address one of the most urgent challenges of our generation. Some of the attendees said they were amazed at how isolated the White House view had become. Others dismissed the President's credibility entirely. And another headline noted that when it comes to the global debate on climate change, our country is struggling just to stay relevant.

Struggling just to stay relevant.

That is not the America we know. It is not the America we believe in. We are a nation that has led the world ever since the moment a lowly band of colonists proved that freedom could triumph over tyranny. We are the country that summoned the courage of its people to build an arsenal of democracy that freed a continent and brought peace to a world at war. We are a land of moon shots and miracles of science and technology that have touched the lives of millions across the planet. And when that planet is challenged or when it is threatened, the eyes of the world have always turned to this nation as the "last, best hope of Earth."

That is the America I want to lead as President. I believe that when it comes to the issue that will determine the very future of life on this Earth, we are still Earth's best hope. And when the world arrives at the doorstep of the White House to hear what America has to say about climate change, I will let them know that America is up to the challenge. That America is ready to lead again.

We have not fallen behind on energy due to a lack of ingenuity or initiative from the American people. I have seen too much innovation and possibility in this country to believe that. Right here in New Hampshire, I've filled up at a biodiesel pump at UNH, where this year students and faculty will remove over 200 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. New Hampshire is already reducing its greenhouse gas pollution as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and thanks to the leadership of Senator Martha Fuller Clark and Governor Lynch, you'll get 25% of your energy from renewable sources by 2025. Keene is one of America's greenest cities, and I understand that 164 towns have now passed a resolution demanding that Washington take action on climate change.

But Washington hasn't acted; and that is the real reason why America hasn't led.

Washington's failure to lead on energy is the failure of a President who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming -- a President who put more faith in the spin of a science fiction writer than the science facts of real experts. It's the failure of an Administration that developed America's energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other viewpoint. It's a failure of leadership that has never called on the American people to do anything more than go shopping.

And it's also a failure of our politics that pre-dates the presidency of George W. Bush. We have heard promises about energy independence from every single U.S. President since Richard Nixon -- Republicans and Democrats. We've heard proposals to curb our use of fossil fuels in nearly every State of the Union address since the oil embargo of 1973. Back then we imported about a third of our oil. Now we import over half. Back then global warming was just the theory of a few scientists. Now it is a fact that threatens our very existence.

The truth is, our energy problem has become an energy crisis because no matter how well-intentioned the promise -- no matter how bold the proposal -- they all fall victim to the same Washington politics that has only become more divided and dishonest; more timid and calculating; more beholden to the powerful interests that have the biggest stake in the status quo.

There are some in this race who actually make the argument that the more time you spend immersed in the broken politics of Washington, the more likely you are to change it. I always find this a little amusing. I know that change makes for good campaign rhetoric, but when these same people had the chance to actually make change happen, they didn't lead. When they had the chance to stand up and require automakers to raise their fuel standards, they refused. When they had multiple chances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by investing in renewable fuels that we can literally grow right here in America, they said no.

Now, I know that some of these policies are difficult politically. They aren't easy. But being President of the United States isn't about doing what's easy. It's about doing what's hard. It's about doing what's right. Leadership isn't about telling people what they want to hear -- it's about telling them what they need to hear.

When I arrived in the U.S. Senate, I wanted to do whatever I could to make real progress toward energy independence. I reached across the aisle to pass a law that will give more Americans the chance to fill up their cars with clean biofuels. I passed a law that will fuel the research needed to develop a car that will get 500 miles to the gallon. I even voted for an energy bill that was far from perfect because I was able to ensure that it contained some real investments in renewable sources of energy. And I've fought to eliminate the tax giveaways to oil companies that were slipped into that bill -- oil companies that have spent half a billion dollars lobbying Congress in the last ten years while their profits have risen to record highs.

And I did something else. I knew that America hadn't raised the fuel standards for our cars in twenty years. Even though we had the technology on the shelf. Even though Japanese car companies that make more fuel-efficient cars are running circles around our own car companies. Even though we send hundreds of millions of dollars a day to some of the world's most dangerous regimes for their oil.

So I decided to try something new. I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards that won support of lawmakers who had never supported raising fuel standards before. And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am President, there will be no more excuses -- we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.

Now I have to admit -- the room was pretty quiet after that. But I said what I did because I believe America has had enough of politicians who just tell everyone what they want to hear. We have to tell people the truth. And the truth is that we can't afford to let the same old politics stand in the way of our future anymore.

We can't afford the same kind of caution when the future of our security is at stake. We know that the money that America spends on foreign oil is funding both sides of the war on terror; that it pays for everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq. We know this money corrupts budding democracies and allows dictators from hostile regimes to threaten the international community. It even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda to, "focus your operations on oil, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own."

We can't be afraid to stand up to the oil and auto industry when the future of our economy is at stake. When we let these companies off the hook; when we tell them they don't have to build fuel-efficient cars or transition to renewable fuels, it may boost their short-term profits, but it is killing their long-term chances for survival and threatening too many American jobs. The global market is already moving away from fossil fuels. The question is not if a renewable energy economy will thrive in the future, it's where. And if we want that place to be the United States of America, we can't afford to wait any longer.

Most of all, we cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now. In a state like New Hampshire, the ski industry is facing shorter seasons and losing jobs. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, the periods of drought. By 2050 famine could force more than 250 million from their homes -- famine that will increase the chances of war and strife in many of the world's weakest states. The polar ice caps are now melting faster than science had ever predicted. And if we do nothing, sea levels will rise high enough to swallow large portions of every coastal city and town.

This is not the future I want for my daughters. It's not the future any of us want for our children. And if we act now and we act boldly, it doesn't have to be. But if we wait; if we let campaign promises and State of the Union pledges go unanswered for yet another year; if we let the same broken politics that's held us back for decades win one more time, we will lose another chance to save our planet. And we might not get many more.

I reject that future. I would not be running for President if I didn't believe that this time could be different. Not because I have some perfect solution that every other expert and candidate has somehow missed. Not because I think I can lock myself in the White House with a secret task force and get this done on my own. But because I believe the American people are ready for a President who can unite us around a common purpose again. I believe that we are ready to lead again.

Make no mistake -- developing the next generation of energy will be one of the greatest challenges that this generation of Americans will ever face. It will not be easy. It will not come without cost or without sacrifice. And if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they are either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

I will set big goals for this country as President -- some so large that the technology to reach them does not yet exist. But that has not stopped us before. When President Roosevelt's advisors informed him that his goals for wartime production were impossible to meet, he waved them off and said "believe me, the production people can do it if they really try." And they did. When the scientists and engineers told John F. Kennedy that they had no idea how to put a man on the moon, he told them they would find a way. And we found one.

I believe we will again.

In the speech I gave in Detroit, I laid out the first part of my comprehensive energy plan -- a proposal that will require our cars to use less oil and our fuels to use less carbon. It's a proposal that alone removes 50 million cars' worth of pollution from the road and reduces our oil consumption 2.5 million barrels a day by 2020 -- the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf today.

Today I want to lay out the second part of my plan -- a set of proposals that will allow America to lead the world in combating global climate change. From the moment I take office as President, I will call together scientists and entrepreneurs; heads of industry and labor; Democrats, Republicans and Americans from all walks of life to help develop and deploy the next generation of energy that will allow us to build the next generation's economy.

After all, in meeting the challenges of earlier generations, we didn't just end a costly war or beat the Soviets to the moon -- we also unleashed opportunities we had never dreamed of. The GI Bill sent an entire generation of Americans -- including my grandfather -- to college and then on to the middle-class. Legions of scientists and engineers emerged from our race to space whose discoveries and innovations have forever changed the world.

This same opportunity exists today. That's why my plan isn't just about making dirty energy expensive, it's about making clean energy affordable -- a project that will create millions of new jobs and entire new industries right here in America.

The first step in doing this is to phase out a carbon-based economy that's causing our changing climate. As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming -- an 80% reduction by 2050. To ensure this isn't just talk, I will also commit to interim targets toward this goal in 2020, 2030, and 2040. These reductions will start immediately, and we'll continue to follow the recommendations of top scientists to ensure that our targets are strong enough to meet the challenge we face.

In addition to this cap, all polluters will have to pay based on the amount of pollution they release into the sky. The market will set the price, but unlike the other cap-and-trade proposals that have been offered in this race, no business will be allowed to emit any greenhouses gases for free. Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution. It's time to make the cleaner way of doing business the more profitable way of doing business.

There is no doubt that this transition will be costly in the short-term. To make it easier, we will provide assistance to Americans who need help with their energy bills. We'll help families make their homes more energy efficient, and we'll help workers and factories retool their facilities so they can compete and thrive in a clean energy economy. And once we make America more energy efficient and start producing more renewable energy, we will save money and bring energy costs down in the long-run. But we must act now.

Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy.

That starts with the next generation of biofuels. We know that corn ethanol has been the most successful alternative fuel we have ever developed. I've been a champion for ethanol. In just two years, the Renewable Fuel Standard I helped pass has sparked an historic expansion of ethanol production. It has helped displace foreign oil and strengthen our rural economy. And we should fight the efforts of big oil and big agri-business to undermine this emerging industry.

But the truth is, corn ethanol is neither the perfect nor the permanent answer to our energy challenge. There are legitimate economic and ecological concerns about an over-reliance on corn-based ethanol. And even if we double or triple its production, it won't replace even a tenth of our demand for gasoline. That's why we must invest in the next generation of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol that can be made from things like switchgrass and woodchips. The struggling paper mills in New Hampshire would be back in business if they could use wood to produce biofuels. We should set a goal to produce the first two billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2013. And we should make sure that more local farms and local refineries have the chance to be a part of this new industry.

We'll also invest in clean energy sources like wind power and solar power, so that by 2025, America can meet a new standard that will require 25% of all our electricity to come from renewable sources.

And we must find a way to stop coal from polluting our atmosphere without pretending that our nation's most abundant energy source will just go away. It won't. It will also require taking steps to ensure that China's coal emissions are curbed as well. Already, some coal pollution from China's dirty plants is making its way to California. That's why we must invest in clean coal technologies that we can use at home and share with the world. Until those technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America -- including a ban on new traditional coal facilities.

We will also explore safer ways to use nuclear power, which right now accounts for more than 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. We should accelerate research into technologies that will allow for the safe, secure treatment of nuclear waste. As President, I'll continue the work I began in the Senate to ensure that all nuclear material is stored, secured and accounted for -- both at home and around the world. There should be no short cuts or regulatory loopholes -- period.

Many of these clean energy technologies -- from biofuels to solar power to carbon sequestration -- are being developed in research labs and facilities all across America at this very moment. The problem is they might never get further than that. U.S. venture capital funding does a great job investing in research and development, but we don't do enough to take the risk out of bringing new discoveries to the wider marketplace. And so we see technologies that are invented here in America -- like wind turbines, solar panels, and compact fluorescent bulbs -- developed overseas and then sold back to American consumers.

This will change when I am President. I will launch a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund that will provide $10 billion a year for five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies off the ground. This venture capital fund will get new technologies from the lab to the marketplace so that in the next few years, the American economy can benefit from America's innovations.

The third step in my plan to combat climate change is to call on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50% more energy efficient by 2030. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to curb our emissions and save money at the same time. Since DuPont implemented an energy efficiency program in 1990, the company has significantly reduced its pollution and cut its energy bills by $3 billion, and cities like Keene and Portland, Oregon have led in meeting new efficiency standards. There is no reason the rest of America can't do the same.

We will start by dramatically improving the efficiency of our buildings, which currently account for nearly half of all carbon emissions in America today. When I am President, we'll set a goal of making our new buildings 50% more efficient within several years. The federal government will lead by making all of its buildings carbon neutral by 2025. And I will set a national goal of making all new buildings in America carbon neutral by 2030.

We will also start replacing our outdated power grid with a digital smart grid so that we don't lose precious energy and billions of dollars like we did in the 2003 New York City blackout. We'll follow the lead of states like California and change the way utilities make money so that their profits aren't tied to how much energy we use, but how much energy we save. Finally, we know that if every home in America replaced just five incandescent light bulbs with five compact fluorescent bulbs, it would eliminate the need for twenty-one power plants. We'll do one better. I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs -- a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.

Now, none of these steps will happen overnight. They will take time, they will take sacrifice, and they will take a sustained commitment from the American people. As President, I will lead this commitment. I will not be outlining these goals in my State of the Union and then walk away when they become too difficult. I will report to the American people every year on the State of our Energy Future, and let you know the progress we've made toward an 80% emissions reduction by 2050, toward replacing over a third of our oil consumption by 2030, and toward improving our energy efficiency 50% by 2030. I will also make America's energy security a fundamental tenet of our national security by preparing our military to deal with threats posed by climate change.

And there is one step I will take as soon as possible.

From the moment I take office, I will invite the world back to Washington and let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again. That we are ready to rejoin the community of nations in taking on the greatest challenge of this generation.

I will personally reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations in both the developed and developing world and ask them to join America in creating a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. It will complement -- and ultimately merge with -- the much larger negotiation process underway at the UN to develop a post-Kyoto framework. I will be in constant contact with these leaders to develop concrete, feasible emissions targets that all of us will meet. We will also work to build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, just like the OPEC nations strategize on supply.

And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world. If we can build a clean coal plant in America, China should be able to as well. If we find a way to harness the next generation of biofuels, India will know how to do it too. And as we tackle under-development in impoverished nations, we will use what we know to help them reduce the negative impacts of climate change and build a clean energy future.

Recently, the director of a nonprofit that helps promote clean energy policies in China said that the most frequent question he gets from the Chinese about every policy initiative he suggests is, "If it is so good, why aren't you doing it?" And it's the hardest question to answer. He said, "We can point to good examples that some American states, or cities, or companies are implementing...but we can't point to America."

I believe it's time the world could point to America again. I want the engineer in New Delhi to point to our green buildings as the kind he'd like to design for his country. I want the automaker in Tokyo to point to our cars as the model for all the world. I want the leaders of Europe and Asia; of Africa and South America to point to our diplomacy and our engagement and our ingenuity as the light that led us toward a new energy future in our time.

And most of all, I want our children and our children's children to point to this generation and this moment as the time when America found its way again. As the time when America overcame the division and the politics and the pettiness of an earlier era so that a new generation could come together and take on the most urgent challenge of this era. I am running for President of the United States to lead us toward this new era, and I ask all of you to join me in taking on the challenge that lies ahead. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:42 am
nimh, quoting the American Prospect, wrote:
  • He supports a cap-and-trade system that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, and he wants 100 percent of those carbon credits to be auctioned off.

  • He wants the up to $50 billion-a-year generated by auctioning those credits over the next 10 years to be used for research, development, and deployment of clean energy technology, as well helping low-income workers both transition to a new energy economy and afford higher energy bills. That's $150 billion for clean energy over the next 10 years, which makes his plan the most ambitious we've seen so far.

Very, very nice! Especially the first bullet point.

The American Prospect wrote:
  • He wants to create a Clean Technologies Capital Venture Fund to help get green tech on the market, and he wants to commit to drawing a full quarter of our electricity from solar, wind, geothermal or other renewable sources by 2025. He also hypes energy efficiency, which not nearly enough politicians talk about, and wants all new buildings to be carbon neutral by 2030. As for transportation, he promised to raise CAFE standards and even mentioned policies to reduce our reliance on personal automobiles for transportation.[

  • He calls for the a ban on "new traditional coal facilities," which means he would require that all new facilities be Integrated Gasification Combined Cycles plants, but he doesn't go so far as to call for a ban on all new plants unless they are equipped to capture and sequester their carbon emissions. While IGCC plants are a slight improvement over traditional plants (about 10-20 percent less carbon emissions), unless the new plants have CCS, they're not going to do much to stop global warming.

That's bad -- because it means he doesn't really believe in his own cap & trade system. If he did, he would believe that venture capitalists help found alternative startups because they're profitable, and that investors will stop building traditional coal burners because the emission permits will make them unprofitable.

If the above bullet points are a fair summary of the plan, they're a good example for what gave me this uneasy feeling about The Audacity of Hope. Obama believes, probably on moral grounds (which is fine), that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced. Having decided that, he lacked the wonk interest in figuring out and deciding whether market incentives or government regulation is the optimal approach for achieving the outcome he desires. Why oh why can't Bill Clinton run for a third term?! <sigh>
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:38 am
Quote:
Why oh why can't Bill Clinton run for a third term?!

He is.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:20 am
Just wait. All you non-US citizens are going berzerk over Clinton/Obama and the fact is, outside of the most blue of blue areas, they couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

You'll be giving the flyover states the finger again as you lose....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 254
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/18/2025 at 12:19:55