Both candidates talk the talk on green issues but who can deliver?

Tag : picture hanging set

"I speak to you tonight as a citizen of the world, because theoutcome of this election will affect the future of the planet."
The words are those of Al Gore, the greatest green president thatAmerica never had. He spoke them not during his own campaign forthe White House in 2000 - he remained strangely silent then onclimate despite his long-held convictions - but last month as heendorsed Barack Obama.
"The next generation will look back on the decisions we make inNovember," he went on. "Were we to ignore the warnings of thescientists and look the other way as the polar ice cap melts beforeour eyes, our children might well ask: 'What were they thinking?'"
Eight years on from his own race against George Bush, Gore hasfinally got the election he has been waiting for. With climatescientists making increasingly urgent calls for action, theenvironment has moved from the margins of political debate closerto centre stage.
Though US economic woes and national security dominate, both Obamaand his Republican rival, John McCain, have devoted far moreattention to the environment than in previous races. Both claim tobe the one to lead America and the world through the crisis, and atface value they appear finely matched.
Obama has established his environmental credentials in the pastfour years in the Senate. McCain was the only Republican candidatein the primaries speaking about global warming. As Gore generouslynoted in his endorsement speech, McCain was one of the first toflag up climate change in Congress - he introduced legislation in2003, 2005 and 2007 to curb emissions - in contrast to mostRepublicans from Bush down who simply refused to acknowledge theproblem.
Whichever candidate becomes the 44th president, he will enter theWhite House with a commitment on global warming that will go farbeyond anything attempted by Bush, whose resistance to governmentaction is blamed by many scientists for setting back the fight onglobal warming by a decade. But there the similarities end. When itcomes to how to get the job done, they are starkly divided.
In broad terms, they follow the predilections of their own parties- McCain favouring the market, Obama regulation and stateintervention. So while both subscribe to a system of cap-and-trade,where a ceiling on emissions is imposed on polluters, the detailsare telling.
Obama would require all firms to buy CO2 permits - a system knownas 100% auctions - to raise income that could then be reinvested inclean energy. McCain would largely hand out the permits in thespirit of avoiding new taxes, keeping regulation to a minimum andtrusting business to do the honourable thing. That distinctionalone has won Obama the backing of leading environmental groups."Permits are an entitlement to pollute, so anything less than 100%auctions amounts to a reward for polluting," said BrentBlackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth US.
Obama's approach is to set targets. He wants a 10% reduction invehicle emissions by 2020 and a further 1% every year thereafter.He would also force power companies to generate a quarter of theiroutput through wind, solar and other renewables by 2025.
McCain eschews putting a figure to most of his policies. He hasonly one headline target - to reduce CO2 emissions by 65% on 1990levels by 2050, compared with Obama's more ambitious goal, in linewith the thinking of many climate scientists, of 80%.
In the absence of targets, McCain says freeing up the market willunleash the power of innovation. That bears the hallmark of hismain environmental adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as aneconomist in both Bush administrations. Rather than imposing changeon car makers and power producers, Holtz-Eakin proposes tax rebatesfor consumers of low-emissions cars. The campaign has also offereda $300m (about £150m) prize for the inventor of the carbattery of the future - an offer denounced by the Democrats as agimmick.
Environmentalists on the right of US politics back McCain'sapproach because although it may be less radical than Obama's theythink it will work. "To pass climate legislation we are going toneed Republicans on board," said Jim DiPeso of Republicans forEnvironmental Protection. "He can drag Republicans kicking andscreaming behind him in a way Obama never would be able."
But to the further ire of groups such as FoE, McCain has supportedan end to the ban on offshore oil drilling, something Bushannounced this week.
He has also consistently pushed for expansion of nuclear power.Blackwelder estimates that renewable energies would go six to 10times further per dollar of investment than building 45 new nuclearpower stations as McCain proposes because of the huge wastemanagement and security costs associated with the industry.
Add to that the fact that last year McCain failed to turn up to all15 major environmental votes in the Senate, pleading lack of timeon the campaign trail (Obama made several of them) and a picturebegins to emerge that is out of kilter with his pro-environmentalreputation. The League of Conservation Voters, a non-partisan bodythat campaigns for an eco-friendly Congress, has awarded McCain 24out of 100 points for his lifetime record, compared with 86 forObama.
"McCain has been getting a free pass as he's assumed to be good onthe environment. But ... there is a mismatch between his words andhis deeds," said the League's Tim Greeff.
Obama's great weakness is ethanol. Obama supports subsidies for thecontroversial biofuel that is much loved in the corn-growinghinterland of his home state, Illinois.
He also approves the high import barriers on Brazilian ethanol thatis made from sugar cane, prompting grumbles from both developmenteconomists and many environmentalists who believe ethanol is oflimited value.
A recent New York Times investigation drew links between Obama'smain environmental adviser, Jason Grumet, and big backers ofethanol in turn associated with the agribusiness giant ArcherDaniels Midland. Obama has promised to look again at the ethanolissue and change tack if necessary.
The big question hanging over the race is which candidate - ifeither - can steer the world away from its path to climatedisaster.
With scientists warning that the danger zone for global warming isjust decades away, Gore's rhetoric about the future of the planethanging in the balance will resonate all the way to the pollingbooths.