Energy Outlook
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Candidates & Energy: Clinton Among all the candidates I've scrutinized so far in this year's presidential election campaign, energy independence has emerged as a common theme. Each of the candidates approaches it with different emphasis and solutions, but the worries about our reliance on unstable regimes for our energy supplies span both parties, as does the concern that our remittances for imported oil are funding our enemies in the War on Terror. My systematic review of the 2008 presidential aspirants now turns to one of the best known candidates on either side, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY,) winner of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary and the Nevada Democratic Caucuses. She treats energy policy as a key issue and combines it with a focus on stronger measures to address climate change.

Anyone curious about Senator Clinton's views and proposals on energy and the environment needn't look much farther than her [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. , which includes a summary page and links to a [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. , other policy documents, and speeches. It would take me a week's worth of postings to enumerate and evaluate all of the details, which include expanding US biofuels production to 60 billion gallons per year, increasing fuel economy to 55 mpg, and phasing out incandescent lights. Knowing the [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. at her disposal, I'm not surprised by the granularity of the Senator's proposals. At the highest level, all of these ideas support three goals that she articulates consistently: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by mid-century, reducing US oil imports by two-thirds (compared to [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. of approximately 13 million barrels per day) by 2030, and building a green-energy sector that will provide millions of new jobs. Unlike the goals of complete energy independence or oil independence that other candidates have announced, Senator Clinton's oil import target just might be achievable, leaving us importing 3-4 million barrels per day of crude oil, about what we get from Canada and Mexico today.

The centerpiece of her plan is the creation of a "[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. " amounting to $50 billion over 10 years for expanding R&D on energy efficiency, renewables and other alternative energy sources. This figure includes significant funding for demonstration projects to prove the feasibility of applying carbon sequestration to "clean coal" power plants, which would apparently be the only kind of coal facilities she would allow to be built. But when Senator Clinton says that she [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. for this fund, you know what is coming next. As described in a [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. on energy, the money would come from "ending the tax breaks that oil companies receive to maintain the existing oil dependence economy" and by enacting some form of a windfall profits tax on the oil industry. It would also receive revenue from the greenhouse cap-and-trade system she envisions, with 100% of emissions allowances auctioned, rather than allocated to existing sources. Additional funds for emerging energy would come from new "Energy Independence Bonds."

Concern about climate change shapes all of Senator Clinton's energy proposals, resulting in programs intended to reduce energy dependence while also reducing emissions. This includes an idea [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. , for the establishment of a "carbon-neutral mortgage association" or "Connie-Mae," that would finance home improvements that reduced energy consumption and emissions.

Although many of these ideas and proposals are well thought-out and address urgent problems, particularly with regard to tackling energy security and climate change simultaneously, I am concerned about the Senator's adversarial approach to the existing energy industry, which must play a key role, if her goal of reducing our reliance on imported oil is to be achieved. I don't see how we can close the enormous and [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. in our energy supplies, while taking away financial resources from the industry that accounts for [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. . I'm sure Senator Clinton understands that, because she voted in 2006 to [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, although [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. , she has apparently [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. any role for new nuclear power in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or providing the power for the plug-in vehicles that she sees as a key strategy for reducing oil use.

On the "experience vs. change" scale, Senator Clinton's proposed energy policies represent significant departures from the status quo. Her team has taken a systematic approach to energy and the environment, connecting technologies such as renewable power and advanced biofuels to the smart-grid and flexible-fuel infrastructure needed to maximize their usefulness. Although her target for reducing oil imports is less ambitious than that of [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. , her emphasis on climate change matches his, and the specificity of her energy proposals exceeds that of any other candidate I've reviewed to date. At the same time, I have been surprised by the populist tone of much of her campaign rhetoric. It extends to [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. that oil refiners collude to drive up prices, a charge on which the industry has been exonerated numerous times. This doesn't match the seriousness and pragmatism she has applied to her Senate role over the past seven years, but it certainly reflects the dynamics of the current three-way race for the Democratic nomination.

__________________


"I'm able to multi-task,
I can write and piss you off at the same time"

You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war Jackson Brown

So why again do You think she's most qualified.

And what about her grandiose energy plans means she is any more "qualified" than anyone else running?

According to Merriam Websters online, Qualified is defined as,
a: fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose
b: having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions (as for an office or employment)

Again, what in her past makes her qualified?

Has she run a city?
Has she run a State?

No, she is a Senator, who served one term and then the next term has been spent running for President.

Well Ron, I can't say for certain that she is qualified; my only position is that she appears to be the most qualified in a field of woefully incapable candidates.

However she happens to be married to perhaps the most qualified adviser of all, ex President Clinton and I'd be willing to trust that he will exert at least some influence in her new administration.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he proved to be a competent leader in spite of the Republican congress' childish attempts to derail his Presidency with their preoccupation about sexual matters.

Remember, although President Clinton is somewhat of a social liberal, at heart he is basically a fiscal conservative- good medicine indeed to unravel at least a portion of the budgetary damage done by the outgoing administration with it's cowboy-like shoot 'em up mentality.

PS What did you think of the film about "Peak Oil", Ron? At least aside from the BS about the World Trade Center, which admittedly detracted from the creditability of it.
rx

__________________


"I'm able to multi-task,
I can write and piss you off at the same time"

You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war Jackson Brown

SHE wants to put a "WINDFALL TAX" on Oil Companies. Funny since Oil Companies make about 2-3% profit on every gallon of gasoline/diesel they sell, or about .08 cents per GALLON. But what she WON'T tell you is that most of these profits go to Retirement Funds, Stock and other holdings owned by many American Citizens. MOST of these profits DON'T belong to the "Oil Companies".
As long as we are talking about profits, how long before the Democrats want to put a Windfall Profits tax on Bottled Water (about 22% profit)?

And "Big Oil' is in the middle of the pack when it comes to subsidies.

You would never know that by listening to a Democrat.

Didnt she have the most earmarks of anyone in congress? You have to love the one about the Woodstock museum. True leadership.

Just of Presidential candidates..............

Top Earmark-er Clinton Grants $303,000 to 'Gay' Lobby Group
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
January 24, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link. by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Isn't that one of Hillary's "qualifications" for Presidency?

rex,

As anyone can plainly see, this thread shows pre'zactly why Hitlery is unqualified to be the leader of thr free world.

$303,000 of taxpayer money earmarked to a group of queers wanting needle exchange programs, allowing HIV/AIDS infected immigrants to legaly enter the country, and condom distribution in the prisons. That's just one example with 260 more.

This country is headed to new lows, moraly speaking. Hitlery plays a big role in that. She has alienated everyone outside of pre-approved victims status with her politicaly korrect BS.

Any white heterosexual male who votes for this human piece of s### has literaly lost his mind, or is completely out of touch with the political scene since about 1992.

Arguably the most hated presidential kandidate ever to run, and we must now hear why she's "qualified"?? Too funny...

Were she "qualified" for any office, she'd have sought a senate seat representing a state such as Montana, not liberal hell NY.

Were she "qualified" for POTUS, she'd not have cried on camera after not winning one states primary.

A prerequisite to becoming president should show some example of personal RESPONSIBILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY. That woman posses neither, not by a long shot.