Let's talk policy differences between Obama and Clinton (#1: Environment)

[Richard_Parker]

Amidst all the talk about candor and integrity in the past few weeks, the assumption seems to be that these two don’t have real policy differences. I thought it would be nice to have some threads to discuss whether such differences exist and whether they are significant without the the back-and-forth about “Billary” and race-baiting.

I’ll start this thread on an area in which I have some background, the environment. I hope we can have other issue threads, perhaps with input from people with expertise in a given area, if this one proves interesting.

**Environment
**
Here the conventional wisdom about their similarity is mostly right (perhaps here more than anywhere else). They have very similar plans, the keystones of which are identical auctioned cap-and-trade CO2 programs, identical requirements of 25% renewable energy by 2025, identical smart energy grid plans, and very similar increased fuel efficiency standards.

There are a few minor differences. Obama says explicitly he wants to use funds from cap-and-trade to train workers to make the transition to a green economy and talks about reforestation efforts. Clinton calls for funding the retrofitting of low income homes, supporting subsidies for green homes, and setting a zero emission standard for all federal buildings built after she takes office.

I think that stuff is basically a wash. Reforestation and building efficiency are both important, but I think the difference in emphasis doesn’t really reflect a difference in policy. And neither are significant when compared to the keystone policies.

One more significant difference is the amount of money pledged in support of cleaner energy. Obama says he’ll call for 150 billion in clean energy over 10 years + 10 billion per year in a clean energy venture capital fund vs. Clinton’s pledge of 50 billion. I’m guessing Clinton’s is simply more politically realistic, rather than pointing to a difference in priorities. Obama claims that the cap-and-trade program’s revenue will cover the cost. That’s plausible, and will obviously depend on the results of the auction. My prediction would be that neither candidate will be able to get an auction-based cap-and-trade scheme through Congress, and will be forced to give away at least some of the permits.

Finally, Obama seems to be more in favor of nuclear than Hillary, but this may just reflect the fact that he is a senator from Illinois (which I understand to have strong support for nuclear power). Obama at least mentions nuclear in his policy plans and Clinton does not. This amounts to a slim difference on a significant issue. Not sure whether it’s enough to distinguish the two.

Questions:
Are any of these differences significant?
Are there others I’m missing?
Do you support one policy over the other?

[DSeid]

I don’t think that they are all that different here but another insignificant point. Obama supported plug-ins introducing a bill back in April. The bill included

A tax credit for consumers who purchase plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Freedom Plug-in Credits would cover the consumer purchase of vehicles which use batteries and which plug into the electric grid for at least part of their power. This would include plug-in electrics, plug-in hybrids, and others.

The amount of the credit is a $2,000 base plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery pack capacity in excess of 2.5 kWh, with a cap of $7,500 for passenger vehicles of up to 10,000 pounds. A GEM (gasoline-ethanol-methanol) flex-fuel plug-in or a plug-in vehicle warranted by its manufacturer to run on biodiesel receives an extra $150

HRC for her part has her plan released for the election cycle which, among other things

calls for a $10,000 tax credit for plug-in hybrids

Of course both pandered to the corn lobby with support for ethanol during Iowa caucuses.

Maybe you think this is more of an energy issue than an environmental one, but the two are intertwined.

Anyway a bit of a wash there too, other than that Obama seemed to have the leadership position.

[Phlosphr]

The paradigm shift that has been happening all over this nation and indeed the globe is that people are paying more attention to the environment now than ever before. The younger generations are pioneering new and improved Habits that are more conducive to a sustainable living future than a recyclable one…Obama to this Environmentalist; is someone I want to keep an eye on as I believe new, fresh ideas in the WH are what’s needed to make sustained reasonable environmental change. And I believe most of those younger generations 18-25+ generation Y democraphic favor Obama…I’ll dig up a cite.

Perhaps the grass will be greener on the other side with new, fresh ideas.

[RTFirefly]

Both Hillary and Obama are against Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. From a practical POV, you can be for expanded use of nuclear power all you want, but it doesn’t mean much until we’ve got a place to put the garbage. So I’d say it’s a wash on nukes, too.

[Richard_Parker]

@RTFirefly

Both Hillary and Obama are against Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. From a practical POV, you can be for expanded use of nuclear power all you want, but it doesn’t mean much until we’ve got a place to put the garbage. So I’d say it’s a wash on nukes, too.

I’m not sure I agree. One option is to simply continue to store the waste like we do now, in casks at the nuclear facilities themselves. It’s not the best idea ever for both security and environmental reasons, but we must weigh the greater threat to our security/environment: catastrophic climate change and reliance on foreign oil, or the risks of local environmental contamination, etc. I’m not sure how that calculus comes out, but it looks to me, having read the plans, that at least Obama is thinking about it.

From his plan:

In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available

[Damuri_Ajashi]

The policy differences between Hillary and Obama are pretty marginal. The real debate is (or should be) who will be able to advance those policies. Do you think that the war scarred veteran of Washington DC trenchfighting will do a better job (in which case, you wonder why Hillary is the preferred candidate instead of any of the dozens of more experienced war scarred DC veterans) or if a conciliatory inspirational leader is more likely to get more stuff done (and is the conciliatory attitude just a prelude to capitulation and is the inspiration just froth or will it propel the country in a better direction).

[RTFirefly]

@Richard Parker

I’m not sure I agree. One option is to simply continue to store the waste like we do now, in casks at the nuclear facilities themselves. It’s not the best idea ever for both security and environmental reasons, but we must weigh the greater threat to our security/environment: catastrophic climate change and reliance on foreign oil, or the risks of local environmental contamination, etc.

You’re right. On this one, I was seeing the trees, not the forest.

[kniz]

@RTFirefly

Both Hillary and Obama are against Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. From a practical POV, you can be for expanded use of nuclear power all you want, but it doesn’t mean much until we’ve got a place to put the garbage. So I’d say it’s a wash on nukes, too.

Where is France putting all of its garbage? South Africa?

[Richard_Parker]

@kniz

Where is France putting all of its garbage? South Africa?

France reprocesses most of its nuclear waste (and that of many surrounding countries, in fact). Reprocessing produces fissible materials that can be put back in reactors as well as byproducts with half-lives much smaller than those of non-reprocessed materials. Hence, disposal isn’t as much of a big deal since the half-lives are in centuries, not millenia. The US doesn’t reprocess for fear of contributing to nuclear proliferation. A rather anachronistic policy, if I do say so myself.

Nevertheless, France does face waste problems like everyone else. Even waste with a half-life of a few centuries is still a headache. They just have a different risk-calculus. Or rather, they’ve actually made the risk-calculus, where we’ve had our heads buried in the sand about this topic for thirty years.