Obama on Global Warming, Ethanol

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/16/2008 10:58:08 AM

In the July 10-24 edition of Rolling Stone magazine, there are a couple of exchanges between reporter Jann Wenner and Barack Obama that I find to be highly encouraging:

Last week, the Senate failed to pass a measure that would have strongly addressed global warming. What's your plan to get meaningful climate-change legislation passed in the face of opposition by the oil, coal and auto industries and their allies in Congress?
Let's start with what we have to do. Every scientist that is serious about looking at this question will tell you that, at minimum, we've got to reduce carbon emissions by about 80 percent.

By what date?
2050. And it's not going to happen precipitously. We've got to start now and steadily ratchet down our carbon emissions.

Exactly right, and that means we have to start reducing our carbon emissions immediately, then continue to reduce them by about 2% per year for the next 40 years or so.  Obama gets it. McCain? He's still trying to figure out this whole "internet(s)" thang.  Ha.

Also on energy and the environment, I very much like Obama's answer regarding the boondoggle known as corn-based ethanol:

You've been a big supporter of ethanol But studies show it doesn't do anything to reduce global warming, it's actually a less efficient way to produce energy than gasoline, and it's contributing to growing food shortages worldwide. Are you going to continue to back it?
Corn-based ethanol I see as a transitional technology. We've got to invest in alternative fuels.

This one is ranked as pretty bad.
I understand, which is why we're going to have a transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, not using food crops as the source of energy.

So you foresee this coming to an end.
What I foresee is us transitioning into other ways of developing these energy sources. The fact that we had corn-based ethanol, and that industry has matured, provides us with distribution networks and infrastructure that can ultimately be used for other ethanol sources.

In short, Barack Obama appears to fully understand that we need to transition out of corn-based ethanol. More broadly, Obama seems to truly comprehend the urgency of our energy and environmental challenges. And instead of pandering to voters - like John McCain and so many other candidates are doing with their "gas tax holidays" and other idiocy - he's offering real solutions...and, yes, "straight talk."  No wonder why Obama's leading McCain in almost all the polls.  Now, it's up to us to seal the deal and make sure that on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama is elected the 44th president of the United States.


Comments



I hate to disagree (Eric - 7/16/2008 11:12:23 AM)
but Obama sounds very weak in his answers about cornfuel.  He indicates that it's a "transition" and that it has its good points.  Blah.

Instead, he should be coming out against this complete disaster as strongly as, well, you have.  Ideally he should say the stuff flat-out sucks and he'll sign an executive order on day one which bans it entirely.  Since we don't live in an ideal world that's not going to happen, but he needs to show that he's really going to shut this stuff down quickly instead of softly dancing around an eventual transition.  



I think he gets it, but obviously (Lowell - 7/16/2008 11:14:39 AM)
he's under a lot of pressure in his state and in general on this, as most politicians are.  We need to let them know that we strongly support them in looking for REAL solutions to our energy problems, not boondoggles and swindles like corn ethanol.


Agreed (Eric - 7/16/2008 11:19:26 AM)
that we need to show them our support.

But they also need to show us that they will stand up to, and fight if necessary, the people/businesses/politicians that are responsible for disasters like cornfuel.  I don't see him holding up his end of the bargin in this response.



He's talking about moving to a new (Lowell - 7/16/2008 11:48:05 AM)
generation of biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol.  I agree with you, a stronger statement against corn-based ethanol would have been ideal, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.  Let's see what happens when he becomes president, and also keep letting him know how we feel. :)


Whistling Past The Graveyard? (HisRoc - 7/17/2008 12:38:55 AM)
Lowell,
I'm sorry, but you are just giving Senator Obama too much of a pass here.  If his position and McCain's on corn ethanol were reversed then you would be all over McCain like stink on shit.

Obama is going to be elected.  That is not in doubt.  Why not start now holding his feet to the fire instead of waiting until he is in office and starts waffling on the major issues?  He needs Virginia and his campaign is paying attention to us.  

Do you remember a guy named Tim Kaine?  Seems to me that you and your editorial board would have learned a thing or two by now about fair weather politicians.



Of course it's in doubt that Obama will (Lowell - 7/17/2008 5:30:59 AM)
be elected, I'd currently put his chances at around 60%/40%.  Which is why we need to let him know how we feel about the issues, but focus overwhelmingly right now on helping to elect him and defeat John McCain.

Anyway, my view is that many politicians are slimy and duplicitous, but that there also are good people like Jim Webb and - I believe - Barack Obama. I also believe that there are a few politicians who have the capacity to learn and adjust their positions accordingly. I'm hopeful that Barack Obama is one of those; time will tell, but we certainly need to keep an eye on him with regard to ethanol once he's in the White House.  We also need a Congress that will send President Obama intelligent energy and environmental legislation that he can sign.  Don't forget the legislative branch, that's crucial!



Obama on .......Ethanol (pmck88 - 7/16/2008 5:21:04 PM)
Why not hemp?
http://biodieselmagazine.com/a...