EDIT: All speeches are over, and John Edwards will be in the press tent for media availability shortly. I (hekebolos posting the update here) intend to get clarification from him about mountaintop removal.
update: I didn't get a chance to ask the question. He only took three.
This is a follow-up to hekebolos' diary on the FP below. At this point, Kucinich is responding to questions, and is talking about people who are resistant to change in Washington. Resistance is generally from the interest groups who want to build new coal facilities, nuclear plants, and who want to get oil and fight wars to keep it. But under my administration, that power will be broken, and we can return to government controlled by the people. The question is whether you want people there who will take a stand. We can either have courage and do it, or keep drifting along and getting reports like we are from the IPCC about gases growing, sea levels rising, catastrophic changes in our weather patterns.
We have the power in our hands to change our destiny.
Q: down to the nitty-gritty: regarding coal miners, is a pension enough to people who have dedicated their entire lives to this?
a: We need to look at monetary choices and monetary policy. I'm talking about a guaranteed annual income for everyone. The rising level of poverty in this country, so many people who can't make ends meet. We're talking about jobs that can wipe out hunger and put clothes on someone's back. It is practical to say that nobody should be hungry or homeless.
Q: okay, practical limitations. There are a lot of coal miners, and I'm not sure they'll be happy with the idea of a minimum guaranteed income. I think they'll want jobs. You're saying we shouldn't have this fear, but to get from here to there is a long gap. You'll have to deal with Congress with a lot of votes from coal states and unions, and will think of this change as squeezing jobs overseas. What's your practical plan?
A: Let's look at where we are today. There are plans at this moment, to build new coal plants. We got a report today that we have rising levels of CO2 and greenhouse gases. ED: answer the question, Dennis. We can have leadership that challenges the fundamental assumptions that we have to accept these interest groups. Clean coal is an oxymoron. And as far as worrying about how much to pay them, pay them what they should be paid. But that's a far lesser cost than the price we'll pay through greenhouse gases.
Now, I spoke of the Works Green Administration. You set forth a number of initatives, like HR3400, which is an infrastructure bill. We won't have to borrow money to do this. You prime the pump of the economy by having people manufacture, wind and solar technologies. This is doable. And the incentive is, people will see their utility bills lowered. Monopolies won't be happy, but we can't let them decide our climate policies. That's just an example.
ed: sorry, missed the last part of Dennis Kucinich's Q&A because of the transition.
Hillary got booed. Inappropriate in my book. But now, to Hillary's speech.
I've laid out a plan to counteract the disgraced view that there is no need for action. This election must focus on this issue. We can't fiddle while the world warms, because we know what that will do. It's not only the impact on our health, not just the fact that emissions from plants cause 24,000 deaths a year, a third of childhood asthma cases caused by pollution--it's everywhere one looks, including the oil spill impacting the bay.
We know what not to do, and that's what we've seen for the last 7 years: a president who has dodged, denied and dissembled on the most important global issue we can directly address. We're more dependent on foreign oil today than we were on 9/11. Other countries are reaping the benefits of technologies created in the US that we've ceded to them. It's time for a president who respects climate science, who will lead international negotiations, and bring together a coalition that brings people together.
I know how hard this will be. There will be speeches that will get shouts of agreement, but i'm here because I'm serious.
ed: what the hell does that mean? we can't be forceful about the issue?
I've set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, imports by a third by 2030, and to transition from carbon to alternatives by unleashing a wave of alternative energy. It's about environment, economy and security.
We'll set a goal of reduction of 20% by 2020. Over the past three decades, California has taken practical steps to keep its level constant while the rest of the country has increased by 50%. When I speak and say that we'll do eveything necessary to talk about foreign oil, people cheer. And when I say that we'll attack global warming, people sit there. The case has not yet been made, and I know how hard that is to believe. We have to enlist the millions of Americans who make billions of decisions every year about how they use energy.
Let's talk about California. Their per-capita use hasn't increase in thirty years. applause--yay for us! Efficiency is just the beginning. As president, I will encourage everyone to do more. Everyone must feel they have a stake. WWII and Sputnik, we did that. We as a government have to lead the way, starting with a market-based cap and trade system. From the time I take office on noon, Jan, 20th, 2009, I will issue an executive order that every federal building has to be carbon neutral. I have proposed a 50 billion dollar strategic energy fund and fund it by taking subsidies from big oil.
We'll also ask industry to do its part. We'll raise CAFE standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 by 20-something (don't remember.)
We'll issue strategic energy bonds. During 9/11, this president said "go shopping." I'll say, "go green." And I think Americans will respond. Vice-President Gore said that political will is a renewable resource. This is how I'll operationalize it:
It takes more than a plan. A plan is words on a page without the strength and the will to make it happen. There will be a National Energy Council, with a National Energy Advisor. We'll get the government working together. We'll get a new treaty to replace Kyoto, get meetings with foreign leaders every 3 months, and create an "E8" for carbon emitting countries. This president has made our leadership null and void, and we have to lead. We can use this to restore our leadership and restore the middle class. If you're ready for change, I'm ready to lead.
my impressions: okay, seriousness, but voters in this environmentalist demographic like energy too!
Q: What's your secret to being able to deliver? The past three presidents said they'd do something.
A: George W Bush never wanted to do anything. George Bush Senior deserves some credit, as do Bill Clinton and Vice President Gore, who were very aggressive with Kyoto and ran into the buzzsaw of a Republican Congress.
People's awareness of this issue is much greater than it was 7 years ago. It's the news as well as people's own experience. That has a saliencce in the political system that we haven't seen until recently. Also, we're moving toward a global commitment on this. and one thing the United States doesn't want to feel is that we're lagging. Take a look at what's being done by the EU, and Germany and Denmark. It ties into the idea that we're not keeping up, and we need to reassert our global leadership on this. And we have to have a commitment from a president at a time when the elected representatives are finally ready to act, and that's what we'll have when I'm president. This Congress is much more open and willing under this new Democratic leadership.
It's going to be challenging, but it will be much more in reach than anytime in the past 15 years. But here's one example. The Montreal Protocol to ban CFC's--the leaders of the world, led by Margaret Thatcher, said that we could do better, and came up with an enforceable agreement that had positive changes. We have a consortium of countries that are directly responsible for 70% of emissions, and I'm confident and optimistic that we can bring about positive change.
Q: We all remember what happened to healthcare. What can you do to combat the multi-million dollar ad campaigns that will be coming at you?
A: I'm trying to use the campaign to do that now. I rolled out the energy and climate change agenda over a week in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I speak about it everywhere that I go to get it into the bloodstream of the campaign. People have to actually turn this into a voting issue. You have to help this become a voting issue.
What we have to do is look to see what we can do to elect more Democrats. Because then we'll have more people in the Congress.
HILLARY GETS HECKLED. and responds: Were you invited to speak this afternoon.
Pfft. Hillary comes out and says that we need 60 votes. No we don't! Force them to filibuster it. It's all about guts and political will.
I certainly remember healthcare. Everyone is for change in general, but then people start peeling off. Everyone is worried that things won't be pure enough, and then the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. And then your allies aren't happy, and your adversaries are thrilled because we're divided. There's no way that we can produce a piece of legislation through the Congress that you will all agree with. But instrumental change, outside of moments of crisis like Pearl Harbor and 9/11--if Al Gore had been president, we would have had an energy and climate change program after 9/11--but it's imperative that we stand together against the attacks coming from the other side. It is imperative that we get something passed, and not undermine their quality of life. We'll have to put together a smart coalition to withstand the attacks that will come. I'm aware of the difficulty, but I feel confident.
Q: Warner-Lieberman falls short of your goals. Will you vote for it, or would you consider voting it down and waiting for something better next session?
A: The bill needs a lot of improvement. It's not what I or Barbara Boxer would write, and I don't think anyone would question her credentials. I'm a co-sponsor of Boxer-Sanders, which has the percentage reduction and timetables I've adopted for my own plan. And what Chairman Boxer is trying to do is improve the bill, create a context in which the bill can lay down a marker, and no matter what comes out, there will be a big fight on the floor, and it will likely be vetoed by George Bush. So the question is, what's the strongest bill we can get out of committee? So I can't answer the question on my vote because I don't know what will will emerge. I want cap-and-trade. There are other benefits that go to the polluter industries. there are a lot of negative aspects, if you're looking at creatingn a system to get our results. But we've never gotten as far this before. And if it can be improved and get stronger, she thinks it's the right thing to do. I have the highest regard for her and her political acumen. I'll fight to strengthen the bill. At the end of the day, it comes down to a pragmatic assessment. Is getting a bill where Republicans actually vote for something an important first step? There are a number of environmental groups that support this strategy. It's not a cut-and-dry issue, and there is a group running ads against me in Iowa, and that's not useful.
This is hard work. ed: hard work. Hard work! Sorry, just had to throw that in there.
Q: Regarding foreign policy. How do you restore America's credibility on foreign policy?
A: There's a lot of work to do to restore our credibility on any issue. We have to start by creating a process again that the United States feels bound by. That's why I emphasized taking leadership in a post-Kyoto world. I'm hoping we get a good framework coming out of Bali. They'll leave office and we'll be 8 years behind. So I want to immediately move to convene a meeting of the biggest emitters, including China and India, and it's bad form for us to start pointing at them since we've emitted far more than they have over the course of the century. They're catching up quickly of course. But we need both bilateral and unilateral processes. Adn we can create fora to look for cooperative relationships. We don't want to be in the position of slowing down their rising standard of living. But we need to tell them that if they're going to use coal, they have to see what type of fixes there are for sequestration. And regarding renewables, we need more than just a nuclear deal. Why not talk about solar or wind? Use our foreign aid and expertise from both public, private and non-profit and show that we're trying to jumpstart their development in a way that doesn't choke the rest of the planet
Hillary just wrapped up. Overall, a pretty contentious outing - much more so than YearlyKos, which I'd previously thought set the standard for a testy reception.
I note the much friendlier introduction to John Edwards than the preceding speaker (ahem). Moderator called Edwards someone whose purpose was to challenge the audience.
Edwards speaks
A week ago, I spoke on Veterans Day about the sacrifices of a nation. And thanks to the work of Al Gore, we know it's a crisis and the need for action is urgent. The steps are obvious, and it's a question of having the spine to do it. And when I look at Washington, I see elected leaders trying to do the right thing, but they are overrun because they spend half of their time chasing the money they need to be re-elected. And the oil and gas companies are spending millions and employing hundreds of lobbyists keep America dependent.
The IPCC followed up on its reports earlier this year with another warning that unless we act immediately, there will be drastic consequences. And yet, we'll send a delegate to the conference in Bali with no ideas and no solutions. And that's embarrassing for America.
Throughout this campaign I've been clear on what we need to do to face this challenge. I said then and I say now, we need to cap greenhouse gases in 2010 with cap and trade, and 80% reduction by 2050. We need to meet electricity demand through efficiency. And we need a fund to support research. We need to repeal 3 billion dollars in oil company subsidies.
The truth is, the change will not be easy. It will take a sustained commitment. We need a president who will challenge people to be part of the solution. Back in March, Elizabeth and I were in a hospital room and made the decision to continue to campaign. Fighting for America and fighting for a better world for our children is the cause of our lives. And our resolve has been strengthened to tell the truth about the problems that we face. We're missing an opportunity to lead the world with a spirit of ingenuity. We're sitting by the side of the road while other countries pass us by. We invented the solar panel, and GM made the first electric car. Just last week, I saw a headline:
"Foreign firms eye wind farms in the United States." Why aren't our companies doing that? Our inventors and entrepreneurs can lead the world in developing and implementing this technology. We need to let them try 1000 different approaches, not centrally planned government handouts.
I will cut carbon welfare subsidies and turbocharge our technology. I will modernize the electricity grids with smart grids that will allow people to sell electricity back into the grid. I will spur innovation that will offer low-interest loans to families and businesses for things like solar water heating.
Right now, I will decouple utility profits from sales so utilities can benefit from efficiency.
I love all of these ideas, especially the "smart grid" and the decoupling.
Every day, we get new information that global warming is more of a crisis than I thought before. I think we're ready to make sacrifices, and we're ready for a president who asks people to be patriotic about something other than war. I believe we're at a critical point--and we've found ourselves there before. My parents' generation crossed into Europe to defeat Hitler, then defeated Japan, and built the Pentagon in less than a year. They've outlasted the dark forces of communism, energy crises, depressions and recessions.
This is the moral test of our generation. Will be leave a better world for our children like our parents did? Will we put political calculation aside, and stand up for what's right? It's time for the Democratic Party to be bold and stand up for what we believe in.
Will we have to tell our children that we left this mess for them? That we didn't have the guts to do what was necessary? Or will we say that in the face of great challenges, we managed to do what 20 generations of Americans did before: we knew that we had a responsibility to preserve the planet. If we make smart choices today, we can create the America that everyone desires. We can end our addiction to oil. We won't cower in the corner. We'll unleash a new era of American ingenuity. That's the future, at the top of the hill. It will take courage and resolve. The American people have never shrunk from a challenge, and I don't think we'll start now.
ed: whew! He talks fast, but he's very enthusastic about his commitment.
Q&A with Edwards:
Q: How do we get to this point that we're talking about?
A: The evidence is everywhere that Americans are ready for the challenge. With Katrina, Americans went down there. I had several hundred college kids who gave up their spring break to help rebuild houses. and the famous John Kennedy speech. "ask not what this country can do for you." We need to tell them that we're not going to be politically cautious. I'm not going to look at polls to find out what I should say to you. But in addition to a president who calls on Americans to sacrifice with clear bold action and clear, bold leadership, we have to recognize something: the government has become corrupt, and we need to be honest about that. Why don't we have universal healthcare? because of the drug companies. What don't we attack global warming? Oil companies and power companies and their lobbyists. And all of the challenges that America faces, it will be impossible to face them until we have a president who tells America the truth. We don't have to stand quietly by while this narrow and well-financed group of interests runs your government. And when we reclaim democracy together and believes in the power of America, not just the presidency, we can reclaim this government and this democracy and take the power out of their hands.
A damn fine response, in my estimation.
Q: As president Edwards, you will find that in talking about sacrifice and that mandate, that the burdens and benefits are not spread equally. We've talked about this with other speakers. There are places where coal is the major source of jobs and fuel.
A: as to coal, I came out very early and very aggressively saying that we shouldn't be building any new plants until we have sequestration technology. We need to make the polluters pay, and we should have $30 billion in the cap and trade system and we should use some of that money to help support families affected. But as we make this transition from a carbon-to-green economy, we can create several million new jobs. And we should work hard to generate them in the places where people are suffering the most economically. Rural areas and poor inner-city areas. This is something that can create good middle class jobs. Poverty is a huge cause in my life--I think it's a national embarrassment that 37 million people in this country wake up worrying about how to feed their family. 35 million people were hungry in America last year. That's unacceptable.
Q: So, you would take those funds and assist people whose lives are disrupted?
A: A portion. Some of it will go to developing alternative energy sources, but I've proposed that we get as much support we can to affected communities.
Q: The question of equity and fairness internationally is even more stark. Climate change will happen to a certain degree. What can America do to help lift up the parts of the world that will be hurt the most?
A: We're only providing a miniscule part of the help that the struggling companies need. We need to be there to help. And how much we do depends on our leadership. But we need to be wiling to invest in a way that we're not investing today. Maybe we need to build some walls to provide protection, get drought-resistant crops. But just outside global warming. You talked about the poorest countries in the world being the ones that will suffer the most regarding climate change, but it's not just climate change. It's every issue. The poverty that exists in parts of the third world, Africa, Asia, South America, is heartbreaking and if most Americans saw it, they'd think it's intolerable. Some of the things America should be doing is leading an international effort to make education available, to stop the spread of disease. We should have at leaet $50 billion in AIDS and education relief. Simple things, like clean drinking water. That would make an enormous difference. Things like microlending and microfinance. The only way we'll be a credible leader on huge issues like this is that America needs to be seen as a force for good in the world again.
Q: How can America lead on climate change if we have no credibility, and there's a perception that America went to war over oil. ed: softball.
A: It's a mistake to think of global warming out of the context of America being a global leader. As the most powerful nation on the planet, the world needs to see us meeting our responsibility to humanity.
The world needs to see that we're an example for good, not bad. We need to re-establish ourselves as a force for good. Starts with ending the war in Iraq. But we need to be doing positive things, and reverse the things that have done such extraordinary damage. I will close Guantanamo, stop illegal spying on Americans. No more rendition. no more secret prisons. The notion that we're having a debate in America about what kind of torture is permissible? This is not our America and we need to take it back.
Q: Back to the pragmatic issue. You're taken some strong stands, but none of the bills that seem to have a chance of moving through congress without 60 votes. ed: why is it that we always need 60 votes and they don't?
A: Well, the beltway people think that the rest of America doesn't exist. The most powerful thing to do for a president isn't to sit around a conference table. It's the power to convince America, and to galvanize America around taking action. the one thing I'm certain of is that if we convince America together, and do what generations of Americans have done before us, the politicians will follow.
For anyone who believes in the Progessive Agenda--And I do--we need to strengthen Democratic numbers in the House. We won the 2006 election not because America fell in love with the Democratic Party, but because America wanted change. So if our candidate is all about big, bold change and transforming America. If that's what we're about, and talking about weeding out the corruption in DC, I'm absolutely certain that I can go into any swing district or swing state, and I will be helpful in our campaign to strengthen our numbers in the House and Senate.
Q: Final question. As we have mentioned, it's difficult to get through the media filter when the candidates are out ahead of the media here. How do you get through the media filter?
A: Well, presidential candidates have an enormous pulpit. People know it's a problem, but they don't know it's a crisis, and that immediate, bold action is required. That's where the candidacy comes in. I know how hard it is to fight through the media filter. And I don't want Rupert Murdoch to own every media outlet in this country. ed: YAY!!!!! massive applause from the bloggers in the press room.
It's very disappointing that even in an objective debate, we spend more time sniping about polls than talking aboutg how we're going to save the planet. We're out there driving the issue, which is why I came out so early in my campaign on this issue.