'We need solutions of the future' : Joe Biden On Environmental Issues

(Bumped by Susan)

Back at the beginning of July 2008, when we were all arguing and speculating about who might be Obama's Vice-Presidential pick, Joe Biden penned an op-ed in the Delaware News Journal (Wilmington) about the folly of offshore drilling. He stated the obvious, which most of the other Democrats seem to be missing:

President Bush and Sen. John McCain are trying to sell us on the oil companies' old argument that repealing the 27-year old moratorium on drilling in protected areas offshore will lower gas prices. Americans need to put this tired debate to rest. Our security -- both here at home and abroad -- depends on it.

First, the oil companies in this country now hold 7,000 leases to drill offshore, yet only 20 percent of those leases are producing oil. That is 68 million acres for which they already have the rights to drill. Nearly 80 percent of our offshore oil is already available for leasing -- approximately 54 billion barrels total. They could be drilling in these areas, but they are not.

Assuming oil companies drilled in new areas, it would take at least a decade for new production to begin. Just last week, the U.S. Energy Information Administration concluded new drilling would have no impact on oil prices before 2030.

Read the whole thing. It's pretty good. He ends with:

We need solutions of the future, not drilling ourselves deeper into dependence on oil.

That last sentence sums up a lot of Biden's "energy security for America" policy, which you can read in detail here (pdf).  There's more interesting stuff in his statement on climate change (pdf).

You're thinking "yeah, whatever, don't make us click on boring pdfs, I want to hear the man himself!"

And so you shall. In 2007, the prominent environmental blog Grist presented a series of interviews they did with the Democratic presidential candidates. They interviewed our man Joe in August 2007, asking him questions about why he was qualified to lead the country on energy issues.  He talked about climate change and fossil fuel use as both national and international security issues:

I'm... in the best position to make it clear to the United States Congress that this is not merely an environmental issue, it is a security issue. I held hearings this year pointing out that if we do not do something of consequence about global warming, drastically and soon, we literally are going to find ourselves reconfiguring our entire military to deal with occasions for new wars, which are going to be about territory and arable land. You see what's happening in Darfur now -- that's part of the problem.

[snip]

If the predictions of the scientists are correct, you could see ocean levels rise three feet. If that occurs, you're going to displace over 35 million people just in South Asia, and they're going to physically be looking for a new place to land. Just that, all by itself, is going to initiate major new conflicts relating to war. You're going to have nations fighting over arable land, more border disputes, and, as a consequence, a great deal of instability.

In other words, his foreign policy experience doesn't just help him understand, say, what's going on with the Iraq war, or Pakistan's elections, or sending more troops to Afghanistan.  He's quite astute:  he's bringing up a reality that not many of us think about:  climate change is fueling conflicts around the world, and it will only get worse.

When asked about his ideas regarding how we can achieve energy security, he gave a detailed answer, with a trademark blunt ending:

To deal with global warming, you have to change the attitude of the world, particularly China and India, the two largest developing nations. But in order to do that, to have any credibility, you have to begin here in the United States by capping emissions, increasing renewable fuels, establishing a national  renewable portfolio standard, requiring better fuel economy for automobiles. I would cap emissions at 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and set a national RPS of 20 percent.  I would announce an executive order that the federal government would not purchase one single automobile for its fleet that gets less than 40 miles to the gallon. And I would not build a single solitary federal project without it being a green project. That would have the effect of getting states to do the same thing, and that would create a pot of somewhere between a third and a half a trillion dollars that would be a lure to every major business in America to go green.

These measures would put us in a position to be able to actually attempt to lead the world. But we have no credibility right now.

Biden also talks about one of his "solutions for the future".  When asked about the role "clean coal" plays in his plans, he answered:

I don't think there's much of a role for clean coal in energy independence, but I do think there's a significant role for clean coal in the bigger picture of climate change. Clean-coal technology is not the route to go in the United States, because we have other, cleaner alternatives. But I would invest a considerable amount of money in research and development of clean-coal and carbon-sequestration technologies for export. China is building one new coal-fired plant per week. That's not going to change unless there's a fundamental change in technology, because they have about 300 years of dirty coal, and they're going to use it.

However, his answer to the question "Would you impose a moratorium on the development of old-style coal power plants in the U.S.?" was somewhat noncommittal:

I believe that all new coal-fired power plants should be built with carbon capture and sequestration capacity.

I've explained in detail here and here, why I have problems with "clean coal" (carbon capture and sequestration) technology; although it's a fascinating idea, it's also a pipe dream, and even the "clean coal" folks admit that it won't be commercially feasible for decades - until 2025 or 2030 at the earliest. Biden and Obama are both on the same page when it comes to "clean coal"; however, their term won't start until next February, and there's no telling what the future may bring (they're smart guys, they'll listen to us).

Now, on to the next obvious question: nuclear power.  Biden says "yes, but...":

I see a role for nuclear, but first you've got to deal with the security as well as the safety concerns. I'd be spending a whole hell of a lot of money trying to figure out how to reconfigure the spent fuel into reusable fuel. I would not invest in [growing our nuclear-power capacity in its current form], but I would invest in sorting out the storage and waste problems.

Wow.  Imagine that.  Common sense. John McCain just jumps the gun and wants to build 45 new nuclear plants.  What about the waste, there, John? Where are you going to store it, and how will you store it safely?

Those excerpts are just a sample of a very good interview.  He also discusses ethanol, how he is reducing his carbon footprint, who his environmental hero is, and what his most memorable "wilderness adventure" was, among other topics.

Grist also has an evaluation of Biden "on the issues" - definitely check it out, including the videos.

His ideas are not perfect, but they are more than a good start, and will be a sound way to kick off the next four years.