The plan includes three big goals:
| Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 – the level necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. |
| Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030. |
| Transform our carbon-based economy into an efficient green economy, creating at least 5 million jobs from clean energy over the next decade. |
Clinton's plan envisions a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions through a mix of regulation and investment. Her plan calls for a new green economy that can enrich the lives of all Americans and improve the world for our children.
Here's a bit of what people are saying about Hillary's plan:
Joe at climateprogress.org calls it "Clinton’s outstanding energy and climate plan". Brian Beutler notes what makes Clinton's plan stand out from her nearest rivals,
| Really fast--and then i'll write more later--her under-the-cap goals match Edwards' and Obama's exactly. Eighty percent reduction by 2050 with a 100 percent auction off the bat. Fifty-five mpg CAFE standards by 2030.
What distinguishes it is her other emphases. She puts efficiency, and transportation, and green jobs, and wind and solar way up top and in no-uncertain (if not richly detailed) terms. No new subsidies for nuclear energy either. |
Dave Roberts gives Clinton's plan an A. Roberts likes the way Clinton intends to elevate energy within the executive branch of government:
| Making energy a core concern of government: It's easy to release a plan; what's hard is making the plan a top priority of the federal government once you take power. Clinton's plan would create a National Energy Council, modeled on the National Security Council, to coordinate action across federal departments and agencies. |
He also appreciates her framing of her plan as one of shared responsibilty, with a role for business, government and individuals:
| Focus on shared responsibilities and economic opportunities: Clinton's plans does a great deal to a) stress the enormous number of jobs that can be created around clean tech, and b) make it clear that not just the federal government but industries and individuals share the responsibility for tackling this problem. This is just the right balance of rhetoric. |
He has some concerns. What else? Clean coal. But see's some light at the end of the tunnel in how Clinton approaches it:
| Clean coal subsidies: Again, what's bad here is bad in every energy plan from every candidate. Indeed, hers is somewhat better, since instead of indiscriminately throwing money for "research" at the coal industry, she would specifically fund 10 CCS demonstration projects. If those don't pan out, that gives her leverage to finally move away from coal entirely. |
According to the New York Times, Clinton invoked Gore at her speech, and was said to have discussed the speech with him, though she has apparently reached out to him before:
| Clinton advisers said that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Gore had spoken about this speech over the last few days. The advisers emphasized, though, that the two have shared ideas about energy and climate policy in recent years, so the latest conversation wasn’t too unusual; they also spoke after Mr. Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last month. |
According to the same report:
| In her speech this morning, Mrs. Clinton described how "proud" she was of Mr. Gore for winning the Nobel. She also called for a new federal effort to help low- and middle-income people buy energy efficient homes (Mr. Gore "is pushing this idea," she said). And she used one of his trademark quotations in saying that she would fight for her plans: "As Vice President Gore says, political will is a renewable resource." |
Sources say this does not indicate in any way an endorsement is on the way.
Clinton's energy plan offers a bold path toward an end to fossil fuel dependence. I encourage everyone to read it as well as some of the reviews cited above.
Comments are closed on this story.