Over at firedoglake, Kirk Murphy has an interesting comparison between Clinton and Obama and their environmental records and platforms. For instance,
Climate change / Energy:
- both reduce carbon gases by 80% as of 2050
- Clinton better on fuel economy than Obama
- both (now) support auctioned carbon caps (inferior to carbon tax)
- both support coal-to-liquid fuel (a nightmare), but only if impossible conditions are met
- both punted on carbon tax
His conclusion?
When I started this review, I didn't expect I would end up finding either candidate seemed better than the other on eco-issues.... Regular FDL readers - like all other sentient beings - also know either candidate will be infinitely better for the biosphere and us than would any of the Rethug Prez candidates.
But - for what it's worth - after days of reviewing their eco-policies, I'm convinced Hillary Clinton is the better candidate on environmental issues.
I don't have a particular dog in this fight [I cast my MA ballot for Dodd because of his stand on FISA]. Neither of these candidates moves me much and, besides, I don't really believe in the idea that any Big Daddy or Big Mommy candidate will save us. I believe that we have to fight like hell to save ourselves and that real power comes from the streets. I am realistic (or cynical) enough to believe that anybody in power is more about conserving that power than making the hard (and progressively harder) decisions and changes we will all have to make in order to weather (and I use that word advisedly) the climate crisis.
Not all of those changes will be sacrifices but they will all require a significant rethinking of our ways of life and commerce. That's always hard. Especially for those who are invested in business as usual as almost all politicians are.
PS: If you want to see my personal energy policy for the US, see http://solarray.blogspot.com/...