Hillary’s Energy Plan: Real Progress

Okay, so I’m bitching about Obama’s pro-nuke ‘n coal energy stance.

In contrast: Here’s the positive, real deal from Hillary. It’s huge, so I’m just highlighting a couple of sections from page 6 of her 15-page “Powering America’s Future” PDF, part of her “Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming” Platform. (phew!)

Producing 25 Percent of Electricity from Wind, Solar, Biomass, Geothermal and Other Renewable Sources by 2025: Wind, solar and other non-hydro renewables accounted for only 2.3 percent of electricity generation in 2005. Hydropower added another 6.6 percent. However, a recent study using Department of Energy models found that getting to 20% renewable electricity by 2020 would save consumers $10.5 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 223 million metric tons per year, spur $66.7 billion in new capital investment and increase income to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners by $25.6 billion. Hillary would establish a national target of producing 25% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025. In addition to setting this target, Hillary would:
• Encourage investment in wind, solar and other renewable energy production by making permanent the 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources;
• Provide tax incentives for families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy such as rooftop solar panels; and
• Establish national “net metering” standards to ensure that families and businesses who install solar panels or other renewable energy resources can sell power back to the grid on fair terms.

Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.

All you liberals, believers who think that Obama has YOU and YOUR INTERESTS in mind: Look at the evidence. Look at her concern for Yucca Mountain, revered Native American spiritual site. Read Hillary’s plans for a complete and progressive and exhaustive (no pun intended) energy policy here on her website. Wake up to real progress, America!

Progressive? Obama’s Energy Platform: Nuclear and Coal

Liberals take note! All ye who cling to Obama for his most liberal on high policies: The very foundations of progressive politics that stemmed from the sixties anti-war effort are given little attention in his overall plans. Remember? Our tenets are: No Nukes! Reduce Greenhouse Gases! Reduce Coal Mining!

On today’s 5/4/08 MSNBC Meet the Press broadcast, Obama states clearly — as he also did in the debates — that his energy policy will rely on nuclear power and coal. And this platform is not “Washington as usual”? This would-be-president is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, once again. He is merely re-packaging and co-opting the language of idealism to clothe a weak, out-dated energy policy.

I’ve had to link to the entire video broadcast above, because MSNBC showed its bias once again, and did not include in its shorter recap pieces — read: edited out — the two minute snipet where Obama speaks his mis-guided opinions about nuclear and coal. You will find it about 30 minutes into the video.

We have our answer about Obama’s energy policy — one that’s been reported this year, last year, and beyond. He’s for safe nuclear and coal, but seems to give short shrift to developing an energy policy like Hillary’s that would put money into developing solar, wind, methane, and more comprehensive corn-based technologies and create thousands of jobs. Here’s an NBC News piece about Obama’s record from February, 2008. It appears that Godley, IL citizens living near a leaky nuclear power plant got the short end of the stick, and instead the power company Excelon benefited. When it came to a choice between the people of his state and corporate interests, Obama chose the corporation, despite the health dangers it posed.