Vote Green: A Guide to the Energy Issues

The debate is over: climate change is a reality. Without a serious effort to reduce carbon emissions within the next decade, the consequences could be staggering. To address the growing threat of global warming, scientists say that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of two percent each year—achieving 80 percent reductions by 2050. This would require a major change in the technologies we use to provide energy. It is time to bring in a new era of energy production and use that relies on clean, safe, and alternative energy. What policies do the presidential candidates propose for bringing about this energy shift? Are they realistic and sustainable? Here is a guide to six of the key issues in the energy debate: carbon caps, coal energy, nuclear energy, fuel efficiency, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

Carbon cap-and-trade is a large part of almost every major candidate’s energy plan. This is a way for the government to control pollution on a national level by setting a cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that companies can emit. Companies hold a certain number of credits that represent their right to emit a specific amount of gases. If they need to emit more, they can buy credits from companies who pollute less and thus trade in carbon credits. The company that pollutes more is therefore fined for polluting, while the one that pollutes less is rewarded for having reduced emissions. This method was already used successfully in the 1990s when the U.S. acid rain cap-and-trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. Power plants participating in the program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions 22 percent below mandated levels. Ten of the largest corporations support the creation of a mandatory national cap on carbon emissions, which they believe will provide industries with the long-term certainty that they need to develop new technologies.

The most contentious issues in the energy debate are coal and nuclear energy. Under pressure from coal works, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to support coal plants, provided that programs be put into place to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through carbon capture and sequestration underground. Reducing the use of coal through energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies is a necessary step toward addressing climate change. Yet the reality is that hundreds of new coal-fired power plants will probably be constructed in coming years. The compromise proposed by some of the candidates is to convert coal into a clean-burning gas and to capture and dispose of the carbon dioxide deep underground, thereby dramatically reducing the air pollution. However, even after employing these proposed capture technologies, a residual amount of carbon dioxide will continue to be emitted. Employing carbon dioxide capture will also increase the price of electricity from fossil fuels. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculates the additional costs at between 3.5 and 5.0 cents/kWh of power. Another downside is that many environmental groups do not support carbon sequestration because it still has a negative environmental impact, for it can potentially be dangerous.

Although some consider nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, many environmental groups oppose it. They note that there is no safe way to take care of nuclear waste, which will remain hazardous for 240,000 years. Nuclear power itself can be very dangerous, and it provides the material know-how for nuclear weapons. Since 1986, the year of the Chernobyl accident, there have been 200 near-nuclear accidents at 50 reactors in the U.S. Most significant, nuclear power is expensive. The first 75 reactors in the U.S. cost $100 billion. Many of the candidates mistakenly ignore the negative aspects of nuclear energy.

It is clear that carbon capture and sequestration as well as nuclear power are neither the most desirable nor sustainable policies for dealing with climate change. The best policies are those that aim to improve energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, and renewable energy. “Green building” design and construction can dramatically reduce the enormous amounts of energy that edifices consume in heating, cooling, lighting, and water use. Studies have shown that increasing fuel efficiency in private cars to 40 mpg would save three million barrels per day, therefore helping to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Finally, renewable energy is by far the cleanest and safest solution. More than 20 states have passed renewable electricity standards, which require a certain percentage of their electricity be generated from renewables. Several have set a standard of 20 percent by 2020.

Global warming has finally become a top concern in U.S. politics. In a recent survey, 72 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of Republicans questioned listed the environment as “a very important issue.” Even the National Association of Evangelicals and a few notable Catholic bishops have radically shifted their position on what used to be a concern only of liberal tree-huggers. They now recognize climate change as not simply a scientific issue, but also a moral and ideological one. Top executives of General Electric and General Motors have also recognized the urgency of climate change. The federal government must seize this opportunity to take significant action to reduce carbon emissions by establishing a national cap-and-trade policy, promoting the development of renewable energies and public transportation, and increasing energy and fuel efficiency.

After considering the proposals of the top candidates, the most eco-friendly presidential hopeful seems to be Bill Richardson, who is running as the “Energy President.” He holds by far the strongest position in terms of specific proposals to reduce emissions and is backed by the fact that he has already carried out many of his proposals in New Mexico. He is the only candidate to advocate a carbon tax and propose a target of 90 percent reduction for gas emissions. He also advocates a 50 mpg fuel efficiency standard and a 30 percent renewable energy standard by 2020, and he opposes liquid coal. Considering all the factors, Richardson therefore seems to be the green choice.

The author is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.