OneWorld.net (U.S.)

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 21 (OneWorld) - South Carolina voters concerned about global warming are calling on the Democratic candidates for president to focus on climate change solutions as they stage a public debate in the resort town of Myrtle Beach this evening.

© Worldwatch Institute"Climate change is a top concern of South Carolina primary voters," said Cynthia Powell, a Myrtle Beach resident and undecided voter. "We see a clean energy future in South Carolina as the best way to create jobs and protect the environment."

With many miles of tidal shoreline and an economy that depends heavily on tourism and agriculture, South Carolina is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, said the Carolina Climate Network in a statement Sunday, arguing that investments in renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, and biomass can create more jobs than "a highly automated plant burning dirty imported fuel."

The group organized a demonstration ahead of Monday's nationally televised debate replete with polar bears, students in scuba gear, and activists with bright signs and aquamarine balloons.

For their part, the Democratic candidates have not been shy about discussing the issue on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton says she wants "a new beginning in terms of energy and global warming." John Edwards says "America's got to clean up its act" on climate change. And, like many other candidates and pundits, Barack Obama talks about "freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil."

"The one part of the story that hasn't gotten enough scrutiny is how effectively and how quickly can the next president bring the world together." - Navin Nayak, League of Conservation Voters

"All three of these Democratic candidates are way, way beyond any kind of presidential discourse that we've had on global warming," environmental journalist Mark Hertzgaard told OneWorld. "All the presidential candidates on the Democratic side recognize that the problem is real, that it requires immediate action, and that you've got to get to what the science says is necessary -- which is quick, deep cuts [in greenhouse gas emissions] beginning within five years [and] getting all the way to 80-percent cuts by the year 2050." The leading Democratic contenders all favor a so-called cap-and-trade system to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. It's a policy that's been in effect for some time in Europe and was first promoted in the United States in a 2003 bill sponsored by Republican presidential candidate John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). "It means if you are a company or an enterprise that reduces your greenhouse gas emissions you earn a credit," McCain told a VFW hall in New Hampshire in December. "Then when somebody else starts a business or an enterprise and they are emitting greenhouse gas emissions, they can buy that credit from you and meanwhile there is a gradual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." No cap-and-trade system is currently in effect in the United States -- primarily because such a system is opposed by the Bush administration. With all major Democrats and some Republicans promoting a change in policy, Hetzgaard believes voters should ask themselves which candidate will most zealously fight global warming. His believes that is Edwards. © John Edwards 2008 (flickr)"John Edwards is more willing to push the envelope," he said. "John Edwards is the only candidate who has been willing to talk about getting off coal. Many scientists have been calling for a ban on coal-fired power plants. So has Al Gore.

"Of the candidates, only John Edwards is getting close to that. He's much closer than Barack Obama. Obama comes from the coal state of Illinois, so he's much friendlier to coal. Hillary Clinton, in keeping with her more middle-of-the-road approach to this issue, also has not been outspoken on the issue of coal." Edwards is also the only major Democratic candidate to promise to oppose construction of any new nuclear power plants. Obama and Clinton have both refused to make that promise.

Obama also voted for a 2005 energy bill promoted by Vice President Dick Cheney that provided billions of dollars in subsidies for oil, gas, and nuclear power. Partially as a result of that bill's passage, there are now 17 companies planning to build 29 nuclear power plants in the United States.

Obama was asked to defend that vote in last Tuesday's MSNBC debate. "The reason I voted for it was because it was the single biggest investment in clean energy -- solar, wind, biodiesel -- that we have ever seen," Obama said. "If we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, we are going to need to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States." As to nuclear energy, Obama said: "If we could find a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don't want to do is produce more greenhouse gases." Edwards was not in Congress in 2005 when the bill was under consideration. Clinton voted against that energy bill. "I think we have to break the lock of the special interests," she said, responding to Obama. "That's why I've proposed a strategic energy fund: $50 billion to invest in clean, renewable energies....[I would] take the subsidies that were given to oil and gas companies in the 2005 energy bill that Dick Cheney wrote and give them to renewable energies." Buth despite Hertzgaard's endorsement of Edward as the strongest candidate on global warming, one group that monitors senators' voting histories ranks Obama and Clinton much greener than Edwards.

The League of Conservation Voters says Obama and Clinton voted with environmental groups at least 90 percent of the time. Edwards voted with the groups 59 percent of the time while he was in the U.S. Senate. But the League of Conservation Voters' Navin Nayak says the difference between the Democrats is small. "It's all a matter of degrees," Nayak told OneWorld. "The differences between the Democrats and most of the Republicans is really night and day. That's something any voter, no matter how engaged, will get." Nayak said the leading Democrats' main difference on environmental policy is one of style. But, he said, when it comes to combating global warming that's not insignificant. "The one part of the story that hasn't gotten enough scrutiny is how effectively and how quickly can the next president bring the world together," he said. "This is going to need to be a massive international effort, and the next president will have to lead the way."

Tonight's Myrtle Beach debate, which is co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute, will be televised live on CNN. South Carolina's Democratic voters go to the polls Saturday.

.................................................................................... Like this article? Then please support our global efforts to bring you the news and views seldom heard in mainstream media. OneWorld.net is non-profit, non-commercial public media. Every little bit helps, so thank you! Click here to help. ....................................................................................

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None