Candidates Talk of Alternative Fuels, Different Goals

Sep 28 - USA TODAY

When Democratic and Republican presidential candidates push renewable energy from wind farms, solar cells and biofuels, one might think they're all talking about the same thing.

They're not. Democratic candidates talk about renewable energy as a way to cut greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Republican candidates talk about renewable energy to reduce the use of foreign oil or, as they call it, to achieve "energy independence."

What's being proposed to achieve one doesn't necessarily help the other.

Global warming is at the top of the agenda this week at the United Nations, where Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon convened a special debate on the topic Monday, and in Washington, where the Bush administration Thursday gathered representatives from the 15 largest economies to discuss how to tackle climate change after the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.

In the presidential campaign, Democratic candidates support "cap and trade" systems to reduce global warming by cutting carbon dioxide emissions. The idea would set a limit (or cap) on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions nationally but let industries trade permits that allow certain levels of pollution.

Legislation to create a national cap and trade system is in the Senate. Europe has a similar system, and a 10-state Northeast regional program is set to begin in 2009.

"We have a crisis on this planet and that crisis is global warming," former senator John Edwards said in a speech in June when he called for capping carbon emissions, auctioning carbon permits and investing the proceeds in renewable energy.

Democratic candidates also want an increase in average fuel efficiency for an automaker's fleet. They support an increase to as much as a standard of 50 miles per gallon from the current 27.5 mpg. And they support requiring utilities to obtain power from renewable sources, a measure already in effect in 25 states.

Sen. Chris Dodd and former senator Mike Gravel also support a tax on carbon emissions. A carbon tax is less appealing to environmentalists than the cap and trade system, says Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group, because it doesn't specify the amount of carbon emissions that would be reduced.

Republican candidates don't go as far.

Only Sen. John McCain supports a cap and trade system. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney stress the need to invest in alternative fuels as a way to reduce U.S. reliance on oil but don't support a cap on emissions.

Romney says he'd consider a cap only if other countries joined in. "We don't call it America Warming, we call it global warming," he said during a campaign appearance in South Carolina in August.

"Primarily, he would just dramatically increase federal spending on research, development and demonstration projects," says Melissa Davis, a Romney adviser.

Increasing use of ethanol, nuclear power, wind and solar "would help with global warming," Giuliani said in a radio interview in Florida in April. "Even more importantly, they'd help to make us energy independent so we wouldn't have to be sending money to our enemies."

To some environmentalists, the Republicans' rhetoric is only partially acceptable. "Almost all the Republicans acknowledge that global warming is real and that humans are causing it," says Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters, a group that tracks candidates' positions on climate change. "The bad news is that, with the exception of Sen. McCain, none of them support mandatory programs that are necessary to get the job done."

To reduce dependence on oil, Giuliani and Romney support nuclear power and the use of liquid coal, a process of turning coal into auto fuel. That puts them at odds with some Democrats, because although coal is plentiful in the USA, creating and using liquid coal causes more greenhouse-gas emissions than using oil, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Democrats are split on liquid coal. Edwards, for example, calls it "a terrible idea," and opposes it, as do Sens. Joseph Biden and Dodd. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are less definitive: Both say they favor using liquid coal if it can be made to emit less carbon dioxide than oil.

One conflict between energy independence and reducing global warming lies in coal. It's cheap and plentiful in the USA, but the leading source of carbon emissions. Half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, and almost 30% of carbon emissions.

For those who want to reduce the USA's dependence on imported oil, "coal is just fine," says Judi Greenwald of the Pew Center for Climate Change. "It's just really bad for the climate."

A solution, a process called "carbon sequestration," in which carbon emissions are captured and pumped underground, isn't yet fully developed for power plants, Greenwald says.

For that reason, Democrats including Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson would ban new coal-fired power plants until they are able to capture carbon dioxide emissions.