Pollution Solution?

Your guide to the candidates' energy policies

By ROMAN STURGIS

del.ico.us | digg it! | reddit!

print | email | 0 Comments

Every presidential candidate pledges energy independence and fewer emissions. But this country imports more than 200 billion gallons of oil a year. How will we replace that with nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, which together make up only a fraction of our energy portfolio? In Massachusetts, we have a hard enough time putting up one wind farm, let alone the thousands we'd need to offset oil imports.

Despite the humongo obstacle of convincing our countrymen to give up their Hummers for hybrids, front-runners continue to rally for green change. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain have all endorsed Senate Bill 280, the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which would set an overall emissions cap and issue tradable allowances for businesses' emissions (known as "cap-and-trade") and raise fuel efficiencies. Its five predecessors died in the past two Congresses. Obama and Clinton's cap-and-trade planks are almost identical: Both believe a cap-and-trade system could reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain supports similar schemes. His plan is to cap emissions at 2004 levels by 2012 and gradually decrease emissions to around 30 percent by 2050.

Obama's goal for car fuel efficiency is 40 mpg by 2020, and 32 mpg for light trucks. Clinton agrees, and ups the ante to 55 mpg for cars by 2030. McCain hasn't named a standard. When the government intervened with the 1972 US Energy Tax during the last energy crisis, automakers were able to design more efficient automobiles.

But Henry Lee, director of Harvard's Environment and Natural Resources Program, says Detroit's nightmare is building a fleet of energy-efficient cars that no one buys. "You can have more efficient cars," he says. "But you have to accept that they're not going to have more horsepower than what you bought several years ago, they'll probably be slightly smaller and you probably won't get gadgets like a TV for the backseat or windshield wipers on your headlights. Is it technologically viable? Yes. The only question is, will America buy it."

None of the candidates' press offices were available when repeatedly contacted for comment, but Obama's website states he "will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030." Obama believes that "we have a moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner."

Obama also supports corn-ethanol subsidies, which, according to Lee, are far from sustainable. "I think there is potential in biofuels," Lee says. "But corn ethanol is not efficient. You want a biofuel that takes less energy to make than it does to produce, and you want the environmental impact to be less than carbon emissions from gasoline. You could import ethanol made from sugarcane, which is more fuel efficient, easier and cheaper to make, but that's politically unpopular because it would back off corn ethanol. There isn't any sugarcane in Nebraska."

The US is the top corn producer in the world and corn prices have already doubled since last year because ethanol has created an artificial market. While nearly half the country's states grow the crop, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri grow the most. Lee suggests superdelegates and their constituencies are a concern for candidates.

"Corn is produced in seven major states. If you're running for president, that's 14 senators and I don't know how many congressmen," he says.

The small batch biofuel distilleries that have been popping up all over the country are excused from conforming to EPA regulations; it's the only way they can run a profit, even with the subsidies. Henrik Selin, professor of International Relations at Boston University, points to the "Ethanol bust."

"Companies have to pay more for their corn to produce the ethanol, so profit margins are shrinking," he says.

In addition to the billions spent already on corn ethanol and soy biodiesel, Obama has pledged "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Obama and Clinton both want 60 billion gallons of homegrown biofuels in the US market by 2030. The latest energy bill calls for 36 billion by 2022. If we devoted our entire corn crop to ethanol, we could meet 6 percent of US oil needs. If we do that, it would require us to import any corn for food consumption, which will raise the price of everything from hamburgers to Doritos to Coca Cola. In Mexico, the cost of tortillas has doubled in price as a result of our subsidies.

"There are several problems with biofuel," Lee says. "In particular, the tension between food and fuel. We'll have 2 billion more mouths to feed in the next 40 years. Right now, 20 percent of the world's population does not meet its daily need for caloric intake."

McCain opposes subsidies for biofuels, though he also says, "Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, [and] switch grass ... are all promising and available alternatives to oil." Though many agree that switch grass would be sustainable, making cellulosic ethanol is still time-consuming and expensive. Obama and Clinton want the government to invest in next generation biofuels; McCain prefers to let the markets work it out. In a speech given in April of last year, McCain said, "I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs."

Obama and Clinton both promote increased government intervention and greater subsidies. On her website, Clinton's energy platform states: "Reducing our nation's energy dependence and staving off the threat of global climate change will require the leadership of the President and the cooperation of the private sector and all Americans." By "cooperation" Clinton means government mandates and penalties.

Selin says such mandates are important because environmental policy often focuses on supply, without considering how to address demand. "We need ecostandards," he says. "They were just raised, but not nearly enough. We need to mandate appliance manufacturers make a more efficient product, and tax rebates for people who buy more efficient computers, cars and green buildings. It's not about people giving things up, but using more efficient stuff."

Solar, wind and geothermal energy would make new buildings far greener, but they would also change the aesthetic design of living and working spaces. Clay Bedwell, the founder of Boston-based Rebirth Energy Solutions, consults with homeowners who wish to modify their homes with energy efficient appliances and renewable energy generation. He says urban windmills generate safety concerns.

"Residential homes are not built to support windmills on their roofs. And ice that collects on a windmill blade can be thrown off when it begins to melt, and that could pose a safety hazard," he says. "Switching incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescents, properly insulating homes, and putting solar panels on roofs is the first place to start."

The Democrats both pledge that 25 percent of US electricity will come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. McCain hasn't set a number. However, McCain's public support for alternative energy projects like Cape Wind, which does not draw on government subsidies, signals that his approach to energy is rooted in the free market.

Neither Democratic candidate has given public support to the project, though Mark Rodgers, communications director of Cape Wind, says both Clinton and Obama's offices have "helped with legislation" at the federal level. Cape Wind seeks to build 130 turbines on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. This would be the first off-shore American wind farm and would provide 75 percent of the Cape's energy needs. Currently the Cape gets its energy from a plant in Sandwich that burns heavy crude oil.

Cape Wind has blazed a trail for privatized sustainable energy production. But there have been many obstacles, including the residents of the southern Cape who don't want their view spoiled.

If wind energy is such a challenge, what about clean coal and nuclear power? McCain said in an April 2007 speech that "nuclear energy, renewable power, and other emission-free forms of power production can expand capacity, improve local air quality and address climate change." The Democrats are far more conservative. Even next-generation nuclear reactors—which run cold and can not possibly melt down—create waste, Clinton argues. Yet she and Obama are reluctant to embrace clean coal.

None of the so-called "solutions" the candidates are talking about are new—we've known the problems and had the technology to do something about it since the 1960s. But now the stakes are higher. Selin advises that when considering a candidate's energy policy, you cannot zero in on one issue. "You have to put each issue in context of other options," he says. "You have to look at ethanol but also wind energy, solar energy, coal and energy use."