Hillary Clinton to unveil energy plan Monday morning, or Tuesday
Hillary Clinton's energy plan is expected today or tomorrow according to Grist. Hillary is widely seen as the Democratic front runner, so this energy plan will be considered by the media more than any other. What's Hillary's fuel economy standard? What does Hillary have to say about ethanol? We will keep you informed as the story develops.
So far, we know the plan will be introduced with the speech "Powering America's Future: New Energy, New Jobs" this morning at Clipper Turbine Works, Inc. in Cedar Rapids where she will take questions from the press, according to CNN. Tuesday, November 6, Hillary will give a policy address at the Renewable Energy Group in Newton, Iowa, according to a press release.
Related:
[Source: Grist, CNN, Press Release]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dave 12:52PM (11/05/2007)
Regardless of what the plan is, why hasn't she tried to push it through Congress already?
Reply
Tim 1:08PM (11/05/2007)
She wants to tax, spend. We must give away rights and freedoms to government for our own protection. Resistance is futile! She's the superior intellect. Government is here to protect us cradle to grave. We must trust them with our very lives as we are too stupid to think for ourselves. You too will be assimilated, comrade.
This is a simple quiz to test your knowledge of our world's communists.
http://www.gotoquiz.com/who_said_it_hilary_or_marx
Reply
Snark 1:35PM (11/05/2007)
"She wants to tax, spend. We must give away rights and freedoms to government for our own protection."
Unlike the conservatives, who just spend and go into debt? Thanks, I'll take a tax.
As for the rest, stop slurping verbiage verbatim off the John Birch Society and start thinking for yourself, OK?
Reply
Arnie 2:16PM (11/05/2007)
"As for the rest, stop slurping verbiage verbatim off the John Birch Society and start thinking for yourself, OK?"
Yes you naughty boy! Think for yourself, like the communists do!
Reply
OhmExcited 2:44PM (11/05/2007)
You can see most of her plans and general energy philosophy here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
If she's asked tough questions on the plan, hopefully she will not start laughing.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 3:10PM (11/05/2007)
OhmExcited, Thanks. When I write about it, I will say you were a tipster.
Reply
Tony Belding 3:10PM (11/05/2007)
If we take that "issues" page seriously, she's basically offering a gutless plan with a series of symbolic gestures that won't meaningfully change our energy mix. It's about what I expected: business as usual, with a dollop of green paint.
Let's look at what she's not offering. . .
No carbon tax or increased gasoline tax. (Cap-and-trade just isn't the same thing.)
No initiative to get more nuclear plants constructed.
No rollback of the huge subsidies that currently go to Big Oil.
These are three of the biggest things we could and should do when we get serious about tackling our energy problems. Clearly Clinton hasn't reached that point of getting serious yet.
Reply
susan.kraemer 3:23PM (11/05/2007)
The Democrats, including Clinton HAVE tried to push (at least 8 bills) energy plans through congress already.
But they do not have a majority in the Senate (where Clinton is), as there are still way too many anti-green energy Republicans in congress, who are paid by oil lobbyists to not believe theres any need for green energy, they want to keep us on brown energy to benefit big oil, big coal and big nukes.
Republicans in congress who think we need to solve climate change - only 13%. Democrats: 95%.
http://mainedemocrats.org/2007/02/05/republicans-global-warmings-a-myth-but-democracy-in-iraq-now-youre-talking/
Even if they got a vetoproof majority by giving enough kickbacks to Republican interests (ie Lieberman-Warner cap n trade), Bush will veto it anyway, just as he threatens now with the current water bill (fix levys, etc)
Even though that does have enough Southeast Republicans on board to pass, (now that their own constituents got hit with devastating drought)
All the Democrats are more science and green energy tech-friendly than the Republicans.
Reply
susan.kraemer 3:25PM (11/05/2007)
Edwards green energy plan is much better than Clintons, however.
Reply
Throwback 3:34PM (11/05/2007)
She is running for President. If she proposes a carbon tax or gas tax as some suggest, she might get %10 of the vote. Or whatever percentage of the population that doesn't drive. We Americans started a revolution due to high taxes, I don't see any politician winning an election by actively campaigning on raising taxes, no matter how much they claim it is good for us.
Reply
susan.kraemer 3:43PM (11/05/2007)
Her list is here
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
This piece alone would have far reaching effects:
"A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the SEC"
That means they would have to ASSESS that risk.
If companies can be sued by shareholders for not minimising climatechange risk exposures, they would then have a fiduciary responsibilty to shareholders to be green - just as now they have a fiduciary responsibilty to their shareholders to be profitable.
This is a huge change that could change the world: unleashing EVs from NHTSA rules that restrict them to piddling along at 25mph...
Car companies would lose their current incentive to keep making brown cars: it balances the "profit" in selling suckers cheap trucks tricked out as "SUV"s with the "loss" of them not being green.
Reply
OhmExcited 5:29PM (11/05/2007)
She's against nuclear power, which provides 20% of our power virtually CO2-free. She also wants to close down Yucca Mountain. I guess that means we keep piling waste up on plant sites and let our grandchildren worry about it. Many new nuclear plants are on the drawing board now, but I guess they may never materialize if she has her way. She is handwringing about the costs of nuclear power, but at the same time wants to increase the size of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to police an industry that has never caused a US death (unlike coal). Meanwhile, she wants to keep coal plants up and running and throw more money at "clean coal" which never seems to materialize. It's amazing how interest groups affect our politics so much. It's pretty depressing.
Reply
Snark 8:02PM (11/05/2007)
"She also wants to close down Yucca Mountain. I guess that means we keep piling waste up on plant sites and let our grandchildren worry about it."
No. I think that means something more along the lines of, "we should find a place to stash our nuclear waste that isn't directly straddling a fault line and incapable of isolating nuclear waste for longer than a few thousand years, at which time it goes straight into the groundwater."
Reply