Where is Wes Clark on Environmental Issues?

[leftyladyfrommo]

I really wish one of our strong people would take that issue up big time. I think it is very important and there are a lot of people out there who would be really relieved to have someone make it one of the most important topics.

[Totally Committed]

1. Wes on the Environment:

Earth Day Founder Endorses Clark
Senator Gaylord Nelson, one of the most accomplished and respected public servants in Wisconsin history, supports Wes Clark for president.

Washington - Sen. Gaylord Nelson, who represented Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate from 1963 to 1981 and will long be remembered as the founder of Earth Day, endorsed presidential candidate General Wes Clark today.

Nelson said he believes Clark will be a strong leader on the environment. "I've read his environmental statement," Nelson said. "It's very good, and I agree with it. Clark's environmental position is spelled out very well and it hits the important points."
Nelson, who like Clark was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Clinton, said he felt good about Clark even before they met. "Clark looks presidential," Nelson said, citing the former General's calm demeanor and forthrightness in recent television appearances. "He handles the tough questions better than anyone else."

"I am honored to receive the endorsement of Gaylord Nelson, one of our country's senior statesmen and most ardent environmental champions," Clark said this afternoon while campaigning in Northern Wisconsin, where Nelson is from. "His exemplary life of service to our society, and to our planet, underscores the importance of learning about ecology, respecting nature, and preventing environmental degradation."

Nelson, who was born in Clear Lake, Wisconsin, served in the state senate from 1949 to 1959. He was Wisconsin's governor from 1959 until 1962, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. As a senator, Nelson helped enact President Johnson's Great Society program and was an early opponent of the Vietnam War.

Nelson is one of the leading environmentalists in Senate history. He introduced the first legislation to ban DDT in 1965, and founded Earth Day on April 22, 1970, in a successful effort to focus attention on the nation's deteriorating environment.

The United Nations has twice recognized Nelson for his achievements, and the state of Wisconsin named Madison's Gaylord Nelson State Park after the Senator to honor his service. In 1995, in recognition of his environmental legacy, President Clinton awarded Nelson the Medal of Freedom, the highest award given to civilians in the United States.

http://www.clark04.com/press/release/167/

Wes Clark on Protecting the Environment (from the 2003-2004 campaign)

Responsible conservation of our natural resources, to protect Americans' health and welfare
America's natural resources - our air and water, seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, forests, prairies, and wilderness - are among the glories of this nation. They are a legacy passed down by those who have come before, and a birthright that we are honor-bound to preserve for future generations.
Protecting the environment is a basic and fundamental responsibility of our national leaders. Those who would sacrifice our natural gifts to give well-connected insiders a short-term windfall ignore this responsibility and undermine America's long-term economic strength. As President, I will protect the health of our citizens and conserve the resources our children will inherit. In an era when environmental threats - such as global warming and the loss of our protective ozone layer - pose real and tangible dangers, environmental protection is critical to the well-being of all Americans.

President Bush's environmental record is a disgrace. He has betrayed the public trust and is mortgaging our children's future. The President and his staff of co-opted lobbyists are the true environmental radicals - there is nothing conservative about turning over our public resources to special interests. President Bush has rolled back rules that keep our air and water safe, pushed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, worked to increase logging and mining on public lands, left taxpayers with the tab for toxic waste cleanups, and walked away from efforts to address global warming. In light of this record, the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters has concluded that "George W. Bush has compiled the worst environmental record in the history of our nation."

As President, I will immediately halt the Bush Administration's unprecedented assault on the environment. I will safeguard the health of our children and families by cleaning our air, water, and soils, protecting our public lands, restoring U.S. leadership on global environmental and energy security issues, and building a broad coalition of nations to protect our shared values.

My environmental policy has four key elements:

**** Clean air and water. Americans are entitled to clean air and clean water. We should be proud that our air and water are cleaner today than a generation ago, but much more progress is needed. It is unacceptable that asthma rates have climbed sharply in the past decade, that many lakes and streams remain unsafe for fishing and swimming, and that millions of Americans lack access to safe drinking water. Yet the Bush administration has led a stealth campaign to undermine the laws that protect our air and water. Under its so-called "Clear Skies Initiative," the Bush administration proposes to weaken and delay rules that protect us from soot and smog, and allow dramatic increases in emissions of mercury from power plants. It proposed easing the limits on arsenic in drinking water, backing down only after a public outcry. It abandoned the "no net loss" wetlands policy put in place by the first President Bush. It continues to undermine enforcement of clean air and water laws with extended delays and inadequate budgets.

As President, I will:

Vigorously enforce all clean air and clean water laws, by reversing the Bush administration's cutbacks in environmental investigations, funding, and enforcement;

Enforce the Clean Air Act so that big factories undertaking mammoth expansion projects modernize their pollution controls - just as new plants are required to do;

Impose tough limits on emissions of mercury from smokestacks;

Advance environmental justice by ensuring that health hazards are not borne by the most vulnerable among us-minorities, seniors, children, and low-income communities;

Support aggressive steps to control soot and smog;

Restore budgets for sewage plants and storm water controls; and

Protect our nation's wetlands by enforcing a "no net loss" policy.

**** Toxic wastes. Polluters should pick up the tab for cleaning up their own mess. It is unacceptable that the tax on companies that generated the most toxic waste has been allowed to expire, that the Superfund program is running out of cash and that the cost of toxic waste cleanups is being shifted to the taxpaying public. Yet the Bush administration has refused to support the Superfund tax on corporate polluters, sought to shift responsibility for cleanup cost to the taxpaying public, slowed the pace of cleanups and supported unjustified exemptions for the Department of Defense from toxic waste cleanup liability.

As President, I will:


Support reinstatement of the Superfund tax on companies that have generated the most toxic wastes;
Support strong community right-to-know rules concerning the presence of toxic chemicals in our communities;

Reject proposed new exemptions for the Department of Defense from toxic waste cleanup liability; and
Promote quick and efficient cleanups to protect public health and safety.

**** Wildlife and wild places. We are stewards of the land and all that live on it. Our public lands must be available for fishing, hunting, and hiking, and America's scenic beauty must be held in trust for the generations to come. It is unacceptable that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains under threat, that many of our national parks are in a state of disrepair, and that deforestation threatens an epic loss of biodiversity around the world. Yet the Bush administration has fought to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, broken a promise to eliminate the maintenance backlog in our national parks, subverted the Roadless Rule, and misled the public with a so-called "Healthy Forest Initiative" that in fact promotes logging and scales back review of logging plans in the national forests.

As President, I will:

Oppose efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling;

Fix our crumbling national parks by ensuring sufficient funds for park maintenance;

Codify and enforce the Roadless Rule, which bans new road building on millions of acres of national forest;

Work aggressively to protect communities from wildfires, thinning small trees near homes and towns while rejecting proposals to allow logging of medium and large size trees in remote areas under the guise of fire protection;

Strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act - to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements; and

Increase funding for fighting deforestation and protecting biodiversity around the world.

**** Clean energy/global warming. This nation can no longer defer serious action to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. We urgently need to confront the challenge of developing a 21st century energy policy, both as a matter of national security -- to reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- and to combat the profound danger of global warming. This is a challenge that we can meet with American ingenuity, resolve, and technological leadership. Yet the Bush Administration has adopted a head-in-the-sand policy of denial, delay, and deceit. Its energy plan is stuck in a past when it seemed that fossil fuels could be burned with impunity. On global warming, the Administration walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, announcing its unilateral approach to the world. At home, it has pursued a do-nothing policy, calling for weak, voluntary measures to cut carbon emissions, while opposing real, bipartisan solutions. And it has even sought to obscure efforts by its own scientists to inform the public about climate change. In June 2002, the President dismissed an EPA report warning of the human impact on climate change, and in June 2003, the White House deleted key language on the health and environmental consequences of climate change from a key Administration report on the environment.

As President, I will pursue a far-reaching, strategic energy plan to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, including our dependence on foreign oil; cut greenhouse gas emissions; and maintain economic growth. I will:

Promote the use of fuel-efficient cars, SUVs and minivans by --

Strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others;

Accelerating the use of hybrid vehicles through targeted tax incentives; and
Spurring research into hydrogen-powered fuel cells;

Impose a cap on carbon emissions from power plants by putting the market to work as we did in controlling acid rain -- with tough but fair limits, coupled with an emissions trading program, so that businesses will get the incentives they need to invest in emission control;

Aggressively promote the use of renewable energy like solar and wind, ensuring that we will be capable of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by the year 2020;
Harness the power of bioenergy, turning farm products into energy and fuel and helping American farmers profit from the fight against global warming;

Use standards, incentives, and other measures to significantly increase the energy efficiency of our power plants, our business equipment, and our home appliances;

Invest in the capture and sequestration of carbon;

Upgrade our outdated electric grid so that power can be distributed efficiently and reliably;
Help communities plan for smart growth rather than suburban sprawl; and

Lead the United States to re-engage in international global warming negotiations, recognizing that American leadership is essential and that all nations must do their part in meeting this challenge.

From the soot and smog that threatens our health to the global warming that threatens our future, our well-being depends upon our ability to meet the extraordinary environmental challenges of the 21st century.

We can meet these challenges - and we can do so while growing a robust, prosperous economy. We can do this on the strength of American technology , American innovation, and American drive. All we need is leadership.

http://www.clark04.com/issues/environment/

All Current Environmental and Conservation Issues and Position Papers:

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/74

Hope that helps!

TC

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. Oh my gosh. Thank you so much.

I'm just liking this guy better and better.

[Totally Committed]

3. He truly is the greatest...

He will be an extraordinary President if this Party is ever smart and gutsy enough to nominate him.

TC

[leftyladyfrommo]

4. He's getting out there.

I think I saw him twice on Lehrer in just a few days and he was great.

I haven't seen Kerry or Edwards out there on anything lately.

[karynnj]

14. Kerry was endorsed by the Sierra club

which rarely endorses anyone. Kerry has a genuine record.

[Adelante]

22. TC, sign up for your DU Journal

That's a great post to keep there :)

[CarolNYC]

5. Audubon Society and more

He won some kind of award from the Audubon Society while in the Army for his work in protecting some endagered desert tortoise....I thought that was kind of neat.

He's part of the Stop Global warming virtual march....If you want to "march" with him, you can do so here: http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/marchers/?2724

Here's Gen Clark's statement on climate change from the Clinton Global Initiative last Septmember:
http://securingamerica.com/cgi_stat/2005-09-16

And here's the Q&A session, which Gen Clark participated in...
http://securingamerica.com/cgi_qa/2005-09-16

Before he ran for President, he was Chairman of the Board at WaveCrest Labs, which "developed a breakthrough electric propulsion system that transforms electrical energy into mechanical motion"...
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/wavecrestlabs/10740/

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Clark's 04 answers to League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire Part 1

Here are Clark's answers to the League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire from his 2004 race. Domestic and Global issues discussed. This is really long so I have to post it in two parts. Format is a LCV statement, followed by a LCV question followed by Clark's reply:

League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire

Introduction
This questionnaire is designed to elicit your responses and your ideas regarding what environmental groups consider the most important national environmental issues of the day. In some cases, we refer to certain bills or environmental positions, which are before the Congress or the Executive at this time. Where you may differ with the position as stated or implied by the question, please give us your views on these goals. If you have an environmental record, please cite examples of your past accomplishments. LCV is, however, looking for your vision of leadership on these key issues, in addition to your record.
This questionnaire is due by close of business on Monday, August 4. If you have questions, please contact Betsy Loyless at 202-785-8683. LCV’s fax number is 202-835-0491. Thank you.

Natural Resources and Public Lands

1. Public Lands
This nation’s 630 million acres of public land are a resource enjoyed by Americans today, and are a natural heritage legacy for future generations. These public lands include America’s parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, and lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Wilderness areas are protected within all four management systems.

1a. Would you support designating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a wilderness area, to put it permanently off limits to oil and gas development?

Yes. We should pass this pristine wilderness on to our children just as we found it.

1b. Would you support the moratorium on new road construction and logging in the roadless and undeveloped portions of our national forests?

Yes. Wild places should stay wild. Building new roads in the undeveloped portions of our national forests makes no sense economically or environmentally.

1c. Do you support more snowmobiles, jetski and ORV use in our parks?

No. I think we should ensure diverse recreation opportunities for all Americans on our public lands. Decisions about which lands are suitable for different uses should be supported by environmental impact analyses and full public involvement.

1d. Would you reverse the Bush administration’s decision to deny future wilderness consideration of BLM land?

Yes. The Bush administration policy does not even permit land managers to analyze whether wilderness is the best use of the land. It is an unbalanced and myopic approach.

1e. What policies would you institute to protect communities at risk from forest fires?

I would instruct the Forest Service to thin fire-prone forests and underbrush near homes and communities. I would help communities and homes most at risk by increasing fire fighting capacity and helping people fireproof homes. I would insist that Congress provide adequate funding to accomplish these steps. I would not allow logging of older, larger trees (which tend to be more fire resistant), particularly when those trees are located miles from homes and communities. I would also explore ways of using my National Civilian Reserves Plan to send volunteers who have been properly trained to assist in fire prevention and fire suppression.

1f. Do you support continuing protection for offshore areas from oil and gas drilling?

Yes. These continuing protections exist for important reasons, including the protection of coastal ecosystems and the concerns of those living in coastal areas with respect to oil and gas drilling.


2. Wildlife
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed in 1973, provides protection for threatened and endangered species of plants and animals. The law preserves these species for their own sake, and serves to maintain the overall health of larger natural systems necessary for the preservation of other species. Critics claim the law unduly restricts private property rights and interferes with reasonable economic development of land. Some observers believe the ESA should provide incentives, like tax breaks, for private landowners to encourage them to help save imperiled species.

2a. Do you support the goal of this law? Do you believe that current efforts are sufficient to recover our declining plants and wildlife?

I strongly support the goals of the Endangered Species Act – to protect the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend, to protect the species themselves from extinction, and to implement our obligations under international conservation agreements. While I believe the ESA has been quite successful in the 30 years since its enactment, more needs to be done to stem the tide of extinctions. We should once again pursue multi-species habitat conservation plans over wide landscapes. These plans protect species, as well as the economic interests of landowners. As Professor E.O. Wilson has said, allowing species to go extinct is the folly future generations are least likely to forgive us.

2b. How, if at all, would you propose to modify the law in regard to its application to private landowners?

I would not be inclined to seek changes in the law from the current Congress or any similar future Congresses. Instead, I would focus on administrative reforms. The current law – through administrative efforts such as habitat conservation plans, streamlined processes, candidate conservation agreements, and “no surprise” assurances – can readily protect species and address private landowner concerns.

2c. Would you support additional exemptions from the ESA for the Department of Defense?

No. Additional exemptions aren’t needed. I spent a lot of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.


3. Oceans
Conservation of the ocean’s living resources, particularly fish populations and the marine ecosystems they support, has never achieved the same priority as other environmental initiatives. Management of living resources within the United States 200-mile exclusive economic zone is the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Act was amended and the conservation provisions strengthened by Congress in 1996, but NOAA Fisheries has been slow to implement the changes necessary to protect declining fish populations and threatened marine ecosystems.

3a. Do you support rebuilding fish populations that have been overfished in order to protect marine ecosystems and preserve long-term economic benefits, even if this results in adverse short-term economic impacts?

Many fish populations, especially commercially fished populations, are classified as “fully fished.” This not only threatens our fragile marine ecosystem, but also threatens the American fishing industry. Currently, declining fisheries are producing far below their potential at a cost of billions a year. Yet, government estimates show how managing our marine ecosystems in an environmentally sustainable manner could generate many thousands of new jobs. If this results in some adverse short-term economic impacts, we must provide support and assistance to affected individuals and communities. Significantly, in many places around the world overfishing can be addressed by phasing out costly government subsidies for overcapitalized fishing fleets. However, the long-term economic and ecological benefits make these adjustments imperative. I believe we need to manage our marine ecosystem in an environmentally sustainable manner to ensure healthy marine life and a plentiful supply of fish for generations to come.
Protecting the environment is necessary for a healthy economy and healthy citizens. The human side of the story is in the fishing communities themselves. We want to help preserve the culture of these fishing communities, and if conservation is not enhanced and over-fishing continues, these communities will be devastated.


4. Mining
Right now, mining on public lands for metals like gold, copper and silver is given preferential treatment over all other uses of the land. This type of mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry, and has polluted 40% of the stream reaches of Western watersheds, according to the EPA. Metals mining has also contaminated water with acid and heavy metals, destroyed landscapes and wildlife habitat, and damaged public spaces. The 1872 Mining Law is one of the major culprits in this story – the antiquated law contains no mining-specific environmental or cleanup standards, and allows companies to mine on public lands with virtually no return to taxpayers.

4a. Would you support changes to the law to allow other uses of the land, such as hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, to be weighed equally against mining when determining uses of public lands?

I would support such changes to provide additional clarity in this area, although I believe that current law in fact allows federal land managers to treat hiking, clean water, wildlife habitat, hunting, and fishing the same as mining in determining uses of public lands. With wise management and strong enforcement of current laws, we can achieve a balance in our use of public lands that has been absent under the Bush administration.

4b. Would you support changes to the law to require environmental and cleanup standards that apply specifically to mining?

I would support appropriate changes. However, I believe that existing laws -- properly administered -- are sufficient to compel cleanups for existing mines. We need sound management and strong enforcement of current laws.

4c. Would you support a royalty system for metals mining comparable to what the oil and gas or coal industries have to pay for mining and drilling on public lands?

Yes. It makes no sense that the gold industry, for example, pays nothing to take minerals from the federal taxpayer.
Global Warming; Energy, Transportation, and Land Use


5. Global Warming
Global warming is caused by pollution that comes mostly from cars and power plants and builds up in the atmosphere trapping heat like a blanket. Global warming is the most far-reaching environmental problem our civilization has ever faced. The hottest 10 years on record have occurred since 1980 culminating in 1998, the hottest year ever recorded. The world’s leading scientists warn that if the nations of the world fail to cut greenhouse gas emissions, we are likely to commit the world to massive irreversible damage—rising sea levels, crop damage, heat-related deaths, mass extinction of species and the spread of infectious diseases.

The U.S., with 4% of the world’s population, is the largest emitter of gases that cause global warming; it is responsible for contributing over 23% of world carbon dioxide emissions. Two- thirds of the U.S. carbon dioxide pollution comes from transportation and energy generation. We have the technology and know-how to lead the world in energy efficiency and clean energy, while creating good-paying jobs here at home and strengthening America’s economy.

Virtually all of the other industrial nations have already committed themselves to start acting to reduce their own carbon pollution. We cannot stop global warming unless all important contributors to this pollution problem do their fair share. But, the average American is responsible for 10 times as much global warming pollution as the average Chinese, and 20 times as much as the average Indian. We have the know-how and the resources to lead the way forward to new clean technologies that produce energy without pollution.

5a. Do you support a reduction in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide? Do you support a mandatory cap on U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?

Global warming is a problem we can fix. America leads the world in the know-how and the technology to start cutting global warming pollution immediately, while at the same time, enhancing our quality of life. However, President Bush has failed the test of leadership and stewardship on this issue. He says we should rely on the coal and oil industries as well as on the power and auto companies to police themselves. He opposes any limits on carbon dioxide pollution. He even refuses to call it “pollution.” Under his do-nothing plan, global warming will just keep getting worse.
Solving this problem requires real accountability. As president, I will reduce global warming pollution from our power plants, factories, and vehicles using the market-based “cap-and-trade” approach that has worked so successfully to combat acid rain. I will take action under our current clean air laws and work with Congress to enact new ones that curb all major pollutants from our power plants and reduce global warming emissions from the industries that contribute to this problem.

5b. Do you support U.S. participation in a binding international treaty that caps emissions of carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants?

Global warming is a global problem. While we must begin to clean up our own emissions, we cannot safeguard the American people from the dangers of global warming solely by action here at home. We need the cooperation of all nations that contribute significantly to this problem, and American leadership in this regard is essential. But President Bush unilaterally walked away from the global warming treaty talks without proposing any alternatives.
As President, I will re-engage with other nations to craft a fair, effective, and enforceable international treaty that uses the free market to cap and reduce global warming pollution at the lowest possible cost. And I will work to ensure the engagement of all critical nations in a framework that safeguards our environmental security, protects the global environment, and advances economic growth and development for all.


6. Energy efficiency
Automobiles are responsible for 20% of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. One way to reduce this pollution is for our vehicles to use fuel more efficiently. Because of an exception in the current vehicle fuel efficiency laws, light trucks such a minivans and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which account for nearly half of all new cars sold, are permitted 25% lower fuel economy standards (20.7 miles per gallon) than passenger cars (27.5 mpg). Fuel economy standards have not been significantly modified since the 1980’s.

6a. Would you support legislation sufficiently increasing fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs, mini-vans and other light trucks? What goals and timetables would you set?

America’s oil dependence is a grave threat to our national security, our economy, and our environment. Americans send more than $100 billion overseas each year to pay for imported oil. We already import more than half our oil, and if nothing changes, imports will increase to two-thirds by 2020. Our dependence on foreign oil limits our freedom to pursue other goals, including the war on terrorism. Also, emissions from our cars and SUVs worsen global warming.

We now have the know-how and technology to make cars and SUVs that go twice as far on a gallon of gas by using more efficient engines and transmissions, including hybrid cars that use both gasoline and an electric motor. As President, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry, and others, I will set new standards to raise the fuel economy and reduce the emissions of cars, SUVs, and light trucks. The choice of specific goals and timetables will depend on a careful analysis of the existing data on technology, trends, and emissions from this sector as well as policy approaches to help industry meet those goals. We can clearly achieve a great deal in this area. With better, cleaner cars, we can fight global warming, reduce our oil dependence, and strengthen our economy.

6b. What additional means of reducing transportation-related
emissions would you support?

First, we need to provide tax incentives to get hybrids or other highly efficient vehicles into the marketplace and out on the road. With currently existing technology we can make great strides in reducing emissions. Second, I will put a stop to President Bush’s interference with California’s pioneering program to cut global warming pollution from new vehicles. Third, my Administration will lead an aggressive effort to promote the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which hold great promise for the future. Fourth, I will increase support for better public transportation and other measures to clean the air in new highway legislation.

6c. Would you support a renewable energy standard that would achieve 20% renewable energy by the year 2020?

Renewable energy has an enormously important role to play in our energy future, because of the opportunity it presents to reduce pollution, clean the air we breathe, and mitigate climate change. I endorse the standard supported by Senate Democrats for inclusion in the energy bill. A 20% standard by 2020 is aggressive, but it's the kind of goal we should set our sights on and then work with Congress to devise the right kind of policies to achieve.


7. Power plants
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Our power plants emit 40% of all U.S. carbon pollution – 10% of all carbon pollution in the world. They also release other dangerous air pollutants that cause up to 40,000 early deaths each year, as well as thousands of asthma attacks and hospitalizations.

7a. Would you support legislation that controls all four air pollutants that come from power plants including carbon dioxide, does not weaken current law, maintains safeguards for national parks and prevent local pollution increases?

President Bush has proposed new legislation – mis-named “Clear Skies” – that actually would weaken current clean air laws and let the nation’s power plants continue to pollute at unsafe levels. For this President, environmental policy is all about rhetoric, not action. His plan would be much worse for the health of our children and all Americans -- especially those at risk for respiratory illness -- than enforcing current clean air laws. His plan does nothing to curb the carbon pollution that causes global warming.
President Bush has also weakened long-standing clean air standards. He has let power plants, oil refineries, and other big factories undertake huge expansion projects without modernizing their pollution controls – increasing dangerous pollution in neighboring communities – simply by mis-labeling their projects as “routine maintenance.” We have already given polluters a free pass for thirty years since the passage of the Clean Air Act by not requiring them to use the best available technology to control their pollution unless they build new plants. And now that the time has come for them to install the appropriate technology – technology that was developed in the United States and installed on nearly every power plant in Germany and Japan – the Bush administration wants to change the rules of the game. Not only is this bad for the environment and the health of our community, but it is also bad economic policy. We need a level playing field: one that is fair to the utilities and refineries that have complied with the law as well as those to which this administration has sold out by changing the laws.

We have the technology and the know-how to do better. As President, I will carry out our existing Clean Air Act fairly and firmly, and I will work with Congress to enact legislation that curbs all four power plant pollutants that threaten our health and cause global warming. I will maintain safeguards for local communities and for our treasured national parks. We can do this. We will save thousands of lives and create thousands of jobs by doing the right thing.


8. Nuclear Materials
The U.S. has had a policy in place against reprocessing nuclear fuels since the Ford administration. One of the greatest security threats to the United States today, and of paramount concern to American citizens since September 11th, is that nuclear weapons-usable materials will be stolen, seized or secretly diverted from nuclear facilities. It would then used by terrorists to develop and deliver a crude nuclear explosive device, or by a hostile proliferant state to develop more sophisticated nuclear weapons.

8a. Would you oppose the U.S. reprocessing nuclear fuels? Would you support exporting nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies?

I believe reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates serious environmental and security risks without securing us a reliable, safe energy supply. It is critical that the U.S. maintain its 25-year opposition to reprocessing. Commercial reprocessing fuel creates bomb-grade nuclear material; I believe that we should be working to reduce, not increase, the supply of such material. I oppose changing U.S. law to support the reprocessing of nuclear fuels to produce plutonium either at home or abroad.
I also believe we should stop focusing on the power supplies of the 20th century, such as nuclear, coal, and oil power, and instead develop the energy supplies of the 21st century, such as hydrogen, wind, and solar energy. These sustainable energy supplies will advance our national security interests, create sustainable jobs, and facilitate the development of our renewable resources.

8b. How would you improve security at the places nuclear materials are now stored, both internationally and at home?

Secure storage requires, at a minimum, physical protection, material tracking systems, detection capabilities, and rapid response plans. Where these are missing or in doubt, we must work to establish and maintain them. Our nation's nuclear power plants are potential terrorist targets, and thus, we must do everything we can to prevent the devastation that a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would cause. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts mock assaults on our nation's nuclear power plants, they tell the power plants beforehand. The Commission also allows the plants to have extra guards for the day of the drill--guards that would not be on hand in the event of an actual attack. I would insist on surprise drills of our nation's nuclear power plants, so that we can get a more realistic assessment of the plants' preparedness level. If terrorists ever attack our nuclear power plants, they won't give advance notice, and so neither should our regulators. In the years ahead, international co-operation and additional resources will be needed to improve security measures and protect against sabotage. I would show international leadership and work with our allies to enhance security at all of the world's nuclear power plants, because this is a global problem.


9. Nuclear waste
Nuclear waste, whether low-level, transuranic, or high-level, is lethal. Environmental groups believe that federal nuclear policies must be based on science and that protection of public health and the environment are paramount. The current administration is aggressively preparing a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada and making efforts at Department of Energy (DOE) sites nationwide to either relax nuclear waste cleanup standards or void regulatory obligations. As an example, and despite a pending court challenge, DOE is planning top abandon significant amounts of high-level radioactive waste in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York.

9a. Do you oppose weakening of environmental and public health laws regarding nuclear waste disposition?

Yes.

9b. How would you propose to deal with high-level radioactive waste in leaking storage tanks presently in Washington, Idaho, South Carolina and New York?

As a general matter, the government must take responsibility for protecting its citizens from dangerous waste created as part of our weapons production programs. I would need to review the specifics with respect to each of the storage sites involved to determine in detail the proper action to be taken at the site. The action, obviously, should be based on the best available science and untainted by politics. The workers at these sites and their families living in the area have already made sacrifices for our national defense by virtue of their work on these weapons. It would be highly irresponsible to apply less rigorous environmental and scientific standards to these areas by virtue of this commitment to our national defense.


10. Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power plants now supply about 20% of U.S. electric energy. While the nuclear industry argues that nuclear power should be seen as a solution to global warming, the entire nuclear fuel cycle (from uranium mining, milling and enrichment to waste disposal and reactor decommissioning) is (1) a potential source of material for nuclear weapons or terrorist activities; (2) inherently subject to serious accidents (and fully dependent on taxpayer funded safety net in the event of such a serious accident); (3) damaging to land, water and air (e.g., the uranium enrichment process in this country has significant carbon emissions); (4) produces radioactive waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years; and (5) cannot compete in the energy marketplace without significant federal subsidies for existing reactors and for research and development.

10a. Do you support the current administration’s $400 million in subsidies to the commercial nuclear industry for research and development in new nuclear reactors?

No.

10b. Should issues such as environmental impacts, cost-efficiency and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats be considerations in deciding whether nuclear power remains a viable energy option?

Yes. Issues such as environmental impacts (here including waste disposal as a critical issue), cost-efficiency, and vulnerabilities to terrorist threats should always be part of the equation in deciding the makeup of the country’s energy portfolio.


11. Sprawl
Many Americans now consider suburban sprawl -- low-density, automobile dependent development beyond the edge of service and employment areas -- to be a fast growing and obvious threat to their local environment. Suburban sprawl is contributing to the loss of farms, forests, wildlife habitat, wetlands, open space and water quality. Longer commutes and increased traffic congestion causes air pollution. State and local governments are beginning to pursue sprawl-fighting, smart growth strategies.

11a. What role should the federal government play in helping communities address this fast-growing threat to their quality of life and environment?

Smart growth is not synonymous with no growth. Although land use planning is ultimately a local choice, the federal government can ensure that local communities have the resources and expertise to protect their communities, and that federal policies do not encourage sprawling development. The federal government should support mass transit and other measures that would mitigate runaway sprawl.

11b. Would you support changing federal policies and funding priorities that contribute to or encourage suburban sprawl? For example, would you support providing a greater portion of the Highway Trust Fund for transit and alternative transportation choices rather than highway construction and expansion?

I believe the federal government should review its policies and funding priorities to ensure that they do not encourage sprawl. One example is to spend less on highways and more on mass transit.

11c. Would you support federal tax incentives to help local communities set aside open space, protect water quality, and clean up abandoned industrial sites in urban areas? What other measures would you support to address these problems?

Yes. Tax incentives are a powerful and effective tool to help local communities protect the environment and improve quality of life. In partnership with the federal government and state governments, local communities should be given every tool they need to preserve parks, ball fields, trails, and other open space in their neighborhoods, as well as cleaning up their water and any abandoned hazardous sites. When we protect our environment, all Americans benefit.
International


12. Global Population
World population is increasing by 77 million people per year. Continued human population growth aggravates virtually all environmental problems including deforestation, extinction of species through habitat loss, land degradation, global warming, air and water pollution, and freshwater scarcity. With these problems increasingly challenging the governments of developing and developed countries alike, slower population growth and eventual population stabilization are critical to environmental sustainability. Through its assistance for family planning services, the U.S. government has contributed significantly to the fertility decline that has occurred in developing countries since the 1960s. By law, no U.S. foreign assistance funds may be used to provide abortion services.

12a. Do you support increased funding for the U.S. portion of international population assistance necessary to achieve universal access to contraception by the year 2015?

Yes. The U.S. should increase its funding for international population assistance, which advances U.S. foreign policy goals by promoting sustainable population development and health. This funding supports family planning and related reproductive health services through programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Such programs directly benefit tens of millions of couples each year, improving both maternal and child health and contributing to slower population growth rates. Despite the fact that the United States is the largest bilateral funding source for population assistance programs, the United States is still not contributing its fair share of the funds needed. From the perspective of national wealth, the United States is dead last among donor nations in overall development assistance, contributing only 0.1% of its wealth. As President, I support giving women all over the world access to information they deserve to make crucial personal health decisions -- decisions that ultimately affect the ability of our planet to sustain healthy populations.
Increasing our funding for international population assistance reflects my vision for a New American Patriotism and shows our willingness as an international leader to address the needs of developing nations.

12b. In 2002, the United States withdrew its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports family planning programs in over 150 countries. Do you support reinstating a U.S. contribution to UNFPA with safeguards to ensure that no funds provided by the United States are used by UNFPA for abortion or in China?

Yes. The United States needs to reinstate its $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund. While the United States should always reserve the right to ensure funds contributed by American taxpayers are spent on programs representative of American values, the UNFPA is a program that deserves our support. The UNFPA works to promote reproductive health in the world’s poorest countries, helping to ensure the safe delivery of healthy babies, even in unsafe environments. Through educational programs and contraceptives, UNFPA aggressively fights the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as reduces the need for abortion. As a result, UNFPA saves thousands of women and children’s lives every year. Officials at the UNFPA estimate that the $34 million contribution from the United States prevents two million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths.
Additionally, as anti-American sentiment grows, we could help mitigate this trend by continuing our commitment to international organizations, especially aid organizations. Supporting UNFPA shows the U.S. is committed to addressing health issues facing developing countries.


13. Trade
The North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization restrict domestic and international law in order to promote international trade and investment. Dispute panels under these agreements have ruled against a number of environmental and health laws, including clean gasoline standards, sea turtle protections, and food safety standards. In order to comply with the rulings, governments may be forced to weaken laws or regulations. In other instances, the U.S. government has proactively weakened environmental standards to comply with international trade rules. For example, the U.S. has established weak standards to control imported tree and fruit pests in order to avoid trade conflicts.

13a. What steps would you take to prevent international trade bodies and international trade agreements from weakening public health and environmental laws?

I believe in free and fair trade. I believe that, properly negotiated, trade agreements can open markets for U.S. products while ensuring that U.S. environment and public health laws remain the strongest in the world. While efforts to open markets can provide important mutual benefits to both countries, its critical that we work to ensure that trade agreements are always designed to raise all boats and never lead to a race to the bottom on either labor standards or the environment. I think that it is critical that prior to the conclusion of any trade agreements the United States should undertake a full environmental impact assessment. In order to be certain that U.S. laws are protected, we need to make the dispute mechanisms in NAFTA, WTO, and other agreements less secretive and more accountable. NGOs, including environmental groups, should be allowed to present their case in front of NAFTA chapter 11 tribunals and other trade dispute bodies. We will work to address the unintended negative consequences of NAFTA chapter 11 so that foreign investors do not have special standing to challenge U.S. public health and environmental laws. Future free trade agreements must contain similar built-in controls that ensure the environment will not suffer as a result. As President, I'll make sure these protections are central to all future trade agreements. With these steps and others, we make sure that a fair and open trading system promotes economic growth while improving the environment around the world.

13b. Would you increase congressional oversight and public involvement in trade negotiations to better ensure that future trade agreements protect public health and the environment? How would you do so?

Congress and the public have an important role to play in crafting trade agreements. As President, I'll work with Congress and environmental groups closely on trade. I'll improve the current practice of conducting environmental reviews of trade agreements, promote openness and transparency in the negotiation of trade agreements,f and push to open trade dispute processes to the public (for example, by allowing non-governmental organizations to file amicus curiae briefs in cases involving the environment).


14. Biodiversity
There is a consensus among the world’s leading scientists that one of the greatest long-term threats to human welfare is the loss of species and their natural habitat, collectively resulting in the massive loss of biological diversity. The international Convention on Biological Diversity was negotiated in 1992 to help provide for a coordinated international effort to deal with biodiversity loss problems. The Convention has been ratified by 187 countries—nearly every country on earth. In spite of the fact that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations overwhelmingly approved ratification, the United States (along with Iraq and Somalia) is one of only seven countries that has not joined this important treaty.

14a. Will you work to persuade the Senate to ratify the Convention?

Yes. Loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest environmental challenge facing the world today. U.S. participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity would help make the treaty a more powerful for meeting this important challenge.


15. Participation in international environmental agreements
The biodiversity and climate change conventions are only two of the many multilateral environmental treaties to which the United States is not a party—including important agreements on persistent organic pollutants, hazardous chemicals and wastes, the law of the sea, environmental impact assessment and public participation. The consistent failure to participate has transformed the United States from a leader to a laggard in global environmental cooperation, jeopardizing not only our shared environment but also our ability to influence new international rules in these areas.

15a. What will you do to speed ratification of important environmental agreements and restore the United States to its historic leadership role in global environmental issues?

Nowhere is the failure of President Bush’s unilateralism more clear than on questions of global environmental security. America is not an island. There are no barriers that separate us from the global atmosphere or the oceans. Our health is protected and our economy prospers when we engage and lead in international efforts to protect the earth’s shared atmosphere, oceans, and living resources.
As President, I will work with the leaders of the Senate to rebuild the consensus for U.S. participation in critical environmental agreements that have languished under this administration. I will reach out to re-engage with other nations on the global environmental dangers we all face.

Environmental leadership is also an important component of American leadership for democracy around the world. Our own environmental laws are models of open government, public access to information, and participation of those with a stake in their government’s actions. As the leader of the free world, we can, and should, be a strong voice for these values abroad.


Pollution and Public Health
16. Clean Water
The Clean Water Act has been the foundation of clean water protections for over 30 years, protecting rivers, streams, lakes and ponds from pollution and destruction. Small rivers, intermittent streams, and so-called “isolated” wetlands play a crucial role in maintaining water quality. Efforts are underway to limit the ability of the federal government to protect up to 60% of the nation’s waters. Also under development are regulations to limit the ability of the state and federal governments to control runoff from farm fields, animal feedlots and city streets.

16a. Would you support and promote legislation to reaffirm the historic scope of the Clean Water Act to protect all of the nation’s waters?

Yes. All America’s waters need to be protected and a clean environment is of the highest importance to the long-term future of the American people. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in its 2001 ruling in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, when it overturned the federal government’s power to protect wetlands, streams, and other waters that may be considered isolated. The Administration has contributed to the damage caused by this decision by failing to issue guidance interpreting the court’s ruling. These actions have endangered the ecological balance in significant portions of our nation’s wetlands. Consequently, I support the Clean Water Restoration Act of 2003, which would clarify that the Clean Water Act of 1972 applies to all of the waters of the United States, and would delete the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act. All waters of the U.S. need to be protected, not simply ones deemed navigable. I would support legislation that extends Clean Water protection to all United States waters to the full extent constitutionally permitted.

16b. How would you act to assure that sources of polluted runoff are appropriately controlled?

I believe that polluted runoff is one of our nation’s most pressing environmental problems because it is the single largest source of water pollution. It is crucial that we ensure strict control in this area. The fact is we cannot meet water quality standards if we don’t address runoff, particularly from stormwater. Here too the Bush administration is moving in the wrong direction by weakening EPA’s capacity to control water pollution. I believe the Total Maximum Daily Load program (TMDL) that was established as part of the 1972 Clean Water Act to control the amount of both point source and non-point source pollution should be continued and strengthened. The Bush administration’s proposed rulemaking would make the EPA’s responsibility to intervene when TMDL standards are not being set by states optional instead of mandatory. Therefore, I oppose the Bush Administration’s attempt to rewrite these rules. In addition with tax incentives, I would support state and local land use planning efforts to address runoff. Ensuring all Americans have clean water to drink, clean water to swim in, and clean water to fish in is not subject to political bargaining.


17. Wetlands
Wetlands - the marshes, bogs, bottom land hardwoods and estuarine areas where water meets land – act as nature’s water filters and as sponges that help prevent flooding. Our nation has lost over half its original wetlands and continues to lose over 100,000 acres of wetlands each year.

17a. How would you act to reverse the steady erosion of this natural resource?

My administration would begin immediately to enforce a “no net loss” policy. I would ensure that all wetlands, including isolated and seasonal wetlands, remain subject to the protection of the Clean Water Act. I would ensure that the Corps of Engineers and the EPA maintain regulations to protect these waters of the United States and I would call on Congress to reauthorize the Clean Water Act with these protections in place. I would ask Congress to regulate drainage and conversion of wetlands under the Clean Water Act.


18. Clean Air
According to the American Lung Association, at least 137 million people live in areas where it is unhealthy to breathe the air due to ozone or smog pollution. During the 2001 smog season, there were more than 4600 violations of EPA's health standard for smog in 42 states across the country. The elderly, children and people with asthma are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Scientists estimate that up to 40,000 Americans die prematurely each year because of fine particle pollution, or soot.
The electric power industry is the nation’s largest source of air pollution. Electric power plants produce one third of the nitrogen pollution that causes smog, and two thirds of the sulfur pollution that forms fine-particulate matter, acid rain and haze. And they produce 40% of carbon pollution, the heat-trapping chemical that causes global warming. Power plants are the largest sources of mercury emissions, which contaminate fish in our lakes and streams. The current administration has announced a “Clear Skies” proposal that purports to deal with this pollution, but would actually increase harmful emissions and air pollution compared to effectively enforcing the Clean Air Act and this proposal completely ignores global warming pollutants from this industry.

18a. What measures would you take to protect public health from air pollution?

President Bush has weakened clean air standards and programs that are supposed to protect Americans from soot, smog, and toxic pollutants like mercury. My first act to clean the air will be to restore requirements that big polluters install modern pollution controls when they expand their plants and increase their pollution. Every American has the right to breathe clean air. As President, I would roll back the Bush Administration’s effort to allow older power plants to continue polluting at high rates even as they undertake massive expansion. I think the so-called “Clear Skies” initiative is similarly misguided and shows a callous disregard for the health of all Americans, particularly those in lower-income communities.

I would support a cap-and-trade system, to reduce four major pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide. (Some areas such as those within close proximity to national parks would be subject to strict limits and might not be eligible for the trading program.) Further, as President, I would work with the EPA to set realistic and enforceable timetables to phase out and/or upgrade the dirty obsolete coal-fired power plants grandfathered by the Clean Air Act. I would also provide federal support to help develop cleaner safer energy alternatives.
My EPA will work together with the states to meet health protection standards for soot and smog, as required by law. And I will set tough new standards to curb the mercury emissions from power plants and other industries that are contaminating lakes and streams in nearly every state.

18b. Do you support comprehensive efforts to address ozone, mercury, particulate and carbon pollution?

Yes. Phasing out old plants and passing a four-pollutant cap and trade law (see 18a.) will make a large dent in both carbon and nitrogen oxide—the precursor to ozone. In addition to these measures, I'll push to close the "SUV loophole" in fuel economy standards and improve fuel efficiency. Simultaneously, the federal government should assist to develop clean and sustainable energy technologies. As part of the job plan outlined under “New American Patriotism,” the United States can be a leader in sustainable energy technologies. Not only can these technologies help the environment, but they will also provide sustainable jobs to this country. Finally, we need to re-engage with the international community to address carbon emissions and global warming more broadly. Whether it's rejoining Kyoto or finding other multilateral approaches, we have to address this global problem with global leadership. And global leadership is environmental leadership.

18c. What efforts would you support to address issues, such as acid rain and regional haze?

The most important step to combat acid rain and restore visibility is to enact comprehensive power plant legislation (see answer 7a). I will also carry out and strengthen new vehicle emission standards and limits on sulfur in fuel. Together with measures to improve energy efficiency, these measures will help restore the health of our lakes and forests and bring back the magnificent vistas that make America uniquely beautiful.


19. Food Safety/ Pesticides
In 1996, Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act to assure that America’s food supply is safe from dangerous pesticides.

19a. Do you support implementation of this law to assure that children and other vulnerable people are fully protected from dangerous pesticides contaminants?

Yes. Chemical contaminants have no place in our nation’s food supply, and FQPA’s new standard for regulating pesticides --- reasonable certainty of no harm --- imposes the proper level of protection. While I am mindful of the difficulty involved in implementing this new standard, I believe that the EPA can and should do more to meet the statutory deadlines for various regulatory actions mandated by this important legislation. As President, I will work with the EPA to ensure that every effort is made to implement the FQPA.

19b. Would you oppose efforts to delay the food safety requirements of this important law?

Yes I would. The American people are entitled to enjoy the full benefits of this important, seven-year-old legislation.

19c. Do you believe all pesticides that may remain on food products should be comprehensively tested for safety, and that, where data is not available, conservative assumptions should be applied to assure public health protection?

I support full implementation of the provisions of the FQPA regarding the review of the safety of pesticide residues on food (known as tolerance reassessments). I also support the review of the safety of existing pesticides and their uses according to the most up-to-date science as part of the ongoing EPA re-registration process. Environmental decisions such as these should always be made on the basis of the best available scientific information. When data are lacking, conservative assumptions should be used where supported as a generally accepted scientific practice.
I also believe in “right-to-know” laws. Food producers have the obligation to ensure that the produce provided to America’s consumers and their children is healthy and safe. When the produce industry fails to establish and adhere to internal standards for safety with regard to pesticides on its produce, laws and a mechanism to enforce them must exist to protect the health of the consumer.


20. Toxics, Right to Know, Preventing Toxic Exposures
In the last 50 years, chemical manufacturers have flooded society with tens of thousands of chemicals, but weak laws haven’t kept pace with industry production. Of 80,000 chemicals on the market, approximately 90% lack even basic publicly available information on potential health effects. Manufacturers are only required to report industrial pollution for fewer than 700 of these chemicals. There is no law providing disclosure of toxic chemicals contained in consumer products. And finally, the government’s ability to restrict or phase out known hazardous chemicals is extremely limited (resulting in a judicial repeal of EPA’s ban on asbestos).

20a. Do you believe that the public has a right to know about the full range of toxic chemicals in foods, drinking water and consumer products?

I believe that the public has both a right and a need to know about such chemicals, subject to the practical limitations on making such information available. We have learned over the years that many of the chemicals to which we are exposed on a daily basis can have harmful impacts on many Americans. It is imperative to our individual health and the nation’s health care system that information be available concerning exposure to chemicals in foods, drinking water, and consumer products.

20b. Would you support legislation to require manufacturers to disclose the potential health effects of chemicals to which they expose the public?

I would enthusiastically work with Congress in fashioning such legislation.

20c. Do you believe that chemicals with known links to serious health effects should be phased out where there are safer alternatives?

I believe we should reduce or eliminate exposure to chemicals with serious health effects when there are realistic alternatives that are shown to be safer.


21. Toxics
The Superfund program was steadily increasing the rate of site cleanup through the 1990’s - with over 85 sites completed each year in 1997 - 2000, with the rate now slowing to about 40 sites per year. Under Superfund’s “polluter-pays” liability system, polluters have directly paid for cleanups at more than 70% of Superfund sites. In addition, the liability structure has created strong incentives for pollution prevention and better waste management. However, the program of polluter-pays taxes that support the program expired in 1995, and Superfund cleanups are increasingly paid for with taxpayer funds. In fiscal year 2004, it is estimated that 79% of EPA's cleanups with be paid for by taxpayers. Critics of the program, however, assert that cleanups are unduly expensive because they too often involve treating wastes rather than simply trying to contain them, and that litigation has been excessive.

21a. Do you support reinstating the Superfund tax?

Yes. The Superfund tax preserves an important principle of environmental policy: namely, that polluters should pay to help clean up environmental hazards. As a result of the failure of Congress and the Administration to support reinstatement of the Superfund tax, the Superfund trust fund is now going bankrupt. This unfairly allocates the full cost of these cleanups to the U.S. taxpayer and removes an important enforcement tool that could be used to make responsible parties pay their full share of cleanup costs.

21b. What measures would you support to accelerate the pace of clean up at Superfund sites?

First, I will appoint an administrator to head the agency who would be committed to increasing the pace of clean up at Superfund sites across the country. The Clinton administration recognized the unacceptable length of time that it was taking many of these sites to be cleaned and made the cleaning up hazardous waste sites a national priority and challenged EPA regional administrators to work hard with states to get the job done. Second, I will seek to reinstate a Superfund tax so that the program’s trust fund would have sufficient resources to permit the federal government to step in to take action when responsible parties are unwilling or unable to act on their own. Third, I will request additional resources for the program based on a review of the number and kinds of sites that still need to be cleaned up, taking into account their size and complexity. Finally, I will expedite the speed of cleaning up these sites as part of my support for making Superfund sites both protective of the public health and more attractive to redevelopment as a way of attracting private investment.

22. Environmental Justice
Environmental problems -- from toxic pollution to loss of biodiversity -- affect all of us. Some communities, especially communities of color and poorer communities, are likely to suffer disproportionate impacts from environmental degradation. Evidence of environmental disparities includes: higher incidences of childhood lead poisoning among African-American children and among lower-income children; higher exposures by people of color to air pollution and higher penalties for violations of federal environmental laws levied in white communities compared to minority communities. Other areas where environmental disparities can exist include the siting of waste management facilities, access to clean drinking water and food, job-related exposures to toxic chemicals, access to well-maintained public parkland, and the availability of transportation options.

22a. What is your vision for insuring equal access to a clean and healthy environment?

Equal access to public goods is one of America's most deeply held values. No American should have to live or work in conditions that threaten their health. Environmental health hazards are too often borne by the most vulnerable among us -- the children, the elderly, and low-income communities. Critics often say that environmentalism is an issue that is only a concern for the well-to-do, but in fact just the opposite is true. The affluent are more likely to have the means to protect themselves from exposure to unsafe living conditions like lead, asbestos, hazardous waste, polluted air, and dirty water. The government must protect disadvantaged communities from these dangers.

22b. Would you support and strengthen compliance with Executive Order 12898, the President's Order on Environmental Justice (2/11/94), which mandates that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low income populations?
Yes. The Federal government affects the environmental health of Americans in many ways, through its own activities, programs, and policies. With Executive Order 12898, President Clinton recognized that we have to look closely not only at the total amount of pollution, but also at where that pollution falls. No single racial or ethnic group should bear the burden of excess pollution. I will ensure that all federal agencies perform their activities in such a manner as to identify and eliminate the potential for any disproportionate impacts.

22c. Are there other ways you would address this issue?

I will tap the creative energy of all groups involved in environmental issues. Too often we fall into the trap of doing things the way they have always been done. The EPA's Office of Environmental Justice could be more effective in promoting environmental justice. My Administration will not be afraid to try new approaches, to work with diverse parties, to promote unique solutions and partnerships between industry and affected communities, and when necessary, to use its enforcement and compliance powers to ensure that my commitment to a clean and healthy environment for all Americans is achieved.



Environmental Process and Procedures
23. Budget/Environmental Funding
Federal spending for Natural Resources and the Environment budget category (Function 300) has declined substantially since 1980. Environmentalists believe that the management needs of national parks, wildlife refuges and other federal lands and clean water and clean air programs as well as programs that protect wildlife continue to increase.

23a. Would you support a reassessment of federal spending priorities and restoration of an equitable portion of the federal budget to natural resource and environmental programs and agencies?

Yes. These programs have been critical to the preservation and continued maintenance of the land and water resources that are so much a part of our American character and so vital to the public health. I fully support an appropriate allocation of each year’s federal budget to these programs. Also vitally important for these programs is a predictable and consistent level of funding on a multiyear basis. An important step toward this goal was taken in 2000 in the enactment of the Conservation Trust Fund, a commitment made that has not been fulfilled in recent years. I would support not only increased funding levels for these programs, but also a mechanism that would make consistent funding available each year.

23b. What are your top funding priorities for national parks? Do you support more funding for national parks?

Yes, I support more funding for our national parks. The national parks are a unique American treasure and provide an unparalleled opportunity for families to enjoy nature and engage in recreation. Our top priority should be to maintain the resource base essential to preserving each park’s special experience, including its plants, wildlife, and cultural artifacts. We should also pay more attention to maintaining and modernizing in suitable ways the facilities and transportation systems in each of our parks.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was authorized by Congress at $900 million each year with revenue derived from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing and production. Congress has regularly failed to appropriate the authorized amount. The unappropriated balance in the LWCF account now exceeds $11 billion.

23c. Would you support full funding for the LWCF at $900 million each year and limiting its use to the purposes for which it was originally established?

Yes. This program provides vital funding to federal agencies as well as state and local entities so that they can protect open space and important natural resources.

In 2000 Congress established an historic Conservation Trust Fund intended to provide guaranteed funding for LWCF and other programs to protect wildlife, open space and marine and coastal areas. But Congress is now backing away from that commitment.
23d. Would you support efforts to fully fund and maintain the historic Conservation Trust Fund established in 2000?
Yes, I would support efforts to maintain and fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund or to adopt other methods that accomplish the same funding mission through the use of the budget process. The Conservation Trust Fund was a monumental achievement based on a bipartisan consensus. However, the Bush administration has allowed Congress to erode the program to the point that its future viability is now in doubt.


24. Takings/Property Rights
Zoning and various environmental protections at all levels of government protect property owners who may find themselves downwind or downstream from harmful activities. Recently, there have been efforts in the courts, the Congress and in state legislatures to expand the application of the Fifth Amendment’s so-called “takings clause” in the name of protecting property rights. These efforts have the effect of paying polluters not to pollute.

24a. Do you support legislation that would reject the case-specific approach the courts now follow, redefine “property” or otherwise expand the Constitution’s takings clause?

No. There is no need to fix what isn’t broken. The Constitution has served our country and our people well and doesn’t need to be tinkered with.

24b. Do you support legislation to allow private interests to challenge local land use decisions in federal court, bypassing local and state procedures?

No. Land use decisions are local decisions and the proper place for them to be challenged is in state and local venues.


25. Legislative Riders
In recent years, Congress has increasingly relied upon the insertion of unrelated anti-environmental provisions into budget bills, appropriations, and other legislation to bypass regular legislative procedures and avoid presidential vetoes. Environmental groups believe this procedure avoids public scrutiny and debate over new laws, which roll back environmental protection.

25a. Do you believe that changes in environmental laws should be subject to open debate and recorded votes in the Congress?

Yes. Free and open debate is an essential feature of democracy. Too often in recent years, legislative proposals to weaken environmental protection have been agreed to as appropriations riders literally in back rooms or under cover of night, without the public review that such changes deserve.

25b. Would you, as President, veto budget bills or other measures that include unrelated provisions weakening environmental programs?

I would seriously consider vetoing any budget bill containing unrelated provisions that weakened environmental protections.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Reply to League of Conservation Voters Questionnaire Part 2

26. Regulatory Reform
For the past 30 years, most environmental protections for public health have been set based on health-based or technology standards. Critics of many environmental laws and regulations claim that the regulatory process should place a much greater emphasis on the costs of compliance to business. They claim that the regulatory process does not adequately consider costs of compliance to business.

26a. Under what circumstances should human health standards be lowered set based on the cost of compliance to industries?

Different statutes mandate different criteria for determining environmental standards. Under parts of the Clean Air Act, for example, the cost of compliance is explicitly excluded from consideration, while other environmental laws allow costs to be considered when determining standards. While it makes sense for statutes to have their own particular criteria depending upon the nature of the problem being addressed, generally speaking, it is best to set standards based on the level needed to protect human health or on the availability of control technology, and to take costs into account in choosing the most efficient approach to the implementation of the standard. Even the Bush administration admits the health and social benefits of enforcing tough new clean air regulations during the past decade were five to seven times greater in economic terms than were the costs of complying with the rules.

26b. Would you support legislation or executive action to require more detailed assessments of costs and benefits than currently undertaken by federal agencies before new public health or environmental regulations are put in place?

An executive order already requires a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of federal regulations, and a federal statute requires the Administration to report on the costs and benefits of federal regulations on an annual basis. No further assessments should be necessary.

26c. Would you support an adjustment that lowers the estimated benefit in saving someone’s life by his/her age or remaining life expectancy? Explain your views.

When estimating the benefits of saving human life, the government should not discriminate against older Americans based on their age. The value of the life of all adults should be treated the same and should not be lowered simply because one person has lived longer than another. To do so is an insult to our senior citizens. Earlier this year, the Bush Administration proposed using a calculation that would reduce the value of the life of a senior citizen by 37%. As President, I would prevent the use of this or any similar calculation based on age.

26d. Would you support elevating EPA to a cabinet agency? Would you insist that any legislation to do so be free of additional provisions that weaken environmental protection or change the agency’s mission?

Yes, I would support the elevation of the EPA to a cabinet agency, but only if the legislation were free of extraneous provisions that weakened the agency’s ability to protect the environment. Unfortunately, for more than a decade, the EPA cabinet bill has been used as a vehicle for attempted changes to the agency’s authority and mission, sinking the legislation in a sea of controversy. However, even if legislation were not adopted to make EPA a cabinet agency under my administration, I would give the EPA the same status as any other cabinet department.


27. Environmental Oversight
Many observers believe that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the so-called Magna Carta of environmental law, is currently under an “attack of one thousand cuts.” This law provides two essential elements to government decision-making, including public participation and review of the impacts of a proposed decision. In proposal after proposal, concerning issues ranging from highway construction and logging in our national forests to oil drilling on federal lands and conservation of oceans and marine mammals, NEPA is at the center of efforts to weaken the protection of our environment and natural resources.

27a. What would you do to ensure that NEPA’s promise of meaningful public participation in government decisions is fulfilled?

NEPA has done more than any other law in the past 30 years to bring openness and transparency to federal decision-making. However, federal agencies’ reliance on environmental assessments (rather than the more open environmental impact statement) has been eroding this transparency, and the Bush Administration’s propensity for secrecy in government has accelerated this trend. I would direct CEQ to issue new guidance on the use of environmental assessments and ensure that the mitigation promises made by the government are kept. The federal government under my leadership would consult with communities before taking action that may affect them. Monitoring reports should be public documents.

27b. What would you do to ensure that information is collected about the actual impacts of federal decisions on natural and cultural resources and that federal agencies respond to this information?

Too often, federal agencies predict impacts and then put the analysis on the shelf. This process costs taxpayers too much and gives communities too little protection. I would direct CEQ to issue new guidance on monitoring, mitigation, and adaptive management.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has repeatedly sought exemptions to five environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and Superfund. DOD has a long-term plan to get even more exemptions from environmental laws. This is unacceptable. Government agencies including the DOD should have to follow the same environmental and public health laws as everyone else. Moreover, many of these laws already contain broad exemptions that DOD could invoke on a case-by-case basis. DOD is not using the exemptions currently available.

27c. Do you support or oppose giving the DOD exemptions to our environmental laws?

I support current environmental laws that provide case-by-case waiver or exemption procedures in the event of a genuine conflict between environmental and national security concerns. I oppose efforts to open broad new exemptions from environmental laws for DOD in the name of national security. In all my years of service, complying with the environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops under my command.


28. Judicial appointments
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have a major influence over the direction of environmental policy in our country. Federal judges are appointed for life and can shape policy for many years.

28a. Would you consider a judicial candidate’s environmental opinions and record in vetting their appointment to the federal bench?

Yes. I would consider judicial candidates’ entire records, including environmental opinions, in determining qualifications for the federal bench.


Economic policy and environmental protection

29a. Please describe what the relationship between strong environmental protection laws and strong economic performance would be under your administration. Do present environmental laws need to be modified (without necessarily reducing the present level of environmental protection) in order to achieve or maintain a strong economy?

A good life for the American people requires both a clean environment and a healthy economy. Each supports the other. Technology development that makes it economical to use solar energy or hybrid cars creates new industries and jobs while reducing the gases the cause global warming and air pollution. Rural economies that have been left behind by declining agricultural prices and mining efficiencies can develop new economic opportunities that come from living near exceptional landscapes. In my administration, we will adopt policies that encourage the development of technology and entrepreneurship to keep our environment and our economy healthy. We do not need to change our laws -- we need a change in the administration executing those laws.


Environmental Priorities
30a. At the end of your first term, what specific environmental accomplishments will you have achieved? LCV will re-print verbatim the first 300 words of your response.

America’s natural resources – our air and water, seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, forests, prairies and wilderness – are among the glories of this nation. They are a legacy passed down by those who have come before and one we are honor-bound to preserve for the generations ahead. Those who would sacrifice our natural gifts for short-term gain forsake this legacy, and at the same time, undermine America’s long-term economic strength. The choice between a strong economy and a clean environment is a false one.

In truth, environmental protection is a character issue. Just as I took care of the soldiers and their families while serving in the U.S. Army, I feel it is my obligation to protect the health of our citizens and take care of the resources our children will inherit. George Bush’s environmental record is a showcase of his Administration’s duplicity. He has betrayed the public trust and is mortgaging our children’s future. Contrary to their rhetoric, the President and his staff of special-interest lobbyists, not their opponents, are the true environmental radicals. Conservation of land and resources is truly a conservative value.

As President, I will immediately halt the Bush Administration’s unprecedented assault on the environment. I will launch programs to safeguard the health of our children and families by cleaning our air, water, and soils, protecting our public lands, restoring U.S. leadership on global environmental issues, and building a new, broad-based coalition for environmental protection. This is an issue that should bring us together on the strength of our shared values.

Specifically, as President, I want to work with the American people to:
• reverse failed Bush administration policies on clean air, water quality, forests, wilderness and more;
• advance comprehensive "four pollutant" legislation to keep our air clean, including binding limits on emissions of carbon dioxide;
• strengthen automotive fuel efficiency standards, in consultation with scientists, environmental groups, industry and others;
• protect our nation's wetlands by enforcing a "no net loss" policy, and restore budgets for sewage plants and stormwater controls;
• codify and enforce the “Roadless Rule," which bans new road building on millions of acres of national forest;
• promote environmentally-friendly technologies with tax incentives and federal procurement;
• re-enter the international negotiations to address global warming; and
• increase funding for fighting deforestation and protecting biodiversity around the world;
These steps are just a start. To ensure a healthy environment for future generations, we must take responsible action today.


30b.What priority issues will your administration focus on in its first six months, first year?

First, I will reverse failed Bush Administration policies on clean air, water quality, forests, wilderness, and more. Second, I will enforce the environmental laws of this land -- from day one. Third, I will develop and begin to implement a plan for energy security that includes policies to enhance the energy efficiency of our cars, power plants, equipment, and appliances, and to promote the use of renewable energy. Fourth, I will begin to re-establish America's global leadership on environmental issues, and will start by re-engaging in the international negotiations on climate change.

30c.What environmental accomplishments, initiatives or actions are you most proud of?

As a commander in various units throughout my career in the US Army, I was proud always to pass EPA inspections. I worked hard with troops under my command to meet high standards of environmental excellence. During my time as Commanding General of the National Training Center in Southern California, we successfully met the challenge of preserving habitat for threatened desert tortoises while maintaining military readiness. We addressed such issues as waste oil from Army vehicles with professionalism, commitment -- and results. I am proud of the U.S. Army units I commanded. They were good stewards of the land and natural resources. In an era when environmental threats such as the loss of our protective ozone layer threaten our collective survival, military security and environmental security must each be considered an integral part of our national security.

Ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of our environment is central to my campaign. To achieve this vision, we must develop technologies that allow us to decrease emissions and reduce global warming pollution. I believe that America’s great technological prowess holds the key for meeting the environmental and energy challenges of the future and will help us recover many of the good American jobs that we have exported abroad during this Administration. I was proud to serve as chairman of the board of WaveCrest laboratories -- a company that is developing innovative new technologies that can help protect the environment and enhance our energy security.

30d. Do you plan to campaign on environmental issues? What level of visibility and exposure will you give to environmental issues in your campaign? Explain your views.

Yes. Respect for the environment will be a cornerstone of my campaign. For example, my first major speech on the economy included a significant discussion of the importance of protecting our environment. It is impossible to address economic growth without discussing environmental protection. In my campaign, I will expose the false dichotomy of jobs versus the environment and explain how a healthy environment is in fact necessary for a healthy economy.
This Administration has betrayed the public trust. George Bush attacks “radical environmentalists” while claiming to be a “conservative,” but in fact, he and his appointees have engaged in the most radical, wasteful, and destructive environmental agenda in the history of our nation. From Bush’s first day in office, he has attacked the environmental and conservation protections authored by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and even his own father. According to the non-partisan League of Conversation Voters, “George W. Bush has compiled the worst environmental record in the history of our nation.” He has eliminated protections that keep our air and water safe, left taxpayers with the tab for toxic waste cleanups, and walked away from efforts to ensure our nation’s environmental security. Conservation is conservative: Conserving what is left of our nation’s natural heritage is the truly conservative thing to do.

We must preserve for future generations the historic legacy of this country and its incredible landscape and resources. Our well-being, and the well-being of our grandchildren, depend upon our ability to meet the extraordinary environmental challenges of this century. I will continue to fight ceaselessly and passionately for these issues throughout my campaign.

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. Thank you n/t

I liked Kerry and John Edwards. But I like Clark better. He just comes across like a really sharp guy.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Plus....

His can of Whoop Ass spray is biodegradable and a non-aerosol.....


soooo while ridding ourselves of Republican pests, we can remain Eco-Friendly! :thumbsup:

[imlost]

11. beautiful!

[Adelante]

23. Frenchie, I love that picture of you on your Journal

I haven't put anything up yet. Maybe tomorrow. :)

[FrenchieCat]

24. Thanks! I checked yours already and noticed that....LOL!

.....I'll be waitin'!

[Jai4WKC08]

10. K&R

Excellent compilation guys! :hi:

[wiley]

12. A real environmentalist

Kicked, Recommended

:patriot:

[karynnj]

13. This has been a Kerry issue since the 70s

when he was not in any office, but was an activist demanding that the dirty dozen be voted out.

In 1983, as Lt Governor, he when to France and Germany to research what they were doing with acid rain - a phenomena that was nearly unheard of by most people at that time. Europe, having been industrialized long had bigger problems and had started to work on this earlier. Kerry's cousin was the environmental minister (not sure of title)in France. (Kerry's mom was one of 13 kids raised in France while the father represented the family's Boston based company.) Kerry pushed the NE Governor's conference and the Eastern Canada provinces to adopt regulations similar to those working in Europe. (The concept behind them influenced the Clean Air Act.

Kerry has had the best overall record of any Senator over his career on environmental matters. He also was a key person at the global conferences on climate change (which obviously is Al Gore's signature issue - Gore is clearly the preeminate person on this issue). In fact, Kerry met Teresa at the Rio conference. (Teresa has amazing credentials on this in her own right - She more than any other person is credited with cleaning up Pittsburg and making it one of the greenest cities in the country.

Even on a personal level, there was a really adorable picture in the Butler book where Kerry, Butler and another friend, their wives and kids were pictured having made "boats" out of garbage they found on the Cape Cod beach. The purpose was to get the kids involved in picking up the garbage, while having fun. In the picture they were racing the boats. (This is not meant as a stupid comment - but it shows how it wasn't just words, but a deeply held value learned when he was a young kid.)

This was from Light Up the Darkness blog - by Teresa, while not specifically about the environment, it is a very beautiful statement that recognizes the environment and community. (I doubt Laura could ever have said anything half as beautiful.)

Advancing Values and Policies for the Foundation
of a Democratic 21st Century

The most amazing experience for me was to stand beneath the jungle canopy towering 120 feet overhead. It truly had the feeling and simplicity of a gothic cathedral. The trees were like pillars, often anchored by buttress-like roots. They grew in a mere six inches of soil. You couldn't help but wonder what sustained them, and then you looked at the ground and saw the interplay of mosses, ferns, mushrooms, insects and animals, and you began to understand the beauty and complexity and interdependence of life.
We are, all of us, like those trees. Even they depend on the kindness of strangers, and so it is for us.

No matter how high we may sometimes soar, no matter how invincible we may sometimes feel, we are all fed and nurtured and sustained by complex webs of connection. We all truly are in this together.

That, of course, is the essential but too often forgotten wisdom that lies at the heart of all the world's great religions-that we should love others as we love ourselves. And it is the wisdom at the heart of all true charity and philanthropy.

Teresa Heinz Kerry

[Radical Activist]

16. Very true.

Kerry has an excellent environmental record. I think its a real shame that he didn't make it a big issue and use that to his advantage in 2004. I'm willing to bet a large majority of the public still have no idea that he has worked so hard on enviro issues. It could have helped him to talk about it more.

[CarolNYC]

17. Yes, Senator Kerry is an environmentalist

That's one of the things I used in attempting to sway voters when I was working for him during the Presidential campaign....but the OP did ask where Wes Clark stands on the environment, no? Wouldn't these posts be better placed in a thread about where Kerry stands on the environment? Maybe you need to start one of those.

[karynnj]

18. The op asked about Clark's position and also asked WHO WAS A LEADER

on this issuue. If the only acceptable answer was "Wes Clark is the best spokesman on this" - why ask? I took it as a genuine question - if it weren't there I honestly wouldn't have posted. I read the post only to find Clark's positions - then saw the question. Kerry is very hard to beat on this issue, because he has done far more than just talk or vote on this.

[CarolNYC]

19. Here's what I see in the OP....

"Where is Wes Clark on Environmental Issues?

I really wish one of our strong people would take that issue up big time. I think it is very important and there are a lot of people out there who would be really relieved to have someone make it one of the most important topics."

Where's the question "WHO WAS A LEADER on this issue?" Sorry if I'm missing it....Maybe it's in another post on this thread...I looked but I don't see it....The only question I see is about Clark and the environment...And I don't think anyone said "Wes Clark is the best spokesman on this" in response...but maybe I missed that too...All I see are answers to the question about where Clark is on the environment...We certainly seem to be reading two different threads...Maybe it's because I've been sick this week....

[karynnj]

20. "I really wish one of our strong people would take that issue up big time"

I was simply identifying a candidate for "one of our strong people". Obviously, from all other posts this was intended to be answered by Clark should.

Sorry, if I missinterpreted the intent. It really wasn't intentional and as you can see it is not directed against anyone.

[CarolNYC]

21. Hey, it's all good...

I just took it that the OP was asking about Clark and the environment and that those responding were answering that question with information regarding Clark and the environment....That seems the most obvious to me...As such, your posts about Kerry seemed a bit out of place to me...Didn't mean to knock you or anything....

No worries. Like I said, I know Kerry's strong on the environment. I applaud him for that and I know I turned one voter in PA from Kerry "maybe" to a Kerry "yes" with my argument regarding his environmental record. Hey, the more people we have worried about the environment the better, yes? It's all good.

Peace...and have a good night, Carol

[karynnj]

15. New email to get people to again save ANWR

I think this has to be at least the 4th time the Senators have had to fight this.
By the way, the big voices behind this are Kerry and Cantwell.

Dear ---,

It didn't take long. Despite the stunning defeat we dealt them just a few months ago, proponents of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are at it again.

Because when they can't win the game they just change the rules, now they've inserted language in the Senate budget bill to hand over this precious natural treasure to big oil companies -- even though they know full well that it won't make a dime's worth of difference in making America more energy independent.

Tell your Senators to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and take real action toward achieving energy independence.

As we did last year, Senator Maria Cantwell and I are offering an amendment on the Senate floor to strike the proposal to drill in the Arctic Refuge. The vote could come within the next 24 to 48 hours. So please act now.

But, I'll bet that, like me, you're sick and tired of spending so much time defeating bad ideas in Washington when there are so many good ideas for America that get ignored in this city. So I'm asking you to do more than telling your Senators you want them to vote in favor of the Kerry-Cantwell Amendment. Tell them that you demand the Senate takes real action on an energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring the skyrocketing costs of energy down, and benefit the environment.

Tell your Senators to save the crown jewel of America's National Wildlife Refuge System and take real action on energy independence.

There are so many real and powerful things the Bush administration and the Republican Congress could do if they were serious about energy and the environment. But, they haven't lifted a finger on any of them.

They're so beholden to the big oil and gas companies that turning over America's most precious natural resources on a fool's errand search for the last drop of oil is all they can think about.

Tell them America won't settle for their pandering and posturing any longer.

Demand real action on energy independence -- and demand it now. And when they try to tell you we have no choice but to drill in the Arctic, tell them you have a better plan.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. Here are the five cornerstones of my 2020 Energy Plan that Congress should be acting on. When you tell them to vote for the Kerry-Cantwell amendment, tell your Senators to act on one or more of these genuine alternative energy ideas. That's what America needs.

INCENTIVIZING RENEWABLE ENERGY
More than 20 states have implemented market-based Renewable Energy Portfolio programs that require utilities to gradually increase the portion of electricity produced from renewable resources such as wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar energy. We should build on that success at the national level. Tell your Senators to enact a nationwide Renewable Portfolio Standard so that 20% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that implementing this policy would save $26.6 billion and that commercial and industrial customers would be the biggest winners.

PROMOTING BIO-ENERGY
We have the ability to transform our transportation sector from one that fuels our addiction to one that drives us toward a sustainable future. The President should build on that demand and fuel new production opportunities by supporting a mandate that agriculture will provide 20% of the total energy consumed in the United States by 2020.

INVESTING IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
In addition to developing new sources of energy, we must make better use of available energy. New technological advances in appliances, energy grid systems, and buildings can boost productivity, create jobs, improve the reliability and safety of the energy infrastructure, and make dramatic inroads in reducing air pollution. Congress should enact energy efficiency measures to decrease energy use by 20% by 2020.

PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUPER-EFFICIENT VEHICLES
The government should provide an aggressive set of tax incentives and grants for consumers and for industries that are retooling plants to promote the manufacturing and purchase of hybrid vehicles, which run on a combination of gas and electric power to sharply increase efficiency. Twenty percent of all passenger cars and trucks on the road should be high-efficiency, low emissions hybrids by 2020.

SETTING AMERICA FREE FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL
Today, America spends more than $500,000 per minute on foreign oil or $30 million per hour. We paid more than $42 billion for Persian Gulf imports alone in 2005. It is bad enough that these dollars will not help grow our domestic economy -- it is even worse when you consider their impact on our national security. Congress should act to eliminate America's oil imports from the Middle East by 2020.