Read this piece from the Associated Press comparing the commitment of the candidates on Great Lakes restoration and preservation:
Restoring Great Lakes becomes a campaign issue
By JOHN FLESHER – 2 days ago
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — The Great Lakes are ailing, scientists warn, on the verge of ecological ruin from big-city sewage and invasive species. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama promise to support restoration and cleanup, yet the nation's financial crisis calls into question how those efforts will be funded.
Advocates for the lakes region are begging the next president to support a rescue plan expected to cost more than $20 billion. They liken it to the Florida Everglades restoration that Congress approved eight years ago — and it, too, is struggling for lack of money.
"The current economic crisis is even more of a reason why both candidates should articulate comprehensive, detailed Great Lakes cleanup commitments," said Jeff Skelding, national campaign director for the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition. "Investment in cleanup of the lakes is also an investment in a healthy regional economy."
The Great Lakes region includes crucial states in the presidential race: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The McCain and Obama campaigns agree that the Great Lakes need help but argue over the approach.
While campaigning for re-election in 2004, President Bush established an interagency task force that oversaw development of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. It called for upgrading wastewater and sewage treatment systems, stemming the exotic species tide, restoring wetlands and wildlife habitat and cleaning up toxic sediments. But the administration provided little money.
Obama, an Illinois senator, said last month that McCain had "stood with Bush" in failing to support adequate spending on the lakes. The Democrat, whose home city of Chicago anchors Lake Michigan's southern shore, released a five-point plan featuring a $5 billion "down payment" toward implementing the restoration.
McCain's campaign said the Obama plan "throws taxpayers' money at the problem." Yet aides said the Republican senator from Arizona also supports the restoration, although he has put forward no detailed plan or spending commitment. Obama is a co-sponsor of legislation to implement the restoration; McCain is not.
"The Great Lakes restoration must be a bipartisan initiative that brings on board all regions of the country in supporting the lakes as a national treasure," McCain campaign spokeswoman Sarah Lenti said in a written statement.
Robert Sisson, a national staffer with Republicans for Environmental Protection, said McCain's support of the lakes was sincere. But the budget crisis makes any specific funding pledge at this point an empty gesture, he said.
McCain is trying to have it both ways, said Heather Zichal, Obama's energy and environmental policy director.
"If John McCain is saying this restoration can take place without a significant federal contribution, he's just paying lip service when he claims to support it," Zichal said.
She acknowledged that money would be tight. But hailing from a Great Lakes state, Obama understands the lakes' dire situation and would give them top billing, Zichal said.
"You don't have to explain to a Great Lakes senator why this should be a priority," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. "It's in our DNA."
Obama's plan also calls for appointing a Great Lakes czar within the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate efforts on the federal, state and local levels.
Other proposals include stepped-up efforts to identify and reduce toxic pollution, promote water conservation and crack down on ship ballast discharges responsible for most of the 185 invasive species that threaten the lakes' ecosystem.
The Great Lakes system holds 90 percent of the nation's surface fresh water. Yet it's under assault from sewage overflows in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. One study warned that the lakes were reaching a "tipping point" where they might be unable to heal themselves from pollution.
A recent University of Notre Dame report said invasive species arriving in the ballast tanks of cargo ships cost the regional economy $200 million a year. The most feared potential invader is the Asian carp — a 100-pound eating machine that gorges on plankton, an essential component of the aquatic food web.
Obama has pledged to finish construction of an electronic barrier in Chicago to keep the carp from invading Lake Michigan from the Illinois River. Biologists say if the carp gains a foothold in the lakes, it would be catastrophic for the region's $4 billion fishing industry.
In 2006, Obama inserted $400,000 for the barrier into an emergency bill for the Iraq war and hurricane relief. Additional money was included in a 2007 package for water projects enacted over Bush's veto. Obama supported the override, while McCain sided with the president.
McCain's campaign described the $23 billion measure as a budget buster, loaded with "pork barrel projects that only benefit individual congressmen and their districts." Obama's campaign said McCain's opposition showed he wasn't serious about supporting the lakes.
Obama favors restoring federal authority to protect wetlands and other waterways that was eroded by Supreme Court rulings in two cases from the Great Lakes region during the Bush years, Zichal said. Scientists say loss of wetlands is a serious threat to the lakes, where they filter toxins and provide fish spawning areas.
The McCain campaign did not respond to a question about his position on that issue.
BUSH SIGNS INTO LAW OBAMA-MURKOWSKI-ALLEN BILL TO BAN DANGEROUS MERCURY EXPORTS
Law will protect millions of pregnant women and children by removing a significant amount of mercury from the global market
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Representative Tom Allen (D-ME), and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today announced that President Bush signed into law the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (S.906), a bipartisan bill introduced in March 2007 to ban the export of mercury from the United States. The United States is consistently ranked as one of the world's top exporters of mercury, a substance that, when ingested, can lead to learning disabilities and physical ailments. This law will remove a significant amount of mercury from the global market and lessen the threat this substance poses to the world’s most vulnerable citizens. Obama and Murkowski introduced this bill in the Senate and Representative Allen introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This bill is also cosponsored by Senators Joseph Biden (D-DE), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).
“The President’s approval of this bipartisan bill is an important victory for millions of the world’s most vulnerable citizens who are exposed to the harmful effects of mercury every day,” said Senator Obama. “Exposure to mercury leads to serious developmental problems in children as well as problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure, and fertility in adults. Despite our country’s improved efforts to contain and collect mercury over the years, we remain one of the world’s leading exporters of this dangerous product, so I am proud this bill will finally ban mercury exports. I commend Senator Murkowski, Congressman Allen, and Chairman Boxer for working in a bipartisan way with industry and environmental groups to put the health of pregnant women and children first.”
“I am pleased that President Bush has signed this important legislation which will slow needless mercury emissions, especially in the developing world,” said Senator Murkowski. “Given our expanding knowledge about the health impacts of elemental mercury when it enters the atmosphere, it only makes sense to take reasonable steps now to safeguard the environment from the release of mercury that can affect fish and potentially those who eat fish.”
“This legislation will eliminate a key source of mercury from reaching the global market,” said Representative Allen. “Mercury is a potent neurotoxin hazardous to human health, especially for infants, children, and women who are pregnant or nursing. Maine people should be able to eat the fish they purchase in the supermarkets. We still have much to do to end mercury pollution, and I will continue to fight for passage of my legislation to establish a nationwide mercury pollution monitoring system and the legislation I support requiring utilities to reduce their mercury emissions.”
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said, “The Mercury Export Ban of 2008, just signed into law, will protect millions of pregnant women and children from toxic mercury pollution. I greatly appreciate Senator Obama’s leadership in this successful bipartisan effort.”
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental problems in children, ranging from severe birth defects to mental retardation. As many as 630,000 children born annually in the U.S. are at risk of neurological problems related to mercury. In adults, mercury can negatively affect vision, motor skills, blood pressure and fertility. As many as 10 percent of women in the U.S. of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at a level that could put a baby at risk.
The Mercury Export Ban Act will:
• Prohibit the commercial export of elemental mercury from the United States in 2013.
• Prohibit the commercial sale or transfer of federal mercury stockpiles held by the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense for any purpose except for transfer into permanent storage.
• Provide for permanent storage of collected mercury by the Department of Energy.
This legislation is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Council of the States, American Chemistry Council, the National Mining Association, and the Chlorine Institute.
###
When you look at the presidential candidates, one area where they differ starkly is energy and the environment. These differences sometimes get lost in the rhetoric, but are striking and clearly highlight why it is vital to our future that we elect Obama. Over the coming days we will point out some of those very real differences, For today, please read the editorial from the New York Times copied below:
The cramped rules of the presidential debates and the McCain campaign’s descent into content-free name-calling mean that voters are unlikely to hear the serious debate about energy issues they need and deserve.
Still, we have heard enough to know that there are big differences between John McCain and Barack Obama. We have also heard enough to know that Mr. Obama promises a much more robust and adventurous approach to the two big energy-related problems of the age: oil dependency and climate change.
Mr. Obama also keeps moving up the learning curve on energy issues, whereas Mr. McCain seems to regress. This is important because energy problems are varied and complex, and solving them will require leaders with restless curiosity and an open mind.
Not too long ago, Mr. Obama seemed infatuated with the environmentally risky idea of converting coal to gasoline. He dropped it when scientists pointed out that unless ways could be found to capture the carbon emissions, the conversion process would add to global warming. As recently as two months ago, Mr. Obama was pandering to voters with short-term fixes for gas prices like tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
His present strategy is coherent and farsighted. Mr. Obama says he would limit carbon emissions with a strong cap and trade program, invest heavily in alternative energy sources, raise federal fuel-economy standards and require that 10 percent of America’s energy be generated by renewable sources by 2012. He would help Detroit develop more fuel-efficient cars with loans and tax credits, and — to the annoyance of some environmentalists — he rightly includes nuclear energy as part of the mix.
In last week’s debate, Mr. McCain said airily that he would do “all of the above.” But within minutes he had reaffirmed that the centerpiece of his strategy is to drill for more oil, mainly in previously off-limits areas of the outer continental shelf.
This politically seductive idea is flawed on three counts. It will not provide short-term relief to gas prices. It will make a minimal long-term contribution to America’s energy needs. And it ignores a fundamental truth that Mr. Obama confronted squarely in the debate: a nation using one-fourth of the world’s oil production while owning only 3 percent of the world’s reserves cannot drill its way to energy independence.
Mr. McCain’s other big idea — nuclear power — also promises too much. Both candidates agree that because nuclear power is carbon-neutral it has to be part of any serious effort to reduce global warming. But in the debate Mr. McCain glossed over formidable problems of cost, safety and waste disposal, meanwhile suggesting that the public was clamoring for nuclear power and that dozens of plants could pop up practically overnight.
The old John McCain — the McCain who pressed to sharply increase fuel efficiency, the early and brave advocate of putting a price on carbon emissions — has all but disappeared from view.
The saddest evidence of that was his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Astonishingly, he claims that Ms. Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States,” and if Ms. Palin is to be believed, he has more or less anointed her as his energy czar.
Ms. Palin’s strategy is frighteningly simplistic: drill for more oil. Any doubt on that score was erased in the vice presidential debate, when she delightedly corrected Senator Joseph Biden about the party’s new slogan. He had complained that the Republicans stood for “drill, drill, drill.” No, she said, it’s “drill, baby, drill.”
It is true that nearly every Alaska politician likes to drill for oil; it is the source of much of the state’s income. But no other Alaska politician is this close to the presidency. Meanwhile, Ms. Palin continues to express doubts about the human causes of climate change. Her insistence, in the debate, that she didn’t “want to argue about the causes” was also alarming.
Unless we recognize the human causes of climate change, the essential changes in the way this country and others produce and consume energy are unlikely to happen. The old, pre-Sarah-Palin, John McCain knew that.
If you care about the environment, energy independence or conservation then please spend some time this month helping to get out the vote. People are already voting in 8 states.
Check out this great video called Come to Ohio (it's less than 3 minutes). Thanks Rosie Goldensohn for posting the video and doing such a great job getting volunteers to Ohio!
Share this video--Come to Ohio
Tell your friends!
http://oh.barackobama.com/ohcometoohio
If you live far from Ohio or travel is just not in the cards for you this month, go to the Action Center (see Action tab at the top of this page) and find the way to volunteer that best suits you.
Thank you for what you have done and are going to do! Let's make an Obama presidency a reality.
One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama's candidacy early on is that I knew him to be a leading supporter of Renewable Energy while he was a state legislator here in Illinois. His commitment to the environment is genuine and long standing.
While watching the debate last night, I was so happy to hear Sen. McCain declare that: "No one can be opposed to alternate energy, no one." Naturally, I understand that we cannot prevail on environmental issues unless we bring in new supporters every day. I welcome Sen. McCain's support for renewable energy. But, I am not sure I can believe it. His actions do not reflect that position.
Read the facts below and know that it is time for Change.
*THE FACTS:* *MCCAIN HAS VOTED AT LEAST 23 TIMES AGAINST INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY*
1. *1992: McCain Voted Against Proceeding On A Vote On The 1992 E nergy Bill. *McCain voted against proceeding to the bill to encourage energy conservation and increase domestic energy production. [1992 Senate Vote 150, 7/23/1992] 1. *1999: McCain Voted Against Funding for Renewable Energy Programs. *McCain opposed an amendment that would increase funding for energy supply and research and development activities for renewable energy sources by reducing unnecessary Energy Department contractor travel expenses. McCain voted to kill an appeal made by the chair that this amendment was out of order, effectively voting to kill the amendment. [1999 Senate Vote 171, 6/16/1999]
1. *2001: McCain Voted Against Establishing Renewable Energy Tax Credits. *McCain voted against establishing tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings. [2001 Senate Vote 125, 5/21/2001]
1. *2002: McCain Voted Against Renewable Energy Mandate. *McCain voted against an amendment to require utilities to generate 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. [2002 Senate Vote 55, 3/21/2002]
1. *2002: McCain Voted To Allow Exemptions From Renewable Energy Standards. *McCain voted for an amendment that would exempt retail electric suppliers in states that have state renewable energy standards from the federal renewable standard in the underlying amendment* .* [2002 Senate Vote 58, 3/21/2002]
1. *2002: McCain Voted To Allow Exemptions From Renewable Energy Standards.. *McCain voted to allow the Governor of a State the ability to waive certain provisions of the Federal mandate, if the provisions would adversely affect retail electric customers of the State, with respect to the application of the Federal renewable portfolio standard.* *[2002 Senate Vote 59, 3/21/2002]
1. *2002: McCain Voted Against Proceeding On A Measure To Provide $14.1 Billion In Energy-Related Tax Incentives. *McCain voted against a motion to invoke cloture on measure that would overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for $14.1 billion in energy-related tax incentives.* *[2002 Senate Vote 77, 4/23/2002]
1. *2002: McCain Voted Against Phasing Out MBTE And Voted Against An Ethanol Mandate.* McCain voted against keeping a renewable fuel program, including the phase-out of MTBE in the energy bill. [2002 Senate Vote 78, 4/23/2002] 1. *2002: McCain Voted Against Alternative Fuels Tax Credits.* McCain voted to strike provisions in the 2002 energy bill relating to alternative vehicles and fuel incentives. [2002 Senate Vote 91, 4/25/2002]
1. *2002: McCain Voted Against The 2002 Energy Bill. *McCain voted against the passage of a bill that would overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2002 Senate Vote 94, 4/25/2002]
1. *2003: McCain Voted For Waivers Of Ethanol Mandates For States That Can Meet Clean Air Standards Without Adding Renewable Fuels.* McCain voted to allow states to waive the ethanol mandate in the renewable fuel program if the EPA Administrator determines, after a public notice and comment period, that implementation of renewable fuel requirement is not necessary to meet Clean Air standards, because States or regions can meet standards without adding renewable fuels. [2003 Senate Vote 203, 6/3/2003]
1. *2003: McCain Voted to Allow Governors to Waive Ethanol Mandates.*McCain voted to add language to the 2003 energy bill that would make a state subject to ethanol requirements only if the state's governor elected to participate. [2003 Senate Vote 204, 6/3/2003]
1. *2003: McCain Voted to Allow the President Exempt States Or Regions From Renewable Energy Mandates* McCain voted for an amendment that adds language that would give the president authority to exempt a state or geographic region from the ethanol requirements of the underlying amendment for 30 days if the Energy secretary determines the requirements have caused or will cause the average cost of gasoline to increase by at least 10 cents per gallon. The Fr ist amendment would require gasoline refineries to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other alternative renewable fuels annually by 2012, phase out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and eliminate a requirement that gasoline sold in regions with high levels of air pollution contain 2 percent oxygen by volume. [2003 Senate Vote 206, 6/4/2003]
1. *2003: McCain Voted To Limit The Ethanol Mandate To The Midwest.*McCain voted for a measure that exempts States in East Coast, West Coast, and Rocky Mountain region from ethanol mandate, while leaving mandate in place in Midwest. [2003 Senate Vote 207, 6/5/2003]
1. *2003: McCain Voted Against Requiring Gasoline Refineries To Use 5 Billions Gallons Of Ethanol Or Other Alternative Renewable Fuels Annually By 2012. *McCain voted against an amendment that would require gasoline refineries to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other alternative renewable fuels annually by 2012, phase out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and eliminate a requirement that gasoline sold in regions with high levels of air pollution contain 2 percent oxygen by volume. [2003 Senate Vote 209, 6/5/2003]
1. *2003: McCain Voted Against The 2003 Energy Bill.* McCain voted against passage of a bill to overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax inc entives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would encourage the use of alternative energy and require utilities to increase their reliance on renewable fuels. [2003 Senate Vote 317, 7/31/2003] 1. *2004: McCain Voted Against Phasing Out MBTE And Establishing Renewable Fuel Standards.* McCain voted a measure that would require that gasoline sold in or introduced into the United States contain renewable fuel in specific amounts, beginning with 3.1 billion gallons in 2005 and increasing each year to 5 billion gallons in 2012. [2004 Senate Vote 73, 4/29/2004]
1. *2005: McCain Voted Against Requiring Refiners To Use Renewable Fuels Like Ethanol And Phasing Out The Use OF MTBE.* McCain voted to kill an amendment that would require refiners to annually use 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, grant liability protection for ethanol manufacturers, phase out the use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether and eliminate the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. [2005 Senate Vote 138, 6/15/2005]
1. *2005: McCain Voted Against An Amendment Requiring Refiners To Annually Use 8 Billion Gallons Of Renewable Fuels By 2012, Grant Ethanol Manufacturers Liability Protection, And To Phase Out The Use Of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) As An Additive.*20McCain voted against an amendment that would require refiners to annually use 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, grant liability protection for ethanol manufacturers, phase out the use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether and eliminate the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. [2005 Senate Vote 139, 6/15/2005]
1. *2005: McCain Voted Against Renewable Energy Mandate. *McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate that renewable energy sources must produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020, a minimum of 2.5 percent must be produced beginning 2008 through 2011. [2005 Senate Vote 141, 6/16/2005] 1. *2005: McCain Voted Against Major Energy Legislation Providing $18 Billion In Energy Related Tax Incentives.* McCain voted against final passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policy and provide for approximately $18 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2005 Senate Vote 158, 6/28/2005]
1. *2005: McCain Voted With Senate Republicans To Slash $20 Million from Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for Farmers.* McCain voted for a budget package that almost entirely eliminated the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million. The Energy Efficiency program had doled out more than $66 million in grants for 400 clean energy projects in Rural America since 2003, including ethanol plants. These projects, valued at over one billion dollars, include bio-energy projects, wind power, and energy efficiency improvements. [2005 Senate Vote 363, 12/21/2005; "Senate Passes Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005: Renewable Energy Programs Cut," Environmental and Energy Institute, 12/19/05]
1. *2006: McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Credit; The Measure Also Included $290 Million For Renewable Energy R&D On Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass, Hydropower.* McCain voted against an amendment that provided an additional $500 million for LIHEAP and $3.5 billion for other energy programs. The amendment extends the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years. The amendment provided for the following funding: Biomass cellulosic fuels ($250 million), Cellulosic biomass ethanol conversion assistance ($250 million), Renewable energy R&D Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower ($290 million). [2006 Senate Vote 42, 3/14/2006]
When I read this plan it reminds me of why I am so excited about electing Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I hope it convinces lots of other voters in the Great Lakes states.
Earlier this week the Obama campaign announced the Obama-Biden Great Lakes Restoration Plan. The plan calls for new federal funding of $5 billion to jumpstart Great Lakes Restoration, designates a Great Lakes Coordinator to coordinate Federal, State, and Local agencies and requires full implementation of the Great Lakes Compact. You can read the full fact sheet here: LINK <http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Press/Fact%20Sheet%20Great%20Lakes%20091508%20FINAL.pdf>Please download the fact sheet and send it to your friends in Great Lakes States.
Below are just some of the clips reviewing Obama's plan:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Dan Egan) "Obama plan calls for $5 billion to protect, restore Great Lakes": Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is promising to push for $5 billion in new funds to protect and restore the Great Lakes if he gets elected in November. LINK <http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=794908>Associated Press (John Flesher) "Obama proposes $5B trust fund for Great Lakes": Sen. Barack Obama will propose a $5 billion trust fund for Great Lakes cleanup and restoration if elected president, his campaign said Tuesday." LINK <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-obama-greatlakes,0,3533364.story>Cleveland Plain-Dealer (Stephen Koff) "Obama announces Great Lakes plan": Barack Obama's campaign today is announcing a plan -- with five points and $5 billion to be spent over ten years -- to clean up the Great Lakes. LINK <http://www.cleveland.com/realtimenews/index.ssf/2008/09/obama_announces_great_lakes_pl.html>Minnesota Public Radio (Tom Scheck) "Obama proses $5B trust fund for Great Lakes": Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says the presidential candidate would propose a $5 billion trust fund to clean up and restore the Great Lakes if he's elected. LINK <http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/16/obamagreatlakes/>Detroit Free Press (Barb Arrigo) "The lakes get some campaign love": The Obama-Biden campaign has put together quite a sensible plan for addressing Great Lakes concerns. Sure, it may be pandering to states in the region that are largely "in play" for the Nov. 4 election. Certainly other candidates (e.g., George W. Bush in 2004) have done the same thing, and then walked away. LINK <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080916/BLOG2501/80916065>News10 Now (Web Staff) "Obama's Great Lakes cleanup fund": Presidential hopeful Barack Obama was campaigning in Michigan on Tuesday and mentioned a proposal that would impact Upstate New York. LINK <http://news10now.com/content/all_news/watertownnorth_country/124184/obama-s-great-lakes-cleanup-fund/Default.aspx>Columbus Dispatch (Jim Siegel) "Obama proposes Great Lakes Protections": Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday said he will push for $5 billion in new federal funding to jumpstart restoration work in the Great Lakes, including sewage repairs, toxic cleanups, and wetlands restoration. LINK <http://blog.dispatch.com/politics/2008/09/obama_proposes_great_lakes_pro.shtml>New Richmond News (Wheeler News Service) "Obama says he'll want $5 billion to clean up Great Lakes": Democrat Barack Obama says he'll want $5 billion to clean up the Great Lakes if he's elected president. LINK <http://www.newrichmond-news.com/articles/index.cfm?id=30881§ion=Wisconsin%20News&property_id=9> Detroit Free Press (Tina Lam) "Obama proposes $5-billion fund for Great Lakes": Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama proposed today a five-point plan to fund and coordinate the restoration of the Great Lakes. LINK <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080916/NEWS15/80916045>Minnesota Independent: "Obama announces plan to jump-start Great Lakes restoration": With six of the eight Great Lakes states being hotly contested battlegrounds <http://www.politico.com/convention/swingstate.html> , this election year the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes is being elevated to a major campaign issue.Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama today proposed a major plan to jump-start the process. LINK <http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/9018/obama-announces-plan-to-jump-start-great-lakes-restoration>
Luke writes:
I’m voting for Barack Obama. His vision is evident in his energy policy: I cannot wait for the day when our nation’s energy will come from clean, renewable sources and the kind of revitalization that will provide for our economy, as opposed to having to endure four more years of drilling policies that create more problems than they solve. As an avid sportsmen and backpacker, I’m also concerned for our public lands and wildlife. His commitment to these public resources is unquestioned and is one that recognizes the balancing act between conservation, recreation, and economic development, a balance that has been lacking over the last eight years and one that we can’t afford to lose for four more years.-
--WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO VOLUNTEER AT YOUR LOCAL CAMPAIGN OFFICE. FIND IT ON THIS WEBSITE UNDER STATES. OR GO TO THE ACTION CENTER AND GET STARTED MAKING CALLS FROM HOME!
Personally, I am just so thrilled that we have a candidate that believes Global Warming is real, is caused by human activity, is already impacting our climate and that our nation needs to make clean energy a top priority along with energy independence.
For some comments from other environmental leaders read the article linked below (guess who they think is a better choice for Green voters?)
Obama/McCain/Environment: Reuters (Deborah Zabarenko) “Best bet to turn the White House green?”: Who's best equipped to turn the White House green -- John McCain or Barack Obama? Both have made energy security and environmental stewardship part of their presidential campaigns. Both favor curbing the greenhouse gas emissions that spur climate change. Both say they want to stop U.S. "addiction" to imported oil. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, has the support of most U.S. environmental groups. McCain's stance on global warming led Republicans to hope they could sway environmentally inclined independent voters. LINK
Senator Obama visited York County, PA and spoke to workers at a hydroelectric plant. He let them know that renewable energy is not just wind and solar. Read the article linked below (with photos).
Obama/PA event: York Daily Record (Staff) “Obama tours plant, hosts meeting”: Barack Obama, surrounded by a group of about 50 people in the Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation parking lot, asked if anybody had any questions. Bob Silknitter of Red Lion, a longtime Voith employee, raised his hand. He didn't have a question so much as a complaint. Silknitter pointed out that Obama frequently talks about his plans to promote clean, renewable energy. Every time he does, he mentions solar power and wind power. But, Silknitter said, Obama never mentions hydroelectric power of the kind that Voith helps produce. And that drives Silknitter crazy. LINK
I support Barack Obama because so much is at stake in this election. Some years elections seem to matter less than others. Some elections provide outcomes that seem to make little difference. Other years, during times of trial such as these, the results of elections shape the future of our nation. The Presidential election of 2008 is an election of great consequence. Our nation's very identity and nature will be dramatically better and truer to the nation's founding principles under Barack Obama's leadership than under John McCain's autocracy. Under President Barack Obama we will have a leader for clean energy change leading to a safer world. John McCain has sat out decisive votes for wind power while Barack Obama has worked for many years for a new, modern energy future. McCain promises more drilling, less energy efficiency, and, overall, more addiction to fossil fuels. The John McCain road is more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policies. Now is the time for us to be active of a democracy, to join with other members of our community to steer this country to a future safer and more suitable for our children. Let's all turn out the vote on November 4, 2008!
Brett H. From Madison, Wisconsin writes:
I support Barack Obama for president because he is the only candidate with an inspiring and effective national energy policy that will save us money at the pump, bring us more efficient vehicles and appliances, more clean renewable energy, and clean up old coal plants. He is a the real champion to reduce global warming and will work with local governments on practical solutions, not just supporting drilling more sensitive coast lines and wildlife refuges. I also appreciate his judgment to chose a running mate show shares his values and mine.
Amie N. From Broken Arrow, OK writes:
I support Barack Obama because I am ready for a president who can relate to the majority of people who are struggling to get by, who sets a positive example for young people, who inspires others to take an active role in their community and country, and who will use good judgment as our leader. I am ready for Barack Obama!
Having turned to the Environmentalists for Obama page on this website, it should not surprise you to read that I suppport Obama/Biden because the issues most important to me are energy independence, climate change, green jobs and the economy and creating a healthier environment.
I have three children. They ask me how my generation can continue to burn fossil fuels and disregard the lasting impact that will have on our climate. They ask if we will ever develop renewable energy resources as a nation or if we will put the money into solar and wind power that will make them viable technologies on a large scale. They ask if we will protect our wet lands as they have seen horrendous flooding in Spring Green, Wisconsin and if we will protect our Great Lakes as we live near Lake Michigan and depend on its fresh water.
My kids are sophisticated about these issues as their parents are obsessed with moving these agendas forward. But I owe it to them and to you and your children to do all I can to help elect Barack Obama because he and Joe Biden have a clear understanding that these issues are vital to our future in America and understand how to bring people together to solve these issues. I encourage you to go to the issues page and read the New Energy Plan for more details.
I was going to research and post a blog entry on our new VP candidate and then I found that Kathleen M. from Alaska already did the work. I am pretty excited about this ticket-- just comparing the League of Conservation Voter scores is enough to convince some voters. Kathleen wrote:
Just look at some of the facts about Biden's environmental record that earned him a lifetime score of 84 from the League of Conservation Voters (Obama's score was 96; McCain's, a pitiful 26):
* Supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
* Supports 40 miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards by 2017
* Wants the US to use 20% renewable energy by 2020
* Opposes offshore drilling or drilling for oil in the Arctic (ANWR)
* Take Big Oil's $2 billion dollar tax breaks to pay for offshore wind farms
* Ensured protection of 100% of the coastline in his home state
* Wrote a plan to exchange debt-relief for rainforest protection
* Believes polluters should pay Superfund fees to clean up their toxic waste
* Wants the US to take a stronger stance to end commercial whaling
Best of all, he's got the voting record to back all of this up. Being from Alaska, I like it that Delaware is a coastal state and Biden can lend his voice to healthy fisheries and sustainable economies.--
Did you know that you can read past speeches delivered by Senator Obama on the website? Just go to the Learn tab at the top of the page and select "speeches." or use this address: http://www.barackobama.com/speeches/index.php
I am issuing a challenge:
Look at the past speeches on Energy and Environment--and any other credible source of Obama quotes--and send us your favorite quote related to energy, environment, sportsmen, conservation, land use etc. We want it short--no more than three sentences. Then, we will choose from the best to post on the top of our somewhat dated web page introduction and find other creative ways to use them (which you can also suggest).
I can't wait to see what you find.
Below is a Statement from Senator Barack Obama on Record Exxon Mobil Profits While Americans Pay Skyrocketing Gas Prices at the Pump
"Perhaps the only thing more outrageous than Exxon Mobil making record profits while Americans are paying record prices at the pump is the fact that Senator McCain has proposed giving them an additional $1.2 billion tax break. While Senator McCain's plan has succeeded in helping his campaign raise over $1 million from oil and gas company executives and employees just last month, it won't lower gas prices or end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Instead of an energy policy that reads like an oil-company wish list, it's time to create a new American energy economy by investing in alternative energy, creating millions of new jobs, increasing fuel efficiency standards, and ending the tyranny of oil once and for all," said Senator Barack Obama.
I am so pleased that yesterday Senator Obama released the following statement regarding protection of the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Compact. I live just a few blocks from Lake Michigan and really treasure that water. With all of the Great Lakes state governors supporting the Great Lakes Compact, we seem to be getting really close to positive action in Washington to make this protection a reality.
Senator Obama's statement is as follows:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Michael Ortiz, 202 228 5566
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on the Great Lakes Compact
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement after the state of Michigan became the latest Great Lakes state to sign the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact is an agreement between the eight lake-bordering states to protect the Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. The Compact must now be approved by Congress.
“The Great Lakes are an international treasure and supply drinking water to almost 30 million people in our country. The Great Lakes Compact is an historic agreement to protect our Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. It is, perhaps, the most significant legal action to protect the Lakes in the last 100 years since the Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. This Compact on managing Great Lakes water is essential for the environmental and economic health of the region.
“All eight Great Lakes states have approved the Compact and now it’s time for the Congress and the President to take action. The Compact should be quickly ratified. I will be an original co-sponsor of this legislation with Senator Carl Levin and Senator George Voinovich and will work across the aisle to pass this important bill. I am committed to working to fully implement this Compact to protect America’s truly Great Lakes.”
Obama touts 'green' energy on visit to Springs Preserve The Las Vegas Review-Journal | June 25, 2008 By Molly Ball Under the bleach-bright Las Vegas summer sun, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday checked out the solar panels that shade cars in the parking lot of the Springs Preserve while powering the facility. "What we are seeing here ... is that the green, renewable energy economy is not some far-off, pie-in-the-sky future," Obama said in a speech at the local nature attraction. "It is now. It's creating jobs now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil now. And it can create millions of additional jobs, entire industries, if we act now." In his first visit to Nevada since becoming the Democrats' presumptive nominee, Obama visited Las Vegas to put forward his energy plan Tuesday morning. The energy issue has become the focal point of the candidates' recent sparring as it hits Americans in the pocketbook in the form of skyrocketing gasoline prices. Obama proposed long-term investments in renewable energy as the solution and said "green" jobs like those at the Springs Preserve could provide work to locals suffering from the construction slowdown.
Obama/Govs Meeting: AP (Nedra Pickler) “Obama criticizes McCain on offshore drilling”: Barack Obama said Friday that presidential rival John McCain's proposal to allow offshore drilling "makes absolutely no sense at all" as he headed to Florida to put the Republican on the spot over the issue. Obama said opening up the U.S. coastline to oil exploration would not give Americans any appreciable savings until 2030. "Even then you're looking at cents on a gallon of gas," Obama told Democratic governors at a meeting in his hometown. "Who knows 22 years from now, what would gas be at the pace that we're going right now?" Instead, Obama said he would invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to create green jobs, particularly in the automotive industry and to improve the electricity grid so people can drive plug-in hybrid vehicles. LINK
