It's times like this I wish everybody had access to the excellent reporting being done by Science, Nature and other scientific journals. While it's often the case that these journals will place more of an emphasis on the nitty gritty of science and research funding -- not exactly thrilling topics for most readers, even avid news consumers -- they consistently provide the most balanced, detailed coverage of the candidates' positions on climate change, energy and other important science issues (though independent outlets like Science Debate 2008 have done a spectacular job filling the void this election cycle).
Since the mainstream media has done a poor job of elucidating answers from the candidates on these vital issues, I've often had to turn to blogs, the candidates' websites and, now, scientific journals to get all my facts straight. The latest issue of Nature Reports Climate Change, an offshoot of Nature that focuses exclusively on climate science, does not disappoint: featuring a bevy of articles on the election that review the parties' and candidates' positions on climate change and the Congressional challenges facing the next head of state.
Of most interest to me was the climate change Q&A between Nature and the candidates, which yielded a few more interesting tidbits about how each would handle the climate issue on the international stage. (Tellingly, while Barack Obama's campaign responded directly to Nature's questions, John McCain's campaign did not. His "answers" were retrieved from the Republican platform.)
While McCain would delay action on an international treaty until both China and India became fully engaged, Obama believes that the U.S. should take the lead in forging ahead with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol -- whether China or India choose to act (though he thinks both should be close behind in establishing their own caps). First on a President Obama's priority list would be getting cap-and-trade legislation passed in the Congress, which he argues would bolster the United States' position in the international community. Though McCain acknowledges that the U.S. "has an obligation to act" even if China and India continue to drag their feet, he would even put a domestic climate bill on the backburner until both countries are engaged.
On the issue of offshore drilling, Obama would balance the need for limited coastal drilling with climate change concerns by providing more support for clean energy R&D and by instituting a nationwide low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) program, similar to the one already adopted by California, that would require gas companies to lower the carbon footprint of their fuels by 10 percent by 2020. The Obama campaign's answer stresses the candidate's "reservations" about the benefits of offshore drilling, saying that he would "seriously consider" a package that also included clean energy funding (but not necessarily approve it).
McCain, on the other hand, would support "aggressive offshore drilling" (cue the "Drill, baby, drill!" chants) and might even consider opening ANWR up to drilling -- if Sarah Palin has her way. Notably, the Republican party's plank makes little mention of clean energy.
Both candidates seemed to skirt the question of whether they would impose a ban on all new coal-fired plants that did not implement carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Obama's campaign mentioned the role his cap-and-trade program would play in reducing emissions, reflecting his preference for "market-based" solutions (as opposed to "command and control standards"), and said that the candidate would direct his future energy secretary to build 5 commercial-scale CCS coal plants in partnership with the private sector.
A President McCain would spend $2 billion annually to promote clean-coal technologies and would initially give away a "substantial" amount of emission permits under his cap-and-trade plan (a terrible idea), using what few auction proceeds it would raise to fund research into nuclear power (of course) and battery development.
While this climate Q&A session is unlikely to shift undecided voters one way or the other (primarily because most won't even have the chance to read it), it does reinforce some of the stark differences between the candidates' positions on climate change -- and only accentuates McCain's sharp veer to the right (and, many would say, abandonment of environmental principles).
The scientists and policy experts Nature consulted for another article in which it looked at the challenges facing the candidates' policies in Congress seem to think McCain might have a slight edge in getting legislation enacted during his first term in office. One of the main sticking points will likely be their differing approaches to cap-and-trade: 100 percent auction-based vs. partial auction-based. It's clear the latter approach will appeal more to businesses and conservatives wary of stringent regulations, though the revenue incentives offered by Obama's full auction plan could sway some votes. (That's why a big Democratic gain in the Congress this year could help change the equation.)
Even if Congress stonewalls the proposed legislation, the president could direct the EPA to regulate emissions (something the Bush administration has conspicuously refused to do) under the Clean Air Act as a start. One of the biggest challenges to any incoming administration will be convincing the voters that there is, in fact, a climate crisis and that most of the proposed solutions, such as a cap-and-trade scheme, would only cost a few more cents per gallon per year (despite what right-wing blowhards may say). That will be easier said than done, as this election cycle has already made abundantly clear.