What People Are Saying About Chris Dodd’s Energy Plan:
Energy Independence
"A serious policy to address a serious problem...Americans are better off because of Chris' leadership" – John Kerry
"Chris Dodd gets it." – Bill Bradley
"Very creative" – Al Gore
"Aggressive...ambitious...one of the most comprehensive policies released by any of the 2008 candidates" – League of Conservation Voters
"Sets Dodd apart from the field" – Ron Brownstein, LA Times
"Courageous... the gold standard against which all plans will be measured" – Roger Ballentine, former Chair of the Clinton White House Climate Change Task Force
The reviews are in – from environmentalists to the leading voices on the issue of global warming: Chris Dodd’s bold energy plan is setting the standard in the presidential race. With a Corporate Carbon Tax that makes polluters pay to his call for historic fuel efficiency standards that break America’s dependence on Middle East oil by 2015, Chris Dodd is the only candidate in the field with a plan to make America the world leader on climate change and bring energy costs down for families and businesses.
The Dodd Energy Plan
The Goals:
- Reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Dodd Plan will begin to turn back the clock on global climate change, safeguard our environment, and protect American health.
- Enhance national security by eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil by 2015. We must end the cycle of fighting terrorists on one hand while financing their supporters on the other.
- Strengthen our economy and create jobs. From our university labs to our farms, from manufacturing to our technology entrepreneurs, the Dodd Plan will create jobs across the economic spectrum.
- Reduce 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. By mandating the framework of the Sanders "Cap-and-trade" legislation and the toughest, most transparent rules possible, we can make serious reductions to carbon emissions every decade. By 2020, the U.S. must reduce its emissions by 15% of 80 percent below 1990 levels; by 2040, emissions must be reduced by 2/3 of 80 percent; and by 2050, emissions must be reduced to a level that is 80 percent.
- A portion of the allocated credits will be auctioned off and revenues directed to the Corporate Carbon Tax Trust Fund.
- Enact a Corporate Carbon Tax. A Corporate Carbon Tax will discourage big corporate polluters and stimulate innovation. The revenues of a corporate carbon tax—estimated at over $50 billion annually—will be placed into a Corporate Carbon Tax Trust Fund (CCTTF) to fund:
- Fast tracked research, development and deployment of renewable technologies such as wind, solar, as well as ethanol and other biofuels;
- Efforts to expedite the process for bringing energy efficient technologies to market;
- Increase efficiency standards for consumer products. The Dodd Plan would adopt stronger standards for appliances, light bulbs and other electricity powered consumer products to reduce energy costs for consumers.
- Reduce costs of energy efficient consumer products such as lighting, automobiles and appliances, making them price competitive.
- Freeze electricity usage from 2010 onward through efficiency.
- Raise fuel economy standards in automobiles to 50 mpg. Under a Dodd Administration, America will lead the world in fuel economy standards ensuring all cars get 50 miles per gallon by model year 2017, lowering our emissions.
- Impose tough standards for construction of new coal plants. The Dodd Plan requires all new plants capture and sequester CO2. No exceptions.
- The Dodd Administration would not invest in "coal to liquid" technologies and programs -- turning coal into liquid fuel does not support the overall goal of turning the clock back on global climate change and is not consistent with reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
- Increase renewable electricity standard to 20% by 2020. The best proven method to reduce costs of renewable sources of energy is to set tough but achievable renewable electricity standards.
- Make Historic Investments in Biofuels and other Clean Energy Technologies Produced Out On Our Farms. In a Dodd Administration, we will substantially increase investments in biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel produced on our farms, perpetuating not tyranny and hate, but the values of America’s Heartland. The Dodd Energy Plan would set the goal of renewable fuel usage in cars and homes at 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2008 and steadily increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. By 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuels would be advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol and others.
- All biofuels must be produced in a sustainable way consistent with driving down carbon emissions, from production to use.
- Make the Production Tax Credit permanent for clean and renewable sources of energy. The permanent production tax credit is a powerful economic incentive for energy producers to increase their use of clean and renewable technologies. By making the Production Tax Credit permanent, energy companies will continue to develop alternative energy sources like wind and solar power with the knowledge that they will continue to receive an economic incentive for their innovation.
- Make high-efficiency automobiles affordable for every American family. Americans will purchase more efficient cars and trucks like hybrid if they are competitively priced. By providing an array of incentives and tax rebates, we can speed the transition from traditional cars to much more efficient hybrid vehicles.
- Require that all new government vehicles use hybrid, plug-in, or other fuel efficient and alternative technology.
- Require that all new and existing federal buildings be equipped with the latest energy efficiency technologies. With the Federal government one of the world’s largest purchasers of vehicles and America’s single largest energy consumer, we have a remarkable opportunity to lead by example and create markets for emerging technologies. In a Dodd Administration, every federal building will be built or retrofitted with the greenest technologies, from light-bulbs to power generation, and every vehicle will run on E85, biodiesel or other sources of clean energy.
- Create a technical education curriculum that trains a new generation of automobile mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and construction workers to install, repair and maintain energy efficient goods across the spectrum, from cars to lamps. Training programs will:
- Assure consumers that they can use their energy efficient products without having to worry about what happens when they break.
- Create a new sector of jobs to meet the newly created demand for workers with specialized skills.
- Increase access to affordable and convenient mass transit systems across all regions of the country. Mass transit saves families money in fuel costs and lowers pollution by reducing the number of cars on the road during rush hours.
- Export safe renewable energy technologies to, friends, allies and developing nations. We all know renewable and clean energy technology will allow America to achieve energy independence. A Dodd Administration would understand the power of that technology to transform not only American society, but others. By sharing that technology with other nations, we can allow them to end their alliances of necessity with dictators from oil-producing nations like Venezuela and Iran and once again begin to take up America’s role as a responsible world leader.
Comments
I'll admit to being somewhat unaware of the senators background.
However, after listening to him today, I decided to look up more information on his website.
What I found appears to be a truly committed man of the people.
There's only one question that needs to be answered:
In a field of so many who are better known to the public,
how will the senator get the attention he needs to be heard by a deserving America?
I hope he figures this dilemma out soon!
I t would be a shame for the country to NOT be led by a man of his caliber!!
I'm in your corner Chris Dodd!
Sincerely, Duane of Hesperia, CA.
get a white t shirt a magic marker and write Dodd for President 2008 and wear it everywhere.
Take a large piece of cardboard. Roll it with white paint. Then take a paintbrush and with black paint write "Dodd for President 2008" and go stand against lots of traffic on a public sidewalk as often as you can.
Have friends and family do the same.
Could someone please explain to me the exact reasons why we cant just make a complete convergence to Alternative Energy by using Solar Panels to power our homes and using that same electricity to power Electric Cars? Couldnt this realistically End Oil in as little as 5 years?
How?
By First opening up thousands of Solar Panel and Wind Panel Manufacturing Plants all over the country which would also create thousands of Jobs all around the country. To power our homes with Solar Panels would be the quickest way to cut co2 emmisions drastically.
The only reason your home is not powered by solar power now is because the cost of the panels is too high for not only you to afford, but because its so hard for salesmen to sell them, due to the same reason.
They are a guaranteed sell anywhere in the world yet theres no market for Solar panels at all. Investing heavily in this technology would allow us the possibility to store enough energy to also power our automobiles.
We must create a market.
The next step and perhaps all the while, we must work aggresively with the Auto Industry to finally and immediatly begin designing electric cars and other forms of alternative energy vehicles.
The next president of the United States must take the next step in human history and for once allow us to live in harmony with this planet by removing our need for Oil and Coal. The Technology already exists to do this. This would not destroy any industry except the oil and coal industry. The Medicine Industry, the Military Industry, the Auto Industry and the Trade Industry would not be financially at risk in any way.
This would allow us the motivation for a new Foreign Policy. Becoming Non Interventionist would be irrelevent in an Oil and Coal free world. This technology would end the need for "Geo Politics".(the section of any countrys foreign policy that would allow them to use their countrys money and military to secure the resources of a foreign land is called 'Geo Politics') .
To live in Harmony with the land beneath us would remove the need of any other land for energy resources. The profitability of Oil is what creates "Geo Politics". Our need for the automobile makes Oil the number one political profit market in all the world. To remove this market would end hostilities all around the world. Mainly the Middle East.
We must offer stability through trade to counter balance the loss of a major economic industry in the oil regions. We must offer every nation in the Middle East and Africa, Alternative Energy Technology for trade.
Yet we must be willing to offer full supprt in return for agreement to never invest in Nuclear Technology. For any reason. The simple reason is that other technology exists and the waste would be with this planet for hundreds if not thousands of years. There are many Alternatives to Nuclear power.
Okay so again, can someone PLEEEEASE explain to me why the above mentioned plan could not succeed or be accomplished in 5 years?? We would have to expose the Evil of many High Status people but we would not have need to prosicute so long as they dont conspire against us as well.
Thank You
Truth Propaganda
The Real Revolution 2012
In response to "Truth Propaganda's" request:
Solar energy is renewable but not reliable. Not all areas in the United States get enough sun to consistently meet the electricity demanded by the given region and there is no practical way to distribute electricity across the country from the places that do. Also, it requires a huge number solar panels to equal the output of existing energy infrastructures (the same is true of windmills). A full transition to solar energy would be unimaginably expensive and has any number of technical problems that make it impractical on a large scale given the existing technology.
The article http://home.howstuffworks.com/question418.htm estimates that an average house would require about 285 square feet of solar panels to power it, not counting heating (which is about 50% of energy used in a home according to http://www.nppd.com/My_Home/Product_Brochures/Additional_Files/electric_usage.asp) and probably costing more than the house itself.
That said, the US and the world do need good alternative energy sources and Senator Dodd seems to have some good ideas about developing them.
In many states there is a legal limit to the number of homes AND businesses combined that can sell back electricity to the utility company. In my state the percent allowed is in the neighborhood of 17%. Once that limit is reached, no more entities can sell their electricity back. Without a financial incentive, most citizens would rather not invest in the expense of equipping a home with a co-generation capability. As you can see, the cap was written with various non-citizen interests in mind - I don't consider corporations citizens.
I just heard the "hype" about Senator Dodd as well, and so decided to check out this website. It's a lot more than hype - it's cold hard facts.
This energy and environment section is my favorite part of the Chris Dodd for President website. Why? Because he offers a clear, consistent and VERY specific plan for accomplishing the goals he sets out for the American people. There is not enough of this honest, straight forward campaigning going on.
Thank you Mr. Dodd for stepping up to the plate.
I hope all you Chris Dodd supporters will come and share your thoughts and ideas about making America a better place by visiting our political forum and speaking your mind!
Good luck in your campaign, Senator Dodd, and thank you for all your efforts as a Senator of the United States!
Best Regards,
Rob Jackson
Baltimore, MD
I just took a blind test of 11 major issues, where it asked for my multiple choice best solutions. Upon completion I was shocked to find out that Chris Dodd best met my choice for president out of all candidates Republican or Democrat. Of course I had heard of him but to me he was just another face in the crowd. I'm really ashamed. All I can say now is good luck Chris Dodd!
Jim
Van Nuys, Ca
We need a 55 mph speed limit now. Chevron says it will save 22 BILLION gallons of gas and it will deprive the petrodictators of many dollars with which they are funding hate groups and terror. We will also save lives and reduce injuries on our highways and thus lower car and health insurance. All of this lowers prices , reduces trade defict, lessens inflationary pressures , keeps interest rates down and sets the stage for a real energy program . Can we sacrifce speed for the welfare of the nation and globe for burning less means less carbon in the air. Are you for it ?
I'm all for Chris Dodd's energy plan, but reducing the speed limit to 55 m.p.h. is simply a regressive philosophy. It is true that the critical Reynold's Number- the transition from laminar to turbulent flow in aerodynamics- occurs around 60 m.p.h. for most automobiles. Thus, the drag coefficient and corresponding drag force opposing the vehicle are increased. However, the impact is not as great as Chevron would like you to believe. Why don't we just get rid of NASCAR or impose stricter regulations on them (they're all driving well over 55 m.p.h.)? We could also encourage automobile manufacturers to produce more aerodynamic vehicles by giving them tax incentives. Another idea is to impose a stiff luxury tax on vehicles such as Hummers, Range Rovers, Surburbans, and other vehicles having reprehensible fuel economy records. That will do much more to save the environment than imposing an inane speed limit reduction.
I believe that reducing speed limits will save many lives every year. The problem is that people are creatures of habit and will have a lot of trouble reducing their speed. Logically, it does make sense though, because the benefits of that extra speed are minimal, except maybe for long distance driving such as cross country truck drivers, but even for work commuters the reduction in speed is not going to make that much of an impact, and may even reduce the delays drivers may have sitting in traffic due to major car accidents, which happen very frequently all across the country. How much are American lives worth? They are worth a lot, and definately worth slowing speed limits down. On a side note, it is important to state that many deaths are not due only to speed, but also due to many drivers improper use of distance between vehicles (or following distance). Increasing following distance is the number one way to reduce the chance of having a serious accident. Being alert and passive are also vital elements. I am all for the reduction of speed...to save lives and to save energy...it makes perfect sense.
Try telling people to slow down. I'm sure it will work very well. I would love to hear a way of enforcing such a law without having every policeman available sitting on the roads with a radar gun. Or perhaps you could say let's see congress pass a bill that stops cars from going over 55 mph? Right. Never gonna happen. And if you're know what your doing with a car or know a mechanic, guess what that car is zooming again.
It's a common misconception that increased speeds increase fatalities.
There were no scientific proofs which indicate that.
Crashing into a concrete wall at 55MPH would have about the same effect as crashing at 85MPH - lethal.
Most of the fatal collisions are caused by such things as running through red light, running through stop signs, not yielding.
On a highway, if you drive at 55MPH or 85MPH - does not make a difference.
It will only make sense to have low speed limits outside of the highways.
I have been a registered Republican for over 50 years. I like what I see and hear so far about Chris Dodd. Would like to hear about your approach to health care challenge and immigration problems. I'm ready to support you however I can here in southeast Kansas.
Dodd is doing exactly what more presidential candidates need to do--taking the issue of global warming seriously and coming up with a feasible plan to solve it. Instead of just blowing hot air, this guy knows what he's talking about. I like some of the other candidates, but if Dodd keeps this stuff up, he might just be my choice.
This sounds like a good plan, but is worded to hide potential costs that we the people will have to pay to support this idea. Also, it mentions creating new jobs to support new and efficient types of energy production, but how many jobs will be lost and how will Dodd control a potentially high unemployment rate, especially in a post war environment.
The reason more Americans do not support HSR as a potential solution to global climate change is because they are not aware how far behind we are compared to the rest of the world. Amtrak does not work, it has not worked to accomplish its goal to revitalize intercity passenger rail in this country for over 30 years. It is time for the federal government to stop being so afraid and engineer some real progress. California is desperately trying to make progress on a long-overdue HSR link between San Francisco and Los Angeles, but has met opposition from the Governor. It would be a safer, cleaner, more convenient alternative to building more airport runways and further widening the freeways; a REAL solution to our transportation gridlock. Everyone seems afraid to touch this issue because of the big influence of Amtrak lobbies on our government. Their stance does NOT benefit the common good of America. PLEASE START TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE! It is tested and proven solution. Just look at Europe and East Asia.
Excellant point on high speed rail both for passengers and cargo. it would save huge amounts in fuel costs and pollution, not to mention the traffic problem. Also if major metropolitan areas had rail and subways systems out to sprawling suburbia and some sort of electric cars or buses for in city transit it would go a long way.
Yes! I'm an American currently living and working in Europe- the HSR is amazing- not to mention the general public transport systems. I can get anywhere I need to go by train- and quickly. Its a fabulous system that Americans would use if it were fast and cost effective, which it certainly is here.
I find it interesting that the airline companies haven't built up our HSR infrastructure. It seems to me that having the airlines fly to hubs that connect to HSRs linking the hubs to outlying cities and towns would be the way to go.
A year a go I visited Scandanavia and travelled hundreds of miles over two weeks using a rail pass. These countries are much less densely populated than the rest of Europe, but they still have decent rail systems. The lower population density makes them comparable to the upper Midwest, states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota. The trains there are not super fast like the French TGV, but even country trains there run 90 to 110 miles per hour except in the most remote northern areas.
One solution to the passenger train problem that might be of interest here is that in Sweden private companies bid to run passenger services. This works because high quality track is provided by a state owned rail company, SJ. A great lack in this country is of decent track on which to run High Speed or any other kind of trains. A program to provide better track for both freight and passenger services would be of enormous value to this country both for economic efficiency and for the environment.
Whether a new and improved Amtrak, some entity owned and operated by a state government, or some private operater runs the trains is not nearly as important as having good track on which to run them.
I hope the Chris Dodd will pay some serious attention to this issue.
Best regards, RvW
This is a really great plan. Whoever the Democratic candidate winds up being, he/she should strongly consider adopting these points. One thing that is missing is putting an end to the exemption of "light trucks and SUVs" from the gas-guzzler tax. When the taxes were enacted in the 1970s or 80s, the farm lobby (rightfully) argued that such taxes would hurt small farmers who would have to pay more for their farm vehicles if the tax applied to their trucks. Nowadays, I doubt if most SUV owners have ever even picked an ear of corn in their lives. Also, farm subsidies have made the small farmer virtually extinct; most small farmers left have other careers which would make the additional price affordable. I'll get off my agrarian soapbox now.
I second your comment. The exemptions for light trucks and SUVs are much more onerous than just that of the gas guzzler exemption. SUVs over 6k GVW - Hummers, Excursions, Sierras all those cars you can barely see around also don't have to meet the same EPA tailpipe standards.
Its great to see that you already have goals and timetables laid out on this issue! I love that you would lead by example and make government buildings and transportation more efficient. Hopefully just reading you plan will inspire Americans to make the change.
I suggest people interested in policy take a look at Lester Brown's book, Plan B 2.0. It has a comprehensive plan with lots of supporting detail that supports it. It has many good additions to the points of Dodd's plan. Dodd's plan is good, but Plan B takes it farther.
Floored, really, by this amazingly bold and courageous plan. Considered myself a natural Obama supporter, but Obama will have to match this to get my Iowa caucus vote. No joke.
Senator, great plan, but you need to add to your plan a 55 mph national speed limit which Chevron says will save us 22 BILLION gallons of gas which would deprive the petrodictators of billions of dollars to fund hate and terror , reduce deaths and injuries on our highways and thus medical and insurance costs , reduce pollution and global warming by burning less gas , reduce our trade deficit and lower pressure on inflation and interest rates. Can the American people be called upon to be patriotic and reduce speed. This way we really honor those who have died in this great tragedy called Iraq and begin our renewal by shaking this addiction to oil.
It's not scientifically proven that high speeds increase fatalities.
Fatalities are mostly caused by failures to follow the signs - like stop signs, lights, yield signs.
If you drive on a straight line, it does not matter how fast you are going - 55MPH or 85MPH.
This is a nutty plan.
Yes, Sen. Dodd, I much prefer you over the other candidates, but, please, lets have a sane plan.
More taxes we do not need.
How about a NO TAX deal.
The first company / individual who can viable build a car that uses no fuels and can produce it's own electricity gets FREE TAXES for ever on the product?
Now THAT would reduce emissions and create jobs.
Oh, and REQUIRE as a condition for the tax break ALL parts be made in the U. S., creating many new jobs and KEEPING them here!
Dave L.
A comprehensive and intelligent plan -- I'm on board.
Our "oil addiction" is a consequence of congressional-corporate corruption decades in the making--and the cause of the"long war" in the middle-east. I will take no blame for policies that were never revealed to voters.
dci
The most important issue in our country today is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, The betrayal to Americans citizens by the politicians in Washington that support the Kennedy-McCain and Bush compromise, need to be stop.
Ask all the candidates to go against this Bill.
Illegal immigration won't matter much if we don't take care of the global warming issue, and our planet. I agree that it is important, but don't be so arrogant as to presume that any "American" issue is more important than our earth, which houses the entire world.
Senator Dodd,
Your previous support for the President's illegal war of aggression in Iraq have left me with the same feelings I have for your fellow candidates...WAKE UP..STAND UP..and SHUT UP about any issue until you are able and willing to stop funding this massacre!! I would suggest that the ENERGY is desparately neede is from the Kerrys, Clintons, Bidens, etc. BE BRAVE!!
If we tackle the energy problem and free ourselves from the tether to the Middle East that is oil, we will have a stronger position diplomatically at the table. This will reduce the need for using the military as a diplomatic tool. So, attacking the energy issue is a large step to ending our presence in Iraq and our future presence in other Middle Eastern conflicts.
If you've been reading Scientific American, or more academic journals, you'll realize that Global Climate Change has a much greater chance of killing our children than the war in Iraq. Yes, Iraq is bad -- but the consequences of global warming are worse, longer-lived, and harder to avoid. If a candidate doesn't have a strong plan for dealing with it, they can't get my vote.
Sen. Dodd, your plan is strong. Right now I'm leaning towards Edwards' plan, but I'll have to check what he says about coal liquidization -- which, as you say, would run counter to reducing CO2 emissions. You're a contender!
I've sworn to support no candidate who does not vote for the immediate IMPEACHMENT of George Bush and Dick Cheney, but this is the best energy plan I've heard so far.
Why doesn't anyone talk about the use of the railroad, bringing back passenger trains?
no one likes or cares about trains
False! See above. Try travelling in Europe- trains are awesome.
agreed! why not propose high speed trains for national use?
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT SENATOR DODD'S ENERGY PLAN ONLY - NOT HIS CANDIDACY.
Dear Senator Dodd,
What are your plans, assuming you become President, for the Disclosure of the ET Presence and the surrounding secrecy that has controlled this subject and the associated advanced energy systems?
Are you aware of the work being done by Dr.Greer and the Disclosure Project? http://www.disclosureproject.org
What, if any, actions will you take as President to offer a full Disclosure?
Antonio Bond
How about adding sustainable organic farming to this bill - and encourage local farming - as the victory gardens did back in the 40's - it will also significantly help reduce illness, global warming, etc etc etc
It's Basically a good plan but I think there's too much emphasis on bio fuels, which produce significantly fewer miles per gallon than regular gas. The bio fuels we do use should come from non- food items such as switch-grass. Check out www.changingworldtech.com, a division of Conagra Foods. They produce relatively clean diesel and other fuels from virtually anything that was once alive, from chicken guts to rubber tires. (Tires contain carbon which was once part of a bio mass.) If we can learn to produce hydrogen with (considerably) less energy than it ultimately produces, we could gradually shift to it for most of our energy needs. In the meantime, we have to face the fact that we probably need to build, in a somewhat limited fashion, new and safer atomic energy plants. Wind mills (which kill birds) and solar panels are not enough in the short term.
Sen. Dodd does explicitly promote cellulose-based ethanol, which would include switchgrass and other non-food plants.
I'm not sure that biofuels per se produce lower MPG ratings. Might it be that the lower rating is due to use of biofuels in cars optimized for gasoline? -- In any case, hybrid designs and the use of ultra-light structural materials can greatly incrase fuel economy even in a biofueled car.
Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics won't permit us to generate hydrogen using less energy than it produces (or even only as much); so it won't in itself solve our energy needs. What it can do is move pollution from tail-pipes back to factories, which are fewer and hence easier to monitor and update. The same can be said for electricity; the "best" choice (in terms of pollution) will be the one that can be generated and distributed most efficiently. I have no idea which that will be.
bio-fuels (made from corn and other grown plants that we also eat) are a bad idea. food is scarce enough that we shouldn't use it to fuel cars. More people around the world are dying of starvation than anything else. we should use whatever we don't eat to feed those starving men, women, and children instead of using it to fuel our cars when there are other, and more promising/ better for the environment, options out there. besides, if we use corn for fuel, then that will cause the cost of whatever corn is left to eat to rise a lot. the demand will be the same, but the supply will be greatly limited. also, farmers would be using gas powered tractors and other equipment to harvest the corn to turn it into fuel, therefore totally defeating the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions.
Sounds like a good plan, but big corporations have a way of finding loopholes. Make sure your plan is very specific so people can't find ways to get around it.
I agree.
I'm kind of wondering why the communal emphasis has been on CO2 emissions caps. Everyone seems to think that biofuels -- which also emit CO2 when they're burned -- are OK, so clearly it's not simply CO2 emissions that are the problem. The problem is fossil carbon extraction; every unit of oil or coal or natural gas that gets mined contributes to the problem.
Why not cap fossil carbon extraction, instead of CO2 emissions? The burden of regulation, monitoring, and accounting would be reduced to a few hundred or thousand companies, as opposed to tens of thousands or millions of CO2-generating companies and individuals. With fewer companies to monitor, and less complex accounting (no biofuel offsets!), there would be fewer opportunites for loopholes. The environmental result would be the same -- an increase in the cost of using fossil fuels relative to the cost of using renewable energy sources -- but it would be easier and cheaper to enforce.
Of course, the politics would be really tricky. Try telling Saudi Arabia that it has to buy oil extraction permits! Still, the US does have the authority to impose tariffs on products entering the country...
You have hit the nail on it's head. CO emissions are a direct result of carbon extracted. I would start by ending the federal oil and coal subsidies. This would indirectly bennefit the alternative enegry producers without needing a new tax. The saddest part of this entire discussion is that oil is sold on a world market (it's a commodity). We can no more stop buying Middle Eastern oil than we can stop breathing unless we import NO oil!
What is your position on transportation infrastructure?
The federal highways program has cost billions of dollars, has caused the decay of the nation's older cities, promoted urban sprawl, harmed small businesses, and raised transportation costs and distances- especially harmful to the nation's poor. Above all, it has caused a sociospatial arrangement of our society which requires massive energy/oil consumption. It has sapped the feeling of community in our cities and towns, and has proliferated box stores and chain businesses.
Would you support a gas tax increase- one which is based on a percentage rather than a cent-per-gallon value, and which a certain portion is earmarked for non-highway use?
Would you encourage insurance companies to base premiums on mileage rather than a flat fee?
Would you guarantee equal or greater funding for the infrastructure of rail transportation as is done for highway transportation?
Would you remove the tax incentives for people to own suburban homes?
Would you raise taxes on oil companies and direct revenues to research for alternative fuels?
Would you help to create federal incentives to rideshare and take public transit?
I think the transportation infrastructure is inextricably linked to issues of energy and social values. It affects the way we interact with one another, and how we view ourselves as Americans. People feel disconnected, wasteful, and placeless. A centralized transportation system would help America get back on track.
Thank you,
Silas Archambault
Excellent comment. The problem is vast and interconnected. The built and building environment gurantees that it will last a long time.
However any steps taken now to begin to change this unfortunate reality are worthwhile.
An effort to revive mass transit would go far towards reducing use of energy and at the same time encourage more compact development which would begin a virtuous cycle of ever greater reduction of travel and energy wastage.
I hope that Chris Dodd will put more emphasis on reducing the need for cars than for making them run at 50 mpg fuel consumption. Reduced fuel consumption helps a lot but it can't be the only solution.
Best regards,
RvW
Senator Dodd,
Where do you stand with regard to the billions of dollars in subsidies the coal industry is seeking from congress to pursue Coal-to-Liquid fuel technologies, without being required (in a loophole free fashion) to incorporate clean coal technologies into the equation?
Regards,
Glenn Maltais
I regret to report here that I believe I read in the paper that Dodd is behind coal to liquid fuel, however, I could be wrong and perhaps the Senator could clarify. Also, I think Dodd is the best guy running of all of them. His breadth of experience is awesome and exactly what we need.
I've sent this to the other cnadidates. Yours is the most complete and responsible plan I've seen on energy. You should not discount hydrogen, although a new and powerful lobbyist like ADM makes it tough. We don't need to trade Hurricane and refinery issues for drought and distillery issues. Here is the remainder of the comments I sent to all Democratic candidates.
In watching the debates last evening I was again disappointed at the lack of attention given to energy prices and the lack of any candidates resolve to tackle this issue with anything more than the same tired story. I've already communicated with the oil companies and the Energytomorrow.com (how can anyone not see "collusion" when they visit that site?). I see the same old tired agruments when I read the same things said in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
The problem with energy is that it is controlled by a few very large companies that run their companies the way Europe runs their economy. Each company is an autonomous seperately owned public corporation, but they work together in many ways to ensure the success they are enjoying. Now I support the free enterprise system when competition is insured, but when these corporations share websites and meet before congress in lockstep it's not hard to figure out that collusion is spelled in three letters that starts with an o and ends with an l.
It's my opinion that the only answers are to break up big oil and create alternatives to gasoline and natural gas to force the oil companies to truly compete for our business. I also believe that the industry needs to be regulated federally the way utilities are regulated by the states. I believe this is the only way to achieve a competitive status in this area of our economy. What I do know, is that blaming us and calling for ending our "addiction" on oil (as some candidates are doing) will not solve anything and higher prices to end that "addiction" will hurt our economy and the well being of the constituents that you are attempting to represent.
The candidate that I will vote for will recognize that religion and oil are the 2 reasons for the conflicts we fight in the world today. They will recognize that money not sent to the middle east will not end up in the hands of terrorists that want to kill us. They will also recognize that new, comparatively inexpensive, forms of energy would remove the need for nuclear energy in Iran (or any other nation that wants to follow their direction in the future). I haven't even touched on global warming issues. We can't change religious issues in the world overnight, but we can use technology to create hydrogen, solar, wind, and other energy alternatives to end this "addiction" that everyone wants to complain about. It is interference from big oil and indifference by our own federal energy department that is standing in the way of groundbreaking changes. Threatening investigations that will never prove anything will not address the problem, following the same old model for failure won't either. I was a democrat for 20 years and lost my desire to be involved as I watched the party fall deeper into it's indebtedness to the insterest groups that controlled it. I want to be inspired again by bold challenges to the same old story line. I hope you stand with change on these issues.
We should also put a condition on all of the oil field leases prohibiting the export of oil from government owned land or fields.
dodd is the man
As a senior citizen resident of Senator Chris Dodd's home state I have watched his career and interests over many years. He is indeed the most worthy candidate who has offered himself to serve our country as President in many a long year. He is an honest, forthright, intelligent man who has quietly served in the Senate earning the respect of his peers and gathering experience in education, health and foreign relations. He has dreams, but is distinctly grounded in reality. He shows his true concern for the state of our country and its image within the world political arena simply by offering to serve. Who, without compassion and dedication, would come forth at his stage of life with a happy marriage and two very young children, to expose himself thus to the media onslaught? He is beyond reproach, therefore the media ignore him. He has no immediate connections with Hollywood or high finance - just Washington and his family history. He has spent his entire life in public service. He deserves our support and I hope American voters wake up before it is too late. We need Chris Dodd leading us out of this morass. (BTW - he also speaks Spanish!)
As a young and healthy university student (and a competitive cyclist), it was a relatively easy decision to try and give up my car in favor of riding my bicycle and walking. Nonetheless, many people like me get the feeling that such individual efforts, taking so much personal time and commitment, are simply not worth the hassle - because what effect can one person have in solving global warming and our nation's carbon dependence?
To know that such an experienced and influential legislator as Dodd truly worries about the big picture about our energy dependence and has the willingness and ability to combat global warming is reassuring to people like me. It is no longer a valid argument that individuals cannot stand up to corporations and cultural normalities which contribute so much to global warming. From a lone bicyclist like me, to a brave politician like Chris Dodd running for President of the United States, we can solve this great problem of our generation. Probably the easiest step is a vote for Chris Dodd for President.
This looks like an incredible plan- I wish I knew more about the science to understand the details but it certainly seems to be the strongest plan on the campaign table!
One suggestion- make the campaign carbon neutral! How many miles is the campaign flying in the next months? Find a sponsor or raise money to compensate for the carbon emissions that it will cost to get this plan in action-
Chris,
One area not covered is civil engineering. Updating traffic patterns could result in increases in fuel efficiency. Preventing back-ups and stand stills at traffic lights could be an immediate way to reduce greenhouse gases. I know it won't fix the problem, but any little bit could help. Even if it just buys us time to find ways to power vehicles using alternate forms of energy, I feel this temporary fix is a good idea.
The Bush administration, which cheered on a coup against Chavez, has kept calling Chavez a dictator. Chavez won a referendum overseen by Europeans as valid. Chavez has pointed out that Bush would not win a referendum. The Manchester Guardian defends his closing of media that promotes a coup. Bush has cramped our civil rights more. I don't applaud everything Chavez does, but he has done some good things for his many poor people and for the poor of other Latin American countries; nobody else has until he and some new heads of state that are his allies did.
Ms. Devlin:
You are a quack from the word go. Mere minutes pass by before one realizes that you are a whacko.
I beleive that is called an ad hominem attack. Instead of insulting the poster why not ask him for more specifics regarding his post?
I liked what I've read on your Energy Plan Proposal. Thanks for taking this issue seriously. I know these things take time to pass and change, but I'd like to see an even more ambitious timeline for gg-emissions. :)
I'm glad I visited your cite! I'll pass the word on about you to friends.
Please Visit:
http://ReformAutos.org
Hit the core of the problem
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/biochar/Biochar_home.htm
http://geothermal.marin.org/
While most of Dodd's plan sound great I think the emphasis on ethanol as an alternative fuel source is misguided. We should be looking at plug-in hybrids which have been proven much more efficient instead of the energy intensive and subsidy-driven corn industry. The ethanol-fuel argument is largely backed by the corn-lobby which is controlled by large agribusinesses who do not espouse the "values of America's heartland" (think small farmer) but rather that fat cat mentality.
I'm doing a school project in which I have to report on the idealistic platform of each presidential candidate. I've visted TONS of candidate websites all stating what they want to happen, but none of them say HOW they are going to make it happen. This is the first plan that is actually thought out! Thank you Chris Dodd!
New and used all types of Trucks and trailers available online at American Truck Buyer.
Here's my little site I'm gonna blog about Vehicles
Building code REGULATIONS that would require the use of sustainable materials and mandate energy efficiency and conservation. For starters, look to Austin Energy's Green Building Program for ideas; the knowledge is out there to make this happen.
fifty-five miles per hour is the rate at which our cars burn fuel the most efficiently...anything above or below 55 is less energy efficient. Thus, this speed limit would benefit our pocketbooks and air quality.
the government should start putting pressure on industries to recycle
I am extremely impressed by Senator Dodd and having this extensive and well thought out plan. With the other presidental candidates...they do not even have an idea on how they are going to protect and save the environment. Floored....that's all I have to say. Majoring in environmental studies, I am truly thankful that someone wants to really push for the United States to become Green. It's about time a presidental candidate has enough courage to safe the Earth. We need more congressman like him who really WANT change to happen!
I appreciate the focus on oil independence, but I'm concerned about the environmental impacts of large scale ethanol production in the US--especially on water. Ethanol requires an average of 3-4 gallons of fresh water per gallon of ethanol produced. The midwest and much of the west is already strapped for water--and this will only exacerbate the issue. What are the Senator's plans for water conservation in concert with an expansion of domestic biofuel production?
This page is titled Energy and the Environment. It clearly details Dodd's stance on energy, but I see very little on other important environmental issues such as: air and water quality, and wildlife and public land protection. How does he stand on those important issues?
I was very impressed with Senator Dodd's grasp of a wide range of issues when my wife and I met him in Pleasantville, Iowa on July 4. What really caught my attention was that he supports the use of nuclear energy. He is fully informed about the risks, associated with this energy source, but also how the French reprocess the spent fuel rods and reuse the uranium to generate more electricity. Senator Dodd is the first candidate that not only wants to expand the use alternative forms of energy, but is practical enough to know that we must incorporate the use of nuclear energy to transform the production of electricity in this country. We can replace all fossil fuel electrical production facilities within the next 20 years with the introduction of the newest generation of nuclear facilites that also incorporate the active use of reprocessing of the fuel rods. The French have been doing this successfully for over 20 years and guess what, have reduced their dependence on oil from the Mid-East and reduced air pollution as well.
I love what I see here, but I'm confused on one point - Chris talks about a mandated cap-and-trade, with some of the permits auctioned, AND a "corporate carbon tax." How do these all work together? I'm glad Chris is brave enough to talk about a carbon tax, but why also a cap and trade, and why auction only some of the permits?
I'm impressed with the depth and breadth of Senator Dodd's plan to address the climate crisis. Among the field of Democratic candidates, Dodd provides one of, if not the most, comprehensive approaches to address the challenge. Incidentally, in MoveOn.org's virtual town hall on the climate crisis, I thought the senator did very well (video is at the MoveOn website).
I would like to point out one thing which doesn't seem to be specifically mentioned by the Senator, nor by any of the other candidates. In this age of suburban and exurban sprawl, America is continuing to create (at an incredible rate) communities that are completely reliant on the use of personal automobiles for every daily task. Many of these planned communities require one to drive in order to run any errand, to say nothing of long communtes to regional emplyment hubs. A major focus of the next Democratic president (I'm assuming and hoping there) should be to create incentives for urban in-fill, rather than suburban sprawl. There is potentially a certain amount of push-back from Americans who've been sold the idea of a single family house with a two car garage for the last 60 years, but given that the communites we live in to a great extent determine our transportation and home energy consumption footprints (two of the largest factors in domestic energy usage), this will be an increasing important part of any effective strategy to address climate change. Walkable communities are healthy and happier, and we should support efforts to prioritize development that puts a premium on public transportation, mixed use (residential and commercial) buildings, pedestrian and bicycal space, and greater protection of undeveloped lands. Thanks for leading on this issue. I look forward to learning more about your candidacy and will certainly look for your appearances in the San Francisco Bay Area. Peace.
Matt Isles
Everyone supports this idea until they realize THEY will be ones to pay for it. Corporate tax burdens are passed directly onto consumers in most cases. Also, keep in mind, this will not affect oil companies, as they do not emit carbon. Consumers emit carbon by burning oil products (using gasoline, natural gas), using electricity, buying products that require international and long-distance shipping, traveling in airplanes, etc., so consumers will pay. Farmers will be heavily impacted since they use fertilizer made from natural gas (to grow corn to make ethanol ironically) so food prices will rise at the source. Since consumers outside of the US will not have the same impositions, it will be YOUR standard of living that drops. Are you ready for that?
"Also, keep in mind, this will not affect oil companies, as they do not emit carbon. Consumers emit carbon by burning oil products (using gasoline, natural gas), using electricity, buying products that require international and long-distance shipping, traveling in airplanes," This is NOT true. I am a geologist and I have worked alongside of this industry for 20 years. Almost without exception, every natural gas well in the ground flames CO2 periodically and NOx gases constantly seep from the gas wells - both of these gases have created a great source of air pollution federal land management agencies are attempting to get a grip on as there are 10s of 1000s of natural gas wells just in the western US. In addition to the well-head carbon emissions, there are primary product producers that take the raw product and separate it into a more refined gas that contains methane and ethane and liquid natural gas. If the refined gas contains more than 2% CO2 it must be gotten rid of before the natural gas is put into the pipeline headed for market. Guess how these producers currently deal with the excess carbon...They RELEASE it into the air - there are no CO2 emission restrictions for these producers. One of the largest natural gas fields occurs in the northwestern half of Colorado - 1000s of wells that contain an average of 6% CO2 when the gas is collected at the wellhead - that means 4% of it is currently being released to the air prior to going into the market pipeline.
See U.S. Senate publication http://www.inteliorg.com/archive/US_Senate_Global_Warming_2006.pdf
Wouldn't it be better to propose that the proceeds of a a carbon tax be re-cycled to taxpayers be better than earmarking them for certain purposes?
- All the economic incentives remain, as long as the distributions/credits are not based on actual use of energy
- Let's not interfere with the market in deciding what forms of rules/conservation/new technologies etc are best--let high prices do the trick. No one will, or should, trust political decisions on these matters
- The counter-arguments about the economic drag, the $50 billion cost I heard Senator discuss the other day, would be largely mitigated
Mike
"Wouldn't it be better to propose that the proceeds of a a carbon tax be re-cycled to taxpayers be better than earmarking them for certain purposes?"
I don't think it would be better. Research and development of alternative energy sources is an expensive business, and will continue to be so. Companies making a fortune in the energy business by maintaining the status quo (dependence on fossil fuels) sure aren't going to lead the charge here. Small companies are doing some good research, but don't have the capital to make it move along as quickly as it needs to. Pour the tax revenue from the big polluters' into developing cleaner, more efficient and cheaper energy sources... that's where we get our bang for those bucks.
Because you know, if you give the money back to individual taxpayers, we all aren't going to start writing checks for energy research....
Great start on clean energy! No other candidate seems to take it seriously. A simple tax on pollution would make clean energy competitive, create jobs, build sustainable communities and decentralize government.
I have a Patent Business plan,all the docs. have been placed in private states of banks. i hope you can help me with this because i have been turned down latley, thank you for your time and have a good day Senator best regards.
I have a Patent Business plan,all the docs. have been placed in private states of banks. i hope you can help me with this because i have been turned down latley, thank you for your time and have a good day Senator best regards.
There is a HUGE environmental problem going on right now. They are called CHEMTRAILS and they are poisoning our air that we breathe DAILY. What and WHY are they doing this to us. I never receive a reply from anyone when I request info on this heinous secret gov. program. Please talk about this issue. Thanks
funnmt
The best way to clean up our air immediately would be to use more nuclear energy. Contrary to popular belief nuclear power is safe and the issue with the waste as been solved and it doesnt involve Yucca Mountain
Mr. Dodd I didn't really know you were running for president until I caught the debate on TV. Obama, Clinton and Edwards are more visible but you are a fine candidate and I'm glad I found out more about you.
I WANT A DEMOCRAT FOR PRESIDENT! Your energy policy pretty much sells me. I hope others hear about you like I did.
P.S. Obama may be attractive and smart but a real good candidate is the sexiest of them all. Just my humble opinion, representin' the ladies.
Eliza