Hillary Clinton’s Climate and Energy Policies, Explained

Federal Legislation, Federal Regulation, Opinions, Policy

May 10, 2016

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by David Roberts (Vox.com) Media coverage of the Democratic primary has not shed much light on Hillary Clinton’s proposals for climate change and clean energy policy. But oh, she has proposals. Lots of them! I read the white papers. And I called the campaign to talk through some of the specifics and the broader political thinking that informs them.

…”Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.”

…

Second is fuel economy standards. The EPA will be doing a midterm evaluation of light-duty vehicle standards during Clinton’s first term; standards for heavy-duty vehicles have been proposed but not finalized.

Also on the list:

Methane regulations on existing natural gas wells. (Obama recently implemented standards for new gas wells.) Also repairing and replacing outdated natural gas distribution pipelines, to improve safety and reduce leaks.
Implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard in a way that will “spur the development of advanced biofuels and expand the overall contribution that renewable fuels make to our national fuel supply.”

…

1) What about fracking?

Fracking is an issue that divides the Democratic Party. The left, as championed by Bernie Sanders, has adopted a categorical “no fracking” stance. Clinton, along with most of the center-left party establishment, believes that fracking still has a role to play, though it should be more tightly regulated.

More broadly, Clinton believes natural gas is a “bridge” — an intermediate step — to decarbonization.

…

They highlight the potential for natural gas to continue reducing carbon and other pollutants in the power sector, where natural gas also plays an important role in balancing variable renewable energy sources, and in the transportation sector, where it is a cleaner alternative to diesel and gasoline.

…

First, investments in natural gas pipeline infrastructure can be leveraged later to transport lower-carbon biogas or synthetic natural gas, which will be useful in cleaning up heavy-duty transportation, heating, and industry.

…

2) What about “keep it in the ground”?

I asked about the new enthusiasm among climate activists for the “keep it in the ground” strategy of blocking or shutting down fossil fuel supply projects.

The campaign pointed to places where Clinton believes oil and gas production is not worth the risk, including the Arctic and the Atlantic coast, and noted that she supports Obama’s moratorium on new coal leasing, as the leasing program is reformed.

She does not, however, support a blanket ban on new oil and gas leases on public land, as called for in a bill from Sanders and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

…

So there you have it: a detailed plan for making use of existing authorities to extend and accelerate the Obama climate policy trajectory.

Which raises a final question: Why not shoot for the moon?

Why not propose a revolutionary plan, equal to the scale of the problem, even if it is politically impossible, just to set a marker and shift the conversation?

This is an old, old political dispute between the left and the party establishment. Obama was able to paper it over somewhat with soaring rhetoric, which made incrementalism sing. Clinton’s incrementalism does not sing. In his routine at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner earlier this month, Obama suggested a new campaign slogan: “Trudge up the hill with Hill.”

For better or worse, Clinton resists the call for policy moonshots. READ MORE

Comments are closed.

Advanced BioFuels USA