Hillary Clinton details her energy plan during a visit to Portsmouth

In an election cycle in which energy policy and environmental concerns have featured prominently in virtually every campaign, it is difficult to determine which candidates will actually attack the issues and come up with solutions. In an apparent effort to distinguish herself as the presidential hopeful who is best equipped to curb global warming, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week unveiled a new plan to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.

Clinton announced her proposal during a forum on energy and the environment at the Seacoast Media building at Pease Tradeport. She said she would establish a “Green Building Fund,” which would allocate $1 billion dollars annually to improve energy efficiency at schools, police stations, firehouses, offices and other public buildings. The money would be distributed to states through grants or low interest loans aimed at upgrading existing buildings and new structures. 

The senator also detailed her plan to create a $50 billion “Strategic Energy Fund” toward researching ways to combat climate change. As she broke down the sources that would contribute to the fund, Clinton took sharp aim at the nation’s oil industry. She said $10 billion would come from making oil companies pay royalties on any drilling that takes place on public land, while another $20 billion would come from removing tax subsidies for oil companies. For the remaining funds, Clinton said she would offer oil companies a deal: they can invest $20 billion in alternative technology and more efficient refineries, or she will tax their windfall profits.

The fund is enough to make oil executives recoil at the thought of another Clinton in office, but she says she is prepared to take some flak over the plan. Speaking to a mostly supportive audience of a couple hundred people in Portsmouth, Clinton acknowledged that critics will accuse her of going after oil companies.

“Well, I am going after the oil companies, and I think for good reason,” she said to resounding applause. “They are a big part of the problem we have, and they refuse to be part of the solution.”

Clinton also targeted President Bush and Vice President Cheney in her speech, accusing the nation’s leaders of ignoring the issue of climate change. “Instead of having a president who won’t utter the word ‘global warming,’ we will have a global warming agenda,” she said, noting that she has signed on to a bill that would set benchmarks for lowering carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The bill calls for the country to reach 1990 levels by 2020—a mere 13 years away.
“Yes, this is an aggressive goal, but it is not an unrealistic goal,” Clinton said in response to a question on how she would achieve such a massive carbon reduction. She noted that 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings, and she believes increased efficiency could put a significant dent in those emissions. Improving gas mileage in cars would drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption, she added, and technological advances in coming decades will likely make the targets even more feasible.

Clinton stressed that goals for energy efficiency can be met without undermining the economy. She estimates that her “Green Building Fund” would create 50,000 jobs and that expanding industries like solar and wind power would also generate new positions. She accused Republicans and oil companies of brainwashing Americans into thinking major alterations to energy policy would ruin the economy.

The mass of hands that went up when Clinton opened the floor to questions reflected the weight that climate change has gained in the minds of voters. Only a fraction of the audience members had a chance to ask their questions before the clock ran out on the forum, but area residents clearly wanted hard answers rather than campaign rhetoric.

Two audience members—including a young boy—asked Clinton to explain her stance on nuclear energy. The senator’s answer did little to appease voters on either side of the divisive issue. She called herself “an agnostic” on the issue of nuclear power, saying she is not for or against it. Although nuclear power is expensive, and scientists still have not determined a surefire way to dispose of nuclear waste, the technology could prove useful with more research, she said.

Clinton said she opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, saying it would threaten sensitive wildlife while providing a relatively small amount of oil. “It is very troubling to me that this has become this political football,” she said, adding that drilling in Alaska would not solve anything.

Clinton criticized President Bush for failing to communicate with other countries on the issue of global warming. China has become the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, she said, and India is not far behind. On the other hand, Brazil has managed to become almost independent of foreign oil by using ethanol from sugarcane to power automobiles.

Throughout the forum, Clinton appealed specifically to Seacoast residents. Following an introduction from Howard Altschiller, executive editor of Seacoast Newspapers, Clinton framed the issue of energy policy in a local context. “The Seacoast here in New Hampshire is a perfect place to be having this discussion,” she said, noting that the area offers opportunities for power generation through wood burning, wind and tidal energy. “New Hampshire suffers from the national government’s failure to regulate energy and the environment,” she said.

She added that energy policy involves a number of interrelated issues. Environmental conditions have an impact on human health, she said, and the cost of dealing with health problems creates a huge financial burden for many families. Taking energy efficient measures like weatherizing homes, however, can save families money by reducing energy costs while cleaning up the environment, thereby improving health. 

Many voters will question the practicality of Clinton’s bold proposals, but her agenda will force other candidates of both parties to offer similarly specific solutions to climate change. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized the necessity of reducing dependence on foreign oil for both national security and environmental reasons. Noting that the United States imports more oil now than it did before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Clinton claimed that consumers have an “insatiable appetite for oil.”

Responsibility for dealing with the problem falls at the federal, state and local levels, she said, but it also rests with individual citizens. Clinton called on consumers to turn off lights, carpool, use compact fluorescent light bulbs, weatherize homes and take a number of other small steps to reduce their carbon footprints.  

The Seacoast Media Group hosted a health care forum with Sen. Barack Obama in April, and Altschiller said all candidates of both parties have been invited to participate in future forums at the location.