Oregon Democratic Senate Candidates’ Environmental Platforms
December 5, 2007
The environmental platforms of the Democratic US Senate candidates, are something I find to be quite interesting. Both candidates Speaker Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick have grade A+ environmental credentials. Speaker Merkley led what the Oregon League of Conservation Voters declared was the greenest session since 1977. Steve Novick was the lead DOJ attorney in the Love Canal case, one of the first Superfund cases. Both are miles ahead of Gordon Smith who among other things has wrapped up a 14% rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2006 and conspired with Dick Cheney to kill 75,000 salmon and a crippled the coastal economy.
Steve Novick’s gets points for being an the earliest backer of the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Bill and trying to get citizen co-sponsors for the bill. Besides the Sanders-Boxer centerpiece, Novick says:
To fight global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and create high-paying jobs, we need a massive investment in renewable energy - wind power, wave energy (for which Oregon is one of the most promising locations), biofuels, geothermal - in conservation, and in retrofitting our economy to operate on non-fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, those two tidbits are essentially all of Novick’s environmental issues page. The depth and issue specification of Novick’s page leaves one wanting. There is certainly a value in getting your positions out first, but what advantage will Novick garner from being able to say: “I was for Sanders Boxer in September and Merkley only got on board in December”? I think he might have waited a couple of months and put out something more substantial than one bill and stating that we need to make a massive investment in renewables without specifics. Novick’s vassals are pushing the idea that Novick is the “policy candidate”, but as of now he doesn’t have more specification than Merkley.
While Novick’s approach was strike first and worry about depth latter, Jeff Merkley took the opposite approach recently releasing the second plank of his four part environmental platform. So far, in addition to joining Novick’s support of the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Bill, Merkley has proposed:
- Setting a 25% renewable energy standard by 2025. Under Jeff’s leadership, Oregon adopted this 25% standard - one of the highest in the nation. Jeff will push to make this the national standard. By adopting this new standard we will pump billions of dollars into investments in clean energy sources such as wind, solar and bio fuels. We can fund these investments by closing tax loopholes that currently give our tax dollars to big oil companies and redirect these funds back into our economy, creating thousands of jobs. Congressional Republicans are working day and night to eliminate these standards from the energy bill. As Oregon’s next U.S. Senator, Jeff will fight to keep this from happening.
- Jeff Merkley strongly supports increasing the fuel economy standards for cars driven in the United States to thirty five miles per gallon. This will save consumers money at the pump and reduce emissions that cause global warming. In her “Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act”, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington calls for a 35 mpg fuel economy standard by 2017. As Oregon’s next U.S. Senator, Jeff will work with Senator Cantwell to include these standards in America’s energy policy.
- Jeff will cosponsor and work for passage of Senator Maria Cantwell’s Reducing Demand through Electricity Grid Intelligence Act. This bill by Senator Cantwell (D-Washington) will accelerate and encourage the development of a nationwide intelligent energy grid system through the broader use of new technologies. It will also improve energy efficiency and save consumers money on electricity bills. Taxpayers will save between $50 and $100 billion in the next 20 years and and work toward ending our national dependence on foreign oil.
Several things impressed me about Merkley’s position and get me excited for his next two planks are:
First, look at the language Merkley uses, connecting the environment with jobs, improving the economy, and fiscal savings. For so long Republicans have created a false choice between saving the environment, and saving the economy and peoples jobs. Jeff Merkley destroys that false dichotomy.
Secondly, after spending from February until now writing my economics thesis on grandfathered rights and tradable permit markets (its due in 8 days ahhhh!!!), I know the problems associated with cap and trade systems that are often brushed under the rug in policy discussions by embracing the Right’s rhetoric that markets solve everything. With that knowledge imposing the 25% in 2025 standard is quite appealing. Rather than Novick’s reliance on tradable permit markets in Sanders Boxer, Merkley creates a very nice mix of prescriptive regulatory tools to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gases.
Out of everything that Merkley has proposed so far, I am most impressed with his support for modernizing the electrical grid. Modernizing the grid is going to be essential if we ever want to use decentralized green means of power generation, like wind turbines and solar panels, effectively. Modernizing the grid is the best way to encourage individuals to invest in practical and effective green technologies, taking power away from big energy companies, like Enron.
Overall, both of our candidate offer a significant upgrade over Smith in the environment that progressives should be proud to support. But for me, while Novick earns points for being first, the depth and command of the issue that Merkley has displayed, carries the issue.
Blogged with Flock
Tags: OR-Sen, 2008 Democratic Senate Primary, Jeff Merkley, Steve Novick, Environment, Gordon Smith, Sanders-Boxer, Global Warming, Electical Grid
Entry Filed under: OR-Sen. .
8 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
bdunn
atleastimhonest
1.
Sarah Lane | December 5, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Both candidates are much better than Gordon Smith on the environment. However, I like how Merkley is looking ahead, and building coalitions with sitting Senators. It’s nice to know that if he beats Smith, he’ll be ready to work as soon as he gets into office.
2.
bdunn | December 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Couldn’t agree more. Merkley’s track record getting strong environmental protection passed at the state level just furthers that point.
3.
Onlurker | December 5, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Okay…I’m tired of playing with you…
If you bothered to read Novick’s Bio page, you’d have seen this:
of the United States Justice Department in 1987. He brought successful lawsuits against polluters for violations of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He also served as lead counsel in the notorious Love Canal case. On that case in 1995, Steve and his team negotiated a settlement in which Occidental Chemical repaid the taxpayers $129 million in cleanup costs and interest. Announcing the settlement, Attorney General Janet Reno said: “Today we celebrate a transformation of an environmental disaster called Love Canal into a success story …. It [the settlement] stands for the principle that when people make a mess, they should pay to clean it up.”
After stops in law firms in New York and San Francisco, Steve joined the Environment Division (then known as the “Land and Natural Resources Division”
Perhaps the excess of experience in the field is the reason why Novick’s environmental section is so short. A large portion of the man’s career has been dedicated to environmental issues. Certainly, Merkley hasn’t spent as much time on environmental issues as Novick. So why did you bother to bring it up? It only makes your candidate look bad…
4.
bdunn | December 5, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Before you accuse people of not reading, perhaps you should try it yourself.
It seems to me I acknowledge Novick’s environment credentials. I also linked out to the Janet Reno press release that your quote from Novick’s bio cites.
I am no Novick partisan, but I hardly unjustly failed to give him credit for his previous work.
5.
bdunn | December 5, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Additionally Onlurker, if Novick has all the environment chops, shouldn’t this be where he is kicking Merkley’s butt? Doesn’t the fact that Merkley is connecting the environment with other issues better and has more substantive policy proposals show an inability to capitalize on his strengths?
Finally, Novick’s experience is as an enforcer of the law, not a legislator. Due to the significant difference between the two, I don’t think that Novick can rest on the laurels of previous enforcement successes.
6.
ameeks | December 6, 2007 at 1:15 am
Onlurker- How does a strong environmental record explain why Noveck’s environmental platform is so lacking?
Also, there’s a big difference between being an avid enforcer of other people’s policies and coming up with them on your own. Noveck’s heart is in the right place, but his failure to list anything specific about what he would do in the senate (aside from voting for a proposal that Boxer and Sanders already came up with) further proves that he’s not to be taken seriously.
I leave you with the legislative genius that is Bob Noveck:
“If the Federal Government makes a serious investment in renewables [sic] research, and shares that research with the private sector, we can build the cleaner, greener, cooler economy of tomorrow.”
… truly a man of vision.
7.
Andrew Plambeck | December 6, 2007 at 1:32 am
a) who the hell is Bob Noveck?
2) Steve Novick also sits on the Oregon Environmental Board.
8.
Pat Ryan | December 6, 2007 at 12:00 pm
First, look at the language Merkley uses, connecting the environment with jobs, improving the economy, and fiscal savings. For so long Republicans have created a false choice between saving the environment, and saving the economy and peoples jobs. Jeff Merkley destroys that false dichotomy.
This is key for a candidate and for a Senator. This country is so awash in right wing propagand that messaging is going to be at least as important as policy.
We now have a tiny window on enviro issues, and it will take inelligent and persistent use of solid fgact base rhetoric to begin to undo the damge of the last three decades.
Swinging a sword (or hook) around your head indiscriminately may be very satisfying, but too often we’ve seen legislators at national neutered by their own overheated statements.
It can wind up being like peeing yourself while wearing a dark suit:
It gives you a warm feeling, but no one else notices.
Winning is great, but effecting real change is even more useful and way more difficult to achieve. Other points aside, litigators and legislators need very different skill sets to succeed.
Only one of these guys has experience in the kind of cooperative consensus building necessary to be an effective senator.