Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Thu Jul 2, 2015, 02:15 PM Jul 2015

Martin O’Malley rightly sees opportunity to peel off supporters from his rivals on the environment

Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley is polling a distant third among declared Democrats, ten points behind Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and more than 60 points behind Hillary Clinton. Closing that gap in any significant way will require taking stronger positions than his rivals on the issues most important to the party's base. He's done just that with his aggressive new plan on climate change, which the former Maryland governor will pitch to Iowans over the next three days.

Unveiled last week in an op-ed for USA Today, the plan calls for the U.S. to move entirely to clean energy within 35 years. It also aims to double energy efficiency in the next 15 years, create a Clean Energy Jobs Corps to retrofit buildings, modernize the energy grid, end fossil fuel subsidies, and extend tax credits for solar and wind power. Some of these are policies already championed by Obama, but O'Malley still goes further, by wanting to adopt a “zero-tolerance policy” for methane from natural gas production and to expand carbon regulation to other major sources (presumably meaning agriculture and industry, which account for 9 and 21 percent of domestic emissions, respectively); and he says he’d deny new permits for offshore drilling and in Alaska.

Environmentalists remain unconvinced by Clinton, whose climate agenda is fuzzy. She has yet to take a stand on the Keystone XL pipeline, and recently hired a campaign consultant who previously lobbied the State Department—while Clinton was secretary of state—on behalf of TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline.

Sanders, meanwhile, has been the candidate of choice for Clinton's enivoronmental skeptics. He’s a longtime favorite of the green movement, having co-sponsored carbon tax legislation and bills to expand residential solar energy. He has a lifetime score of 95 percent from the League of Conservation Voters, and Climate Hawks Vote ranks him as the top Senator on climate.

But environmental campaigners are starting to notice O’Malley now.

“We look to presidential policy platforms for vision, and we're rapidly approaching, if not already at, a point where it's no longer enough for a Democratic candidate to diagnose the problem,” Climate Hawks Vote founder R.L. Miller said. “We need policy prescriptions. Sanders' platform is basically what he's been pushing, without success, in the Senate—a carbon tax and a million solar rooftops.”
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Martin O’Malley rightly sees opportunity to peel off supporters from his rivals on the environment (Original Post) bigtree Jul 2015 OP
O'Malley is ahead on vision. FSogol Jul 2015 #1
WAY ahead! elleng Jul 2015 #7
Hillary will remain my first choice but I have to admit ismnotwasm Jul 2015 #2
yes! bigtree Jul 2015 #3
He does indeed. elleng Jul 2015 #6
Apparently, O'Malley has gotten the attention of one "green billionaire." Koinos Jul 2015 #4
I sure hope he sends some money to Governor O'Malley. elleng Jul 2015 #5
Me too. Koinos Jul 2015 #8

FSogol

(45,485 posts)
1. O'Malley is ahead on vision.
Thu Jul 2, 2015, 02:32 PM
Jul 2015

From his plan:


I believe, within 35 years, our country can and should be 100% powered by clean energy, supported by millions of new jobs. To reach this goal we must accelerate that transition starting now.

As President, on Day One, I would use my executive power to declare the transition to a clean energy future the number one priority of our Federal Government.

I would create a new Clean Energy Jobs Corps to partner with communities to retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient, improve local resiliency, create new green spaces, and restore and expand our forests so they can absorb more greenhouse gases.

I would retrofit federal buildings to the highest efficiency standards and require new federal buildings to be net-zero. I would require the federal fleet to be subject to low- or zero-emissions purchasing agreements, and require all federally-funded infrastructure projects to meet climate resiliency standards.

As President, I would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to take aggressive action to limit greenhouse gases: expanding rules to other large sources of emissions beyond power plants, adopting a zero-tolerance policy for methane leaks from current oil and gas production, and setting higher energy efficiency standards for new buildings while requiring energy costs to be transparent to building tenants and purchasers.

And I would reject projects like Keystone XL, drilling off our coasts and in the Arctic and Alaska. Furthermore, I would keep domestically produced oil and gas in the U.S., instead of selling it abroad — unless there is a clear strategic security rationale.

Beyond executive actions, I would make clean energy deployment – and full employment – a first order priority.

I would set a national, cross-sector Renewable Electricity Standard so our nation is powered by 100% clean energy by 2050, and a national goal of doubling energy efficiency within 15 years. Many states like California and Maryland are already leading the way forward for the United States.

I would fight for federal legislation for a cap on carbon emissions from all sources, with proceeds from permits returned to lower- and middle-class families, job transition assistance, and new jobs with the Clean Energy Corps.

As President, I would support a Clean Energy Financing Authority to support projects to increase efficiency and resiliency upgrades in cities, towns, and rural communities nationwide.

I would prioritize modernizing our electric grid to support localized renewable energy generation, reduced electricity waste, and increased security from sabotage or attack.

And I would increase our investment in basic clean energy research so the U.S. can reclaim the lead on energy innovation, including advancing development, deployment, transmission, and storage for renewable energy and new efficiency technologies.

The fact is, there is no either/or choice between our prosperity and protecting our planet – we can create a future where there are more jobs, and a future with a livable climate. And there is no future for humankind without a livable climate.

ismnotwasm

(41,980 posts)
2. Hillary will remain my first choice but I have to admit
Thu Jul 2, 2015, 02:40 PM
Jul 2015

O'Malley makes a compelling case for the presidency.

Koinos

(2,792 posts)
4. Apparently, O'Malley has gotten the attention of one "green billionaire."
Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:00 PM
Jul 2015

"Tom Steyer Sends Hillary Clinton a Message, Via Pope Francis and Martin O’Malley: The green billionaire was one of many to seize on the Vatican’s encyclical."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/tom-steyer-hillary-clinton-climate-change-encyclical-20150618

From the article:

The deep-pocketed Democratic donor who has pushed President Obama and Hillary Clinton on environmental issues took advantage of Pope Francis's climate-change encyclical to call on the next president to act on global warming. And he effusively praised Martin O'Malley for taking the lead.

Steyer thanked O'Malley, the long-shot Democratic 2016 contender, for urging the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and spelling out a detailed plan of action to confront Earth's rising temperatures. In doing so, Steyer created a clear contrast between O'Malley and Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner who has yet to take a position on the controversial pipeline and so far has not laid out nearly as detailed a vision for fighting global warming.

"Today, Pope Francis issued a powerful and inspirational encyclical on climate change—and I'm happy to see that many of our leaders are already heeding his call to action," Steyer's statement read.

Citing O'Malley's environmental plan, which calls for rejecting Keystone, Steyer added: "This is exactly the type of leadership on climate change the pope, military and business leaders are calling for—and that we need from our next president."

The politics of Steyer's statement are unmistakable. During the 2014 midterm elections, the environmental billionaire spent more than $69 million in a bid to elect Democrats with a strong record on climate. That was enough money to make Steyer that cycle's most generous public donor.

Steyer seems to be still supporting Hillary at this point, but is waiting for her to commit strongly to environmental issues.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Martin O’Malley rightly s...