Jill Stein on Energy & Oil

Green Party presidential nominee; Former Challenger for MA Governor

Fight against climate change instead of fighting for oil

OBAMA: One of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors. It's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here.

STEIN: Instead of fighting wars for oil, America will be leading the fight to put an end to climate change. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we have spent about $5 trillion. We have seen thousands and thousands of American lives lost, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost, about a trillion dollars a year being spent on a massive, bloated military-industrial-security budget. Instead, we need to cut that military budget, rightsize it to year 2000 levels, and build true security here at home, bringing our war dollars home.

Source: Democracy Now! Expanded Third Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 22, 2012

Weatherizing homes creates jobs & addresses climate change

One of the ways to put people to work very quickly is in an emergency program to weatherize and to insulate our homes, government buildings, schools and businesses. And doing this, we can put people to work, especially low-income and people who may not even have a high school degree. So we can directly create jobs and, at the same time, meet the climate emergency, which also needs really dramatic, prompt solutions.
Source: Democracy Now! Expanded Second Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 16, 2012

We can't wait 4 more years to address climate change

Q: What about the recent debacle in Durban [the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference]?

A: This is another reason why we're running the campaign now--because if you follow the science, we don't have four years to wait. We really have to start tackling this now. It's really important for the climate and it's time that people put their politics where their values and science argue they ought to be. I think Obama supporters are really having a rude awakening right now. The US, as you know, is the largest per capita contributor to climate change and the direction the US pushes goes a long way toward determining what the rest of the world does, and from that perspective, dramatically downscaling carbon emissions goes a long way toward determining the global carbon budget and helps move global policy that way.

Source: Interview with Steve Horn of Truthout.org , Jan 29, 2012

National ban on fracking; natural gas is not clean

Q: Many liberals say natural gas is a "bridge fuel" toward a clean energy future. How do you feel about that?

A: The current science confirms the cynics here. When you do full life-cycle accounting of it, it is not a cleaner fuel, and is very carbon intensive. Add into that all the impacts on water and we do not want to be going there.

Q: Would you support a national ban on fracking?

A: Absolutely. We should not be opening up new lines of carbon right now, like shale gas and shale oil, as well as tar sands oil, and we just cannot go there right now if we do not want to go over the climate cliff. We're looking at 5-6 degrees Celsius increases of warming by the end of century and that's just not survivable. People need to hear the truth about that. Already, the US has been pulled back in their climate understanding by intense propaganda campaign, but even so, they're seeing it right now, with the droughts and the floods and the hurricanes and all that.

Source: Interview with Steve Horn of Truthout.org , Jan 29, 2012

No evidence that carbon sequestration solves climate crisis

Q: Many in the Green Movement support things like cap and trade, & carbon sequestration

A: Our job is to do the right thing in both the climate emergency and not let the public relations campaigns of the various fossil fuel interests confuse our thinking--because they're hyped up. Take, for example, carbon sequestration: there's really no evidence for it whatsoever that it's going to do the job, and it just so happens that it puts billions of dollars into the pockets of coal companies. This is just an exercise in influence peddling.

Q: They're not based on science, is what you're saying?

A: Exactly. They're not based on science or even sound economics, because the economics behind the carbon trade and carbon markets looks to be as problematic as hedge funds.

Q: So, what is the alternative?

A: It's not carbon and not nuclear. It needs to be clean. A lot of it has to do with redirecting our economy to less carbon intensive, relocalized versions of the economy.

Source: Interview with Steve Horn of Truthout.org , Jan 29, 2012

Let states prevent nuclear power plants

Just last week, a federal court told the people of Vermont that they could not prevent a dangerous nuclear power plant from operating in their state. The court did this on the basis of a doctrine known as "field preemption." Basically, the State of Vermont is barred--or "preempted"--from regulating the nuclear power industry because a federal judge says that the industry is the concern of the federal government only. Over the past 30 years, we have seen other reforms "preempted" in the same way.
Source: Green Party 2012 People's State of the Union speech , Jan 25, 2012

World War II-scale mobilization to reduce carbon burden

At the recent UN climate conference in South Africa, the Obama administration worked to delay international agreements on carbon emissions until 2020. This delay will allow critical climate tipping points to be passed that will accelerate warming to the point it cannot be controlled. As renowned NASA scientist James Hanson puts it, delaying action to aggressively lower carbon would mean game over for the climate and therefore for civilization as we know it.

For that reason the Green New Deal will address these problems with a World War II-scale mobilization to transform the way we produce and use energy. We will provide leadership along the way to binding international agreements that will return the carbon burden in our atmosphere to safe levels. We will proceed with utmost urgency, and put the United States 30 years ahead of the global curve. Let the rest of the world catch up with us!

Source: Green Party 2012 People's State of the Union speech , Jan 25, 2012

Renewable energy is win-win for economy & national security

Q: Should America's energy needs be met by renewables or domestic production or both?

A: We're pretty clearly on record here for renewables--this is a win-win, not only for our economy and the environment, but also for national security. This makes expensive wars for oil obsolete - this has a double yield for our economy.

We want to look at public transportation options as well as the means of a sustainable food supply AND the sources of energy. Put those together with physical exercise integrated into our community life and you drastically undercut Homeland Security costs.

For every job that exists in the fossil fuel sector you can create three jobs in the renewable sector. This is a bonanza for job creation as well.

Source: 2011 AmericansElect interview questionnaire with Jill Stein , Dec 21, 2011

Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive

Q: Should the US replace oil & coal with alternatives?

A: Yes, but those alternatives should be renewable clean energy, not nuclear. Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts. The Fukushima [nuclear disaster] is the ongoing example. There is no safe nuclear energy. You can put in in someone else's backyard or even on the other side of the world--but we're all endangered by it. And we don't need it: Renewables are less expensive. Nuclear power would never survive on a free open market. It can only survive with tens of billions $of taxpayer loan guarantees.

Source: 2011 OnTheIssues interview with Jill Stein , Dec 21, 2011

Logging wood for electricity is neither clean nor green

Logging Wood for Electricity Is Neither Clean Nor Green: At first glance biomass energy seems like an attractive option for producing renewable energy in a carbon neutral way. But the realities that emerge with a closer look paint quite a different picture. Wood burning biomass power plants emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of energy output than coal, and comparable amounts of many other air pollutants.

Biomass energy is not carbon neutral. To supply the proposed biomass plants, logging would need to dramatically increase. And this would provide only a tiny fraction of our current energy use, since wood is a low energy-content fuel, and combustion for electricity generation is an inefficient technology. Any logging on a scale sufficient to make a significant dent in our energy problem would be detrimental to forest and soil health, producing soil compaction and soil erosion. This makes it doubtful that logged forests would achieve the 'regrowth' needed for the carbon neutrality claim.

Source: 2010 Gubernatorial Campaign website jillstein.org, "Issues" , Sep 29, 2010

Other candidates on Energy & Oil: Jill Stein on other issues:
Pres.Barack Obama
V.P.Joe Biden
GOP Candidates:
Gov.Mitt Romney(MA)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Rocky Anderson(J)
Roseanne Barr(PF)
Rep.Virgil Goode(C)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L)
Jill Stein(G)
Andre Barnett(Ref.)

GOP Withdrawals:
Rep.Michele Bachmann(MN)
Herman Cain(GA)
Rep.Newt Gingrich(GA)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Rep.Ron Paul(TX)
Gov.Tim Pawlenty(MN)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Gov.Buddy Roemer(LA)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Page last updated: Oct 27, 2012