Mike Gravel For President In 2008

Subscribe History Edit View

Environmental issues (more specifically, climate change) have a real presence in the upcoming presidential election. According to a survey conducted by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute, 93.1% of respondents said they would be more likely to support a candidate whose platform includes a plan to improve the environment. But where do each of the candidates stand? Because, let's face it...some will be champions for the environment. And others will not be.

Mike Gravel (D)

Summary: Believes US must work with other nations to reduce emissions. Believes this is the only way to effectively address climate change.

The Candidate Says: "Global climate change must be made an issue of national security. We must act swiftly to reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions. By putting a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions we will improve energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources. This is critical. Both of these pathways provide lasting benefits from the economic and environmental perspectives...However, any legislation will have little impact on the global environment if we do not work together with other global polluters. Fighting global warming can only be effective if it is a collective global effort." (Mike Gravel for President, 27 April 2007)

If Elected, The Candidate Would...:

Cap greenhouse gas emissions (however, he does not specify a particular target)
Work with other global polluters, namely China and India, to fight global warming
Launch scientific effort to end energy dependence on oil and integrate the world's scientific community in this task

In The Past:

Did not vote on a windfall profits tax on the oil industry in 1980
Did not vote on the Synthetic Fuels/Defense Production Act of 1980, which would have encouraged development of synthetic fuels and solar energy
Voted yes on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973, which allowed construction of a pipeline to transport oil 789 miles across Alaska (environmental groups avidly fought the pipeline). Later introduced an amendment to bar additional court review of environmental questions of the pipeline (the amendment passed).

Current Status: