Hillary Clinton Lays Out Climate Change Plan
By TRIP GABRIEL and CORAL DAVENPORT

DES MOINES — Setting ambitious goals for producing energy from the sun, wind and other renewable sources, Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on an issue Monday that increasingly resonates with Democratic voters and sets up a stark contrast with the Republican presidential field.

With many Republican candidates saying they do not believe that climate change is a threat or requires government intervention, Mrs. Clinton assailed their logic, saying, “The reality of climate change is unforgiving no matter what the deniers say.”

She set a goal to produce 33 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027, up from 7 percent today — a higher goal than the 20 percent that President Obama has called for by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton’s strategists see climate change as a winning issue for 2016. They believe it is a cause she can advance to win over deep-pocketed donors and liberal activists in the nominating campaign, where she is facing Democratic challengers to her left on the issue. It is also one that can be a weapon against Republicans in a general election. Polls show that a majority of voters support candidates who pledge policy action on the warming climate.

Mrs. Clinton called for installing a half-billion solar panels by 2020, a sevenfold increase from today, and to generate enough energy from carbon-free sources within 10 years of her inauguration to power every home in America.

Republicans criticized the proposal as an “energy poverty” agenda that could raise utility bills and lead to blackouts. Policy analysts said it could be tough for Mrs. Clinton to follow through on such ambitious goals.

While Mr. Obama’s climate change goals, driven by regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, would lift the nation’s renewable power to about 20 to 25 percent, according to E.P.A. estimates, the rest of the increase, experts said, will be impossible without new laws requiring renewable power. Congress has failed over the past decade to pass such laws.

The Clinton campaign emphasized that her targets cleared a bar set last week by the billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, who spent $74 million on political races in 2014. He announced that for candidates to receive his support in 2016, they must offer policies that would lead the nation to generate half its electricity from clean sources by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050.

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has made climate change the center of his Democratic presidential campaign, laid out a plan last month that meets the criteria, winning Mr. Steyer’s blessing. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has called for a tax on carbon emissions, draws thunderous applause at rallies by promising bold action to combat climate change.

Although Mrs. Clinton has emphasized fighting global warming as a priority in earlier speeches, the role of a single large donor, Mr. Steyer, in apparently influencing the details of her proposal was suggested by her press secretary, Brian Fallon. On Twitter he said, “Counting nuclear, as Steyer does, she exceeds his 50 percent goal” for 2030.

But Mrs. Clinton showed some limits to how far she would go to address climate change by refusing to say, once again, if she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline — a litmus test for grass-roots environmentalists. The pipeline would deliver oil from the oil sands of northern Alberta in Canada to Texas.

Recusing herself because she had played a role as secretary of state in evaluating the pipeline, Mrs. Clinton said the decision was in the hands of the Obama administration. Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Malley oppose the pipeline.

Just as liberal Democrats have tried to pull Mrs. Clinton to the left on economic issues, environmental groups have sought stronger statements from her opposing hydraulic fracturing, oil trains and drilling in the Arctic.

Anti-Keystone protesters have greeted Mrs. Clinton on the campaign trail in New Hampshire and even outside a May fund-raiser for her at Mr. Steyer’s home in San Francisco overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge.

“Hillary Clinton is just half the way there,” said Bill McKibben, head of the group 350.org, which has led the grass-roots movement calling for Mr. Obama to reject the Keystone pipeline. “This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast. Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Without offering specifics, Mrs. Clinton promised that in coming months she would unwrap additional climate policies, including aid to workers in coal-producing regions who suffer economic harm.

“I am going to set ambitious goals, and I am going to have a real plan that will enable us to meet those goals,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Her campaign put the cost of her clean electricity initiatives at about $60 billion over 10 years, which it said would be offset by ending tax breaks for oil and gas producers.

“We’ll stop the giveaways to big oil companies and extend, instead, tax incentives for clean energy, while making them more cost-effective for both taxpayers and producers,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Experts said there would be more practical challenges.

“It’s an ambitious goal. It will be a big lift to get there,” said Anthony Paul, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonpartisan research organization.

Mr. Paul suggested that in order to meet Mrs. Clinton’s goals, Congress would have to mandate production of renewable power, or to tax greenhouse gas pollution — both proposals that have floundered on Capitol Hill.

Republicans were quick to criticize the proposals. “Hillary Clinton’s energy plan is to raise more taxes and double down on President Obama’s E.P.A. overreach, which held down wages and cost American jobs,” said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, was the architect of Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy, a set of E.P.A. regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants. Mrs. Clinton’s new plan appears explicitly designed to build on that plan.

While running for re-election in the 2012 campaign, Mr. Obama almost never mentioned climate change. But Democratic strategists say they now see it as a resonant campaign issue.

A January poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and Resources for the Future found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change.

“This issue now polls better than any other issue for Democrats,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former top climate change official in the Clinton administration. “It’s in Clinton’s interest to talk about the issue, both for primary voters and to highlight Republican vulnerabilities in the general election.”

希拉蕊提政策 讓美國成「再生能源強權」

在美國民主黨總統提名戰中領先的希拉蕊，27日和否認、懷疑人為造成氣候變遷的共和黨劃清界線，她形容氣候變遷是「我們這時代最緊迫的威脅」，並公布對抗氣候變遷的通盤大計，包括2027年以前讓美國每個家庭都使用來自再生能源的電力。

希拉蕊27日的選戰行程抵達愛阿華州狄蒙市，走訪一處以回收材料建造，並且使用太陽能板和雨水的省能巴士車站，宣布她將影響美國所有家庭的再生能源構想。

希拉蕊說：「我們要把美國變成世界上的再生能源超級強權。」

希拉蕊表示，氣候變遷是美國面臨的最大威脅之一，但也是美國面對的最大機會，「我拒絕坐視這威脅，也拒絕坐失這機會。」

她說：「我拒絕讓那些否認派，那些不同意我們必須有所作為的人奪走我們已有的進展，害我們的國家暴露於最嚴重的氣候變遷後果之下。」

「美國必須領導這一仗，而不是臨陣脫逃。」

希拉蕊公布兩項再生能源計畫：

1、「在第一個任期結束前，總共必須在全美國安裝超過五億個太陽能板。」

2、「第二，我們要設定十年目標，產生足夠供應美國每一個家庭的再生能源電力。」

也就是說，她計畫在2020年以前達到140京瓦的太陽能發電量，或者目前已安裝太陽能板數目的700%。

同時，依照希拉蕊的計畫，再生能源要在2027年負責美國三分之一電力，加上其他投資，美國「將在2050年以前步上深層去碳之路」。

希拉蕊表示：「我知道這些目標將會考驗我們的能耐，但我也知道我們做得到。」

氣候變遷在美國政壇已變成黨同伐異的議題，目前角逐共和黨總統提名的共和黨頭面人物有的否認氣候變遷，有的懷疑或否認氣候變遷出於人為，他們因此大多主張生產更多化石燃料，反對斥資推動再生能源，因此也反對歐巴馬政府公布的幾乎所有反污染標準。

根據美國能源資訊局資料，2014年，美國67%電力來自化石燃料（主要是煤），約13%來自再生，包括只有0.4%來自太陽能。其餘將近20%來自核能廠。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html

2015-07-28．聯合晚報．A6．國際焦點．編譯彭淮棟