A Friend Indeed

Friends of the Earth Action endorses Obama; candidates spar over "gas tax holiday"

Posted at 2:54 PM on 03 May 2008

Green group Friends of the Earth Action endorsed Barack Obama for president on Saturday, citing his principled stand against a temporary suspension of the gasoline tax. "The 'gas tax holiday' debate is a defining moment in the presidential race," said Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder. "The two other candidates responded with sham solutions that won't ease pain at the pump, but Sen. Obama refused to play that typical Washington game. Instead, Obama called for real solutions that would make transportation more affordable and curb global warming."

Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to spar over the issue. Clinton is trying to paint Obama as out of touch with the economic woes of ordinary Americans; she told an audience in Indiana that Obama is "attacking my plan to try to get you some kind of break this summer." Obama is defending his position in a TV ad and in campaign speeches. Of Clinton's support for the gas-tax holiday, he said, "This is what passes for leadership in Washington -- phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems."

Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress are preparing to release a plan to counter rising gas prices, but it's unlikely to include a gas-tax holiday, Grist's Kate Sheppard reports. A Republican plan unveiled last week also omits a tax holiday; it does include a plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

sources: Friends of the Earth Action press release, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (10 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Fighting climate change, one revolution at a time

I've been taking a gas tax holiday all year. If you don't like the tax (or the pollution or the extinction or the wars) , don't buy the product.

I live in a small city (130,000) with no mass transit and a very hostile attitude towards cyclists/pedestrians. If my family can give up our fossil-fool powered wheelchair, I would imagine most able-bodied folks could reduce their driving by at least the percentage that gasoline costs have risen. Let's stop whining and start living the future.

by human power at 10:27 PM on 03 May 2008

Obama Wrong On Other Major Issues

Right on Human Power, people like you are leaders. Instead of making lame excuses for why you "can't" stop destroying the Earth, you just stopped. While it's harder to travel the long distances required in modern industrial society without a private motor vehicle, you show that it can be done. Furthermore, no one is forced to live anywhere or to have any particular lifestyle, so people should organize their lives in order to be near work, shopping, and school.

Re Barak Obama, he's on the right side on the gas tax holiday issue, seemingly for the wrong reasons, he supports coal and nuclear power and is a big supporter of the military industrial complex and U.S. imperialism, albeit a softer version of the latter. He's less offensive than Clinton or McCain, but he's not worthy of support of any real environmentalists or progressives.

by Wolverine at 10:25 AM on 04 May 2008

Yeah, I'm not so sure...

...that as an organization devoted to multiple eco-issues, they should endorse a presidental hopeful just over his stance on the issue of a gas tax holiday.

'Specially when most analysts agree that it won't pass even if all the candidates endorsed it.

by Tasermons Partner at 11:35 AM on 04 May 2008

Do you have a link that supports this endorsement?

you do not include one in the story.

Surely any non profit cannot endorse pres candidates or they lose their nonprofit status, in any case.

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

by dotcommodity at 1:03 PM on 04 May 2008

About FoE Action's endorsement

I added a link above to the Friends of the Earth Action press release about the endorsement.

FoE Action didn't endorse Obama solely because of the "gas tax holiday" issue. In their press release, they cite "Obama's strong pro-environment record, his policy proposals, the profile he has given global warming in his campaign, and the broad mandate he is building for change as other reasons for the endorsement. Obama earned a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters during his first two years in the Senate." But the gas-tax issue is really the only big environmental policy difference to emerge between Obama and Clinton, so it looks like that's what ultimately pushed them in his favor.

Note that the main group Friends of the Earth didn't endorse Obama; it was the group's "political arm," Friends of the Earth Action, which has a different tax status.

by Lisa Hymas at 8:24 PM on 04 May 2008

Shows What That's Worth

"Obama earned a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters during his first two years in the Senate."

If a Senator who supports the coal and nuclear industries can earn a 96% rating, that means that the LCV rating is to be used only for a floor, not a ceiling. In other words, anyone who doesn't have a high rating is a major anti-environmentalist, but a high rating is no guarantee of being a good environmentalist. Keep in mind that LCV is a very conservative environmental group, well to the right of Sierra Club.

by Wolverine at 9:41 PM on 04 May 2008

Hillary got 'bout the same...

...both recieved high scores. Hillary got above 90% lifetime score as well.

by Tasermons Partner at 10:38 PM on 04 May 2008

FOE Action

This kind of endorsement signals a change in how non-profits have become players in the presidential elections. See this SF Sentinel article for a decent discussion:

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7742

by guade00 at 7:47 AM on 05 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Re Wolverine

It is true that from a green perspective, Senator Obama is not perfect. For example, like Senator Clinton, he is open to nuclear power -- if cost, safety and storage issues can be resolved. (Of course, this is far better than Senator McCain's position. McCain has called for building 700+ more nuclear plants! Check out Joe Romm's report on this here: http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-70 ...)

Given that no candidate will ever be perfect, we're faced with the question of which candidate, on balance, is likely to be the best when it comes to environmental issues. When added to Obama's already strong (though admittedly not perfect) environmental record and policy proposals, his courage in this gas tax debate demonstrates that he's the best candidate in the race. This is the highest-profile environmental and energy debate of the campaign, and Obama is the only one taking the right position. That's telling, and it's earned him Friend of the Earth Action's endorsement.

by Nick Berning at 11:24 AM on 05 May 2008

Not Looking For Perfect, Just Good

Support of the nuclear and coal industries is not a minor issue to any environmentalist, including me. Instead of just parroting Obama's voting record, which only reflects his "yes" or "no" position on specific legislation before him, give us some examples of his "strong ... environmental record." I'm not aware of any.

Has he supported greatly increasing the size and number of wilderness areas and increasing their protection against all human disturbances? Has he supported removing cattle from public lands in the West due to the immense ecological damage they've caused and are still causing, or in order to save the Yellowstone bison from being killed at the behest of ranchers? Has he supported prohibitions on logging in the West in order to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats? Has he supported a ban on longline and commercial gillnet fishing in order to protect our oceans? Has he supported moving people from cars to other, less harmful modes of transportation? Has he supported lowering the birth rate in order to reduce human population to an ecologically harmless level? Has he supported lowering consumption of non-necessary goods in order to lessen the harms done by their consumption?

This list is both long and incomplete. Its point is that these are positions that a "good" environmentalist candidate would take. I don't see Obama or any major candidate taking them. What you're talking about is supporting a lesser of evils, something I never do and which has been toxic to the political process in the U.S., because it has been part of the cause of the major shift away from environmental concerns and to the right. Not only is Obama not perfect, he's not even good.

by Wolverine at 1:44 PM on 05 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?