Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them In his most recent post on the potential for wind energy to become a dominant player in the emerging clean energy market, Joe Romm wrote:
Clean energy shouldn't be a partisan issue. But it is. And that means those who who want this country to be a leader in clean energy -- those who want to avoid catastrophic global warming and avoid the worst of peak oil -- need to start becoming single issue voters.
Indeed, in the upcoming presidential election we face some of the most difficult challenges in our country's recent history—a failing economy, a lack of proper health care, immigration reform, the course of the war in Iraq—but the issue that will inevitably have the farthest reaching impact (whether most voters realize it or not) is how we will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to alternative energy—immediately.
If we have failed to provide ourselves the possibility of a gradual, long-term transition plan, it is because clean energy did not play a large enough role four, eight, or even twenty years ago, when the changes we are only now beginning to make should have been a major focus of elections. And now the future of US energy rests in the hands of Barack Obama or John McCain, and the advisers who will help shape their policies.
So, how exactly do the two candidates differ in their approach to clean energy? Are either of them committed to the issue? Have they proposed specific steps to move forward with transition or are they all talk? And of course...whose energy policy is better?
Environment
Comments
That's easy enough. Look at what the Republicans have done to us the last eight years!
Let's rely on evidence, not campaign promises. And remember that a president must work with his political party. Even if McCain were superb on this issue (he's not), he's got to keep the rest of the GOP happy.
Posted by: WCG | September 3, 2008 9:01 AM
I think the biggest difference (beside both ignoring T Boone Pickens) is their reliance on markets. Obama wants to preserve subsidies for a while, to make the unit price of most solutions go down, so more people will invest in alternative sources. McCain doesn't - still clinging to the old supply side interpretation of economic focing that should have dies when Reagan left office.
Posted by: Philip H. | September 3, 2008 9:44 AM
I think Philip's comment mischaracterizes McCain, in the same way McCain himself does. McCain is not against subsidies -- oil and coal are massively subsidized, more than anybody can really comprehend -- he just doesn't want to change the subsidy structure to favor them less.
Every penny spent on Iraq is part of that oil subsidy. Had those pennies been spent on alternative energy, Iraq and Iran would be about as interesting as Albania.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | September 4, 2008 1:35 AM
Senator Obama has responded to the Science Debate 2008's 14 questions, many of which are relevant to energy policy:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40
Posted by: Richard Hendricks | September 4, 2008 12:39 PM
In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion
about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking
Barack, what if the development of alternate energy
sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach
to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go
for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between
our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken
us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't
gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes
into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if
it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national
security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy
infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations,
the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take
to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative
fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to
transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely
new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and
goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to
secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale,
while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and
Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way
of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency,
like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad
cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be
playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling
with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences
which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are
extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who
does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as
President of the United States.
Posted by: Howard | September 13, 2008 4:42 PM