Just like healthcare, it's difficult to figure out exactly where Obama/McCain stand.
This piece from The Salt Lake City Tribune attempts to break it down.
Tidbits:
Their differences lie essentially in emphasis, with Obama trying to convince voters that renewable, cleaner energy deserves as much if not more attention as conventional carbon-based choices.
"Obviously, our top priority should be to replace our reliance on fossil fuels," he told the Greeley (Colo.) Tribune.
The Illinois senator's voting record has been solidly behind this approach. He wants 25 percent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. He wants to improve energy efficiency by 50 percent by 2030. And he wants to end business as usual with oil companies.
In June 2007, Obama voted to remove oil- and gas-exploration subsidies. The same month, he voted to make oil-producing and -exporting cartels illegal. He also backs windfall profit taxes on petroleum companies.
McCain, too, vows to push alternative energy, though his record is less clear.
His campaign Web site depicts wind turbines, but the policy statements are mostly about helping the nuclear industry build 45 new reactors; McCain sees nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.
The Arizona senator has voted against 20 solar or renewable-energy incentive bills. He advocates a market approach and wants renewable energy to go head to head with the wealthy carbon industry.
"We need to unleash the competitive forces of the free market to encourage clean alternatives - wind, solar, tide, nuclear and clean coal," McCain said in June.
But it wasn't until the renewable-energy tax credits were tacked on to the Oct. 1
financial-bailout bill that McCain finally voted in favor of renewables, as did Obama. The bill includes a one-year production tax credit for wind energy, with an eight-year extension for investment tax credits for solar projects.
The market responded immediately to the provisions, with share prices of solar-energy companies shooting up 10 percent. That looked like vindication for Obama's position that the government should have a role in promoting renewable energy.
In 2003 and 2005, McCain voted against offshore drilling and against Bush energy bills. Obama backed the Bush 2005 Energy Policy Act, which included a directive to develop oil shale and tar sands. Obama said his yes vote hinged on the renewable-energy provisions in the bill. McCain said the bill was corporate welfare for "Big Oil giveaways."
For years, McCain massaged his maverick image by opposing tax cuts for oil companies. This year, he accepted millions of campaign dollars from Bush-backing energy interests, according to the Center for American Progress.
While McCain has pocketed more money from oil companies, Obama has received more contributions from Big Oil employees. An August report from OpenSecrets.org shows McCain has scooped up $1.3 million in oil-related contributions to Obama's $394,000.
That could be fallout from Obama's push for greater fuel economy in vehicles. Four years ago, Obama said he wanted automakers to increase standard fuel economy to 40 miles per gallon and would require ethanol in the fuel supply. In 2006, he sponsored legislation raising the standard fuel economy 4 percent a year until 2018. In June, he advocated $150 billion to focus on clean-coal technology, further development of plug-in hybrid cars, commercialization of wind and solar power and other measures.
In February, Obama sponsored a successful bill that gives a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol pumps at gas stations.
McCain has shifted his ethanol position at least twice. In 2003, he declared ethanol wouldn't boost energy independence. During an Iowa campaign appearance in 2006, he called ethanol "a vital alternative energy source." This year, he reverted to anti-ethanol.
The Democratic and Republican nominees do sometimes agree.
Neither wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Both want to curb industrial emissions. Both want to auction pollution rights in a cap-and-trade system. Both would further investigate "clean-coal" technologies.
Neither has taken a position on oil shale, a crucial question for Utahns, though both voted to end the shale-exploration moratorium when they answered "aye" to the $700 billion financial-bailout bill.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment