Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy

[SmootSmack]

Continuing our series of discussing the issues this election year and trying to be smarter than just calling candidates "phony hypocrites" this thread's focus is on Energy.

Below are some highlights of each candidate's stance on energy. Vote and discuss

Candidate #1

-Cap and trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.

-Reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 through measures including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

- A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by removing $50 billion in tax subsidies from the gas an oil industry, to fund investments in alternative energy

- Renewable energy sources generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025; 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030.

- An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards

- A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements

- E-8 forum modeled on G-8

Candidate #2

- Market-based, cap and trade system to achieve appropriate limits on greenhouse gas emissions as efficiently and effectively as possible.

- Cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent off 2004 levels (I don’t know what the 1990 level is) by 2050.

- Supports the construction of new nuclear power plants, and create economic incentives for communities that host nuclear waste repositories.

- Supports research and development of new energy technologies, including coal gasification and carbon capture

- Supports development of plug-in and battery-powered electric, hybrid fuel-electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

- Supports the use of alternative fuels, like ethanol from various crop sources, and biodiesel from wastes. Does not support direct subsidies, but supports government spending on research and development, pilot projects and other initiatives to spur development of products that then can compete in the free market.

Candidate #3

- Cap and trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

- Some revenue generated will be used to support the development of clean energy, invest in energy efficiency improvements, and help workers affected by the transition

- Develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

- Invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy; accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.

- Double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

- Invest $10 billion per year into Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund, fund will partner with existing investment funds to commercialize promising technologies

- Require that 25 percent of electricity is through renewable sources (solar, wind) by 2025

- Create competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.

[saden1]

LOL, off the top of my head I know who candidate 1, 2 and 3 are. I like candidate 1 because their plan is more aggressive (relatively). I also like the fact that candidate 2 wants to commit 150 billion for 10 years.

What I really don't see in any of these plans is the creation of DARPA or NASA like agencies tasked with making us energy independent which is what we really need if we are serious.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL, off the top of my head I know who candidate 1, 2 and 3 are. I like candidate 1 because their plan is more aggressive (relatively). I also like the fact that candidate 2 wants to commit $150 for 10 years.

What I really don't see in any of these plans is the creation of DARPA or NASA like agencies tasked with making us energy independent which is what we really need if we are serious.

Candidate #1 advocates the creation of a DARPA like agency

[SmootSmack]

I sort of thought this thread might generate some discussion. A bit surprised it hasn't really to this point.

Maybe I needed to give it a more provocative title

[FRPLG]

We've had like nine posts today. Slowest day I can remember in a long time.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I sort of thought this thread might generate some discussion. A bit surprised it hasn't really to this point.

Maybe I needed to give it a more provocative title

It requires thinking which goes against the grain of the typical read and (over)react message board mentality.

[12thMan]

The problem is, you didn't attach a name beside each candidate's name so people can bash them.

[12thMan]

Honestely, unless you're familiar with Energy policy, in fine detail, you really can't argue much with either of the three plans.

The key, I think, is which candidate can gather a working coalition to push these initiatives through and produce tangible results. My bet is, whomever is the Dem. nominee will bring on Al Gore and he'll play a significant role in helping shape some of the fine details of this policy. Also, you would have to figure since there's bad blood between Bill Richardson and the Clintons now, I'm not sure how willing he is to work with them on engergy related issues. Just my two cents.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The problem is, you didn't attach a name beside each candidate's name so people can bash them.

good point. when i first started reading, i thought it would be simple to figure out who is who. right now im not so sure. i like #1, taking the oil companies tax breaks, and turning them into something useful. but, if whomever wins can implement anything close to all 3 of these plans, it will be tons better then the direction the United States is headed right now

[12thMan]

The interesting thing with policy is that you can't create it in a vacuum. You can splash all of these "selling points" on your web site all day long, but there are a lot of moving parts which affect how well you're able to immplement something more meaningful.

For instance, candidate #3, plans to invest $200 Bil in clean energy. Now that sounds noble. Two hundred billion dollars! But a portion of those funds will hopefully be generated in revenue from the private sector. That's going to require a lot of working together, negotiating, and compromising. Essentially, he or she will be taking incentives from big Oil and coal companies to pull this off.

[saden1]

Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.

Now, now, now..Saden. We can't go bashing the candidates around here

Actually, candidate 1 and 3 are pretty similiar.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

Candidate 2's plan is total horse crap and I am puzzled as to why so many in here prefer it. I simply don't see how we can become energy independent with that joke of a plan. All candidate 2 plans to do is keep the status quo.

Because it doesn't involve spending massive amounts of tax dollars or placing unfair financial burdens on the energy industry (25% of all power from renewable sources???).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Because it doesn't involve spending massive amounts of tax dollars or placing unfair financial burdens on the energy industry (25% of all power from renewable sources???).

Energy independence is a lofty goal and we need to think big! If you don't make a large investment and make serious commitment nothing will change (money back guaranteed). Oil and Energy companies will simply keep doing what they are doing which obviously isn't working. I mean, these guys have no real vested interest in doing anything because every three months they have to do a conference call and answer to their investors to tell them what they have made for them not what they have spent on behalf of the nation. I think the government needs to lead the way and candidate 2's plan has no serious provisions in his plan in that regard. It's insulting.

[Monkeydad]

#1 and #3 are very similar, which may tell us who they belong to.

The one point I see missing from all three plans however is oil independence. We DO have massive resources of our own to tap into: ANWR, Utah/Colorado, Wyoming, offshore of Florida and California...enough to last us decades if we'd use only our own reserves. Updating refineries and building new ones of long overdue but impossible thanks to environmental and bureaucratic restrictions.

We do need to research alternatives, but in the meantime we have our own oil that we can use much cheaper without any foreign political strings attached. Of course, it will take us about 10 years before we have any actual fuel from these reserves, but that is all the more reason to begin drilling for it NOW.