Monday, November 3, 2008

Presidential candidates on energy

Here is a quick synopsis of the two candidates energy positions:

Environmental News Network article


p.s. My wife and I waited in line for 4 hours to vote on Saturday.


Antonio Joyette said...

This is pretty informative piece of journalism. Both candidates have some pluses and minuses. However, we all know it comes down to the reality when the economics hit. Its all well and good to say what Candidates support. But the reality of politics is such that implementing economic reforms take very long. Many of us will not be around to see them implemented.

The economics of politics is put simply, the candidate with the most money, has the tendency to win votes. That has externalities associated with it. The main ones being it gives the wrong impression of the candidates economic status and determines the outcome (sometimes at shady costs).

My position is that I support one of them for president! I support the senator! Yes, that one!

EASON said...

Additional subsidies on alternative energy only will distort the market and taxing oil companies will be paid by the consumers. In my opinion Nuclear energy is the best solution to clean energy. But this in no way addresses the petroleum supply our transportation feeds upon. McCain’s complete independence of oil sounds lofty, but Obama's 35% decrease could be possible (HOW?). A 40 mpg CAFE-impossible. Investing billions in biomass technology now will eventually be a sunk cost. Drill baby Drill. We should keep some reserves in-situ for the apocalypse though.

Drew Moxon said...

To focus more on the part about consumers paying the windfall profit tax to oil companies, there's another effect of that tax: the wage-earner takes the hit. I've seen multiple studies that suggest that 80-90% of corporate taxes are taken out of employee wages. I must ask, how is lowering the wages of the employees from a large industry in our country going to help our economy as a whole?

Brad Coffey said...

I think the upgrading of the national grid is a good idea. Granted, that will cost a ton. If consumers were more aware of what things caused their power bill to increase heavily, I think they might be more inclined to eliminate things like phone chargers plugged in without the phone on the other end of it.

I can't remember which country did/does this: (maybe someone can help me out I read about it about a year ago) They would broadcast the use of the country on a meter on television for a certain period of time and ask all viewers to disconnect certain household items they weren't using. The meter would show a phenomenal amount of power consumption to drop off. Something like that would be a bit difficult in a nation our size, but thinking of a way to display power usage on a consumer level might provide some serious incentive.

joe romeo said...

I am definetly more partial towards Obama's plans for energy issues, even though some of them may be a long shot(reducing oil consumption). I agree with his ideas on the windfall profits tax, the need for better ways to dispose of nuclear waste, and doubling R+D for alternative enery sources. McCains plans just don't seem radical enough to spark the kind of major change needed in this country.