In a previous column, several readers took me to task over my assertion that Senator McCain seemed to have put forward a more sensible, comprehensive set of proposals for both U.S. energy policy and the economy. (These days the two are linked to the point of being inseparable.) Today I would like to take a more comprehensive look at the stated positions, voting records and campaign trail statements of the two primary candidates on some of the key energy initiatives. Both are making admirable calls for advancements in alternative and renewable energy sources, which will be key to our long term strategy as we move away from a fossil fuel based system, but the specifics differ, as do their proposed short and medium term solutions.
First let’s examine their position on biofuels, specifically ethanol. Obama has been a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of corn and grain based ethanol programs. However, more and more research has indicated that this approach presents a number of problems. The large amounts of produce going into this project may be contributing to food shortage concerns, and the process itself is far from sound in terms of environmental issues. (We use up to 2,000 gallons of fresh water to produce a single gallon of ethanol and the waste products are considerable.) Ethanol is also a less efficient fuel than oil, containing only 75% of the energy by volume to an equivalent amount of oil based fuel. McCain is proposing a roll-back of the subsidies for this program, shifting the funding into alternative green sources to produce this type of fuel.
On the issue of nuclear power, while there is still significant, residual opposition to it in this country, the fact is that nuclear fission technology is safer than it was in the past and new technological advancements have greatly reduced the amount of waste byproducts. Storage is still a significant, valid question, but we already have plans in place which seem viable. Meanwhile, other countries in Europe are generating a majority of their electricity using this technology (which we developed) while the United States has not begun construction on a new nuclear plant in more than thirty years. Barack Obama’s position on this has been fuzzy at times, but he has come out against nuclear power on several occasions. McCain is not only calling for the construction of at least 45 new plants by 2030, (100 plants eventually) but working on plans to reduce the political and regulatory gridlock preventing such development.
On wind, solar and geothermal, contrary to charges made by Obama’s campaign, McCain has not argued against these forms of energy, and has called for their continued research, development and deployment. But McCain also realizes that we do not yet have the technology and infrastructure in these areas to meet expected needs. Both candidates want to continue development of these technologies, but Obama’s plan to mandate 25% of the country’s electricity coming from these sources by 2030 is simply not realistic in the opinion of most experts. (See the previous link on that.)
To fill that gap until such technology can fully meet our needs, we will need other domestic energy sources. While you are free to oppose the idea, we may still have no choice but to rely on domestic oil and clean coal sources in the medium term. McCain is calling for lifting the bans on domestic drilling and Obama opposes such a move. I am very puzzled by people saying that “we won’t produce any oil for seven years” with new domestic drilling, and using that for a reason not to do it. If it takes seven years and you never start, you will never get any more oil.
How have the candidates voted on energy in the past? One of the key items on the agenda was the 2005 energy bill, developed primarily by Vice President Cheney. At the time it was noted that the bill contained billions of dollars in giveaways for oil companies while doing little or nothing to support the exploration of alternative energy sources or efforts to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. The bill was backed by President Bush, but oddly enough, John McCain voted against the bill and Obama voted for it. (And yet, Obama is running ads accusing John McCain of voting with President Bush to give big tax breaks to oil companies, which is certainly an odd charge in light of this voting record.) Obama also supported the recent farm bill which was packed with subsidies for large agri-business interests (as opposed to small farmers) and propping up the ethanol push again, while McCain opposed it. This voting pattern, in my opinion, not only speaks to McCain’s commitment to fiscal discipline, but makes him arguably the “greener” and more environmentally friendly of the two candidates in terms of energy policy.
Taking all of these factors into consideration, I still find McCain to have the more comprehensive and viable energy proposals, which will be a key consideration for many voters this fall. And this plan also seems to be the most environmentally friendly. Obama is to be given full credit for calling on Americans to drastically reduce energy demand, but he does not seem to do much to increase supply. Of the two plans, I still have to give the tip of the hat to McCain’s Lexington Project.