Ashley Judd and Valerie Biden speak at UNC

I had the opportunity yesterday to hear Joe Biden's sister, Valerie Biden, and actress Ashley Judd speak on behalf of the Obama campaign, in an effort to mobilize early voters.  Ashley Judd briefly covered some of Obama's programs and made a quick mention of his energy plan.  She then spoke about her personal passion for the issue of energy in America, and unrelated to the Obama campaign, she discussed a book called The The Green Collar Economy by Van Jones.  It sounds like a very interesting read, the main point is that both our economic and energy problems can be addressed if we invest in alternative energy.  It was pretty exciting to hear both of them speak - and early voting had a steady stream of voters.  

My readers have spoken on the issue of leaf blowers

I asked my readers to give me their thoughts on the use of leaf blowers.  Out of the five responses I received, 2 were in favor of eliminating them altogether, and 3 voted in favor of using them in moderation.  If you include my vote for elimination, we have a TIE.

I'm usually all for moderation, but if you consider that leaf blowers are part of the bigger picture of our total gasoline consumption, and then you see how difficult it is to make gas cuts in other areas of our lives, then the elimination of leaf blowers seems like a good place to start.  I think most people would find it easier to cut out leaf blowing than to try to take a bus or ride a bike to work.  And I can't say that the gasoline saved would be equivalent, because obviously leaf blowers use less gas than cars.  This also seems like one of those issues where those worried about our dependency on foreign oil and those concerned about the environment can actually agree.

I think any efforts at conservation are going to be uncomfortable, but this one doesn't seem incredibly painful.  Leaf blowers gained widespread popularity in the 70's.  Interestingly, it seems that Los Angeles was one of the first areas to encourage the use of leaf blowers because businesses and homeowners were using hoses to spray leaves off sidewalks and driveways, and at that time California was experiencing a drought, so leaf blowers were thought to be a way to save water.  Now California is leading the way in banning leaf blowers, and many states are considering bans as well.  One of the difficulties California is facing is actually enforcing the ban. 

Thanks to my readers who commented on this issue.  I appreciate the feedback!  

Empower yourself - get informed about energy!

I've put together an extended reading list to help you get informed about energy.  If you have anything to add to the list, please feel free to do so by clicking on "comments" at the end of the post.

A great place to start is the Energy Information Administration website, which provides the Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government.  The website provides all the statistics you can imagine with regard to our current energy usage, as well as forecasts for the future.  This is where I started my research for this blog. 

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

I'm sure most of my readers are already well versed on the McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden energy plans, but in case you need a refresher:

JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

If you want to get a better understanding of the some of the different energy sources and how they work:

Sources of information regarding the different types of renewable energy:

EERE Consumer's Guide: Renewable Energy

An in-depth look at nuclear energy:

CQ Researcher Online - Entire Report

MIT Technology Review for clean coal technology:

Technology Review: Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology

Obviously, one of the biggest challenges we face with regard to energy is how to reduce the amount of gasoline we use, and of course we use most of it in our cars for transportation.  Many new vehicles are being designed to use less gasoline, but not all of them are created equal when it comes to their ultimate impact on the environment.  In order to get a better understanding of the different types of vehicles, how they work, and what stage of development they are in, please visit:

Technology | Hybrid Cars

Some interesting articles covering the latest news in energy:

Coal vs. wind: Energy fight rages -- baltimoresun.com

Energy 'independence' is easier said than done | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Major Potential Changes Seen in U.S. Energy Policy after 2008 Election - MarketWatch

Climate Policy Prospects Follow Markets South - Council on Foreign Relations

If you want to check out what a few non-governmental groups are doing to address our energy issues:

NRDC: Oil & Energy

Gen-We.org Video

PickensPlan: The Plan

Check out this inspiring video!

I made a point in one of my earlier posts about individuals organizing to take the matter of alternative energy into their own hands, and came across this website called gen-we.org that seems to be attempting to do just that.   I found the video to be very inspiring.  I did some research to make sure I wasn't posting a video about alternative energy that was actually  sponsored by one of the oil companies, but it all checked out to be legitimate.  The website is based on a book called Generation We, by Eric Greenberg and Karl Weber.  Do you think civic groups have the potential to impact the future of alternative energy? Let me know if you were inspired!

The Hydrogen Hype

It is clear that one of the highest priorities we face with regard to energy and the environment is how to stop using so much gasoline.  Most of us are pretty familiar with the concept of hybrid cars, and we also believe hybrid vehicles will help us break our addiction to oil.  What I'm just beginning to understand is that the hybrid vehicle can come in many different forms.  The type that initially comes to mind, and also the only type that is being significantly used in the United States at this time, runs on a combination of electricity (in the form of a battery), and gasoline.  The term "plug-in hybrid" refers to technology that is still in development.  The plug-ins will rely mostly on electricity and less on gasoline.  And finally, fully electric cars will not use gasoline at all, thus they will not produce any emissions from the tailpipe.  Keep in mind that even though all of these cars do reduce the amount of gasoline being used, they all use ELECTRICITY.  Electricity in the United States comes mostly from coal and natural gas, which result in emissions of their own.

Hydrogen cars initially sound like a dream come true, mostly because hydrogen is so abundant, and because once hydrogen fuel is produced, they produce no harmful emissions at the tailpipe.  The problem is, making hydrogen fuel requires electricity.  And in this case, the electricity does not go straight to the vehicle, it is used up front in a process known as water electrolysis, which separates hydrogen from oxygen.  Hydrogen is known as an energy carrier as opposed to an energy source.  And because it is a middle-man in the equation, essentially carrying the energy it received from the electricity, it is actually less efficient than just putting the electricity directly into a car in the first place.  Unfortunately, some energy is lost each time one form of energy is converted to another.  Hydrogen cars are also very costly, which may prove to be another major challenge.  Current estimates place the retail price at more than $200,000.  Honda has about 200 hydrogen vehicles currently in use through an experimental leasing program in California.  Hydrogen vehicles also face challenges with regard to the need for infrastructure for refueling.

As you can see the issue is quite complex.  The above options only really achieve "green" status if the electricity they use comes from renewable sources such as wind, solar, or water.  There are also a number of other vehicles in different stages of development that can run on natural gas, ethanol, and even biofuel made from corn.  They all have challenges of their own.  What is clear is that there are many different paths we can go down as we move away from gasoline powered vehicles.  

What does the future hold if both sides don't come together?

The simple answer is: more of the same.  If we do not have a comprehensive energy plan that addresses the environment as well as the economic issues surrounding energy, it is the environment that stands to lose the most.  The government will always find a way to deal with the economic issues, and they will probably always be considered a higher priority.  It is all too easy to ignore the environment, as it doesn't hit Americans where it hurts.  

If lobbyists remain influential in government energy policy, we are likely to see an increase in oil drilling, expanded natural gas exploration and usage, as well as coal, which all have negative consequences for the environment in the form of harmful emissions.  The technology already exists for these energy sources, so when there isn't enough money to go around to invest in new technology, it's easier to use what we already have.  In order to have alternative sources of energy such as wind play a big role, there is capital needed up front to get the program off the ground.  Oil, natural gas, and coal also fit very nicely with the goal of achieving independence from foreign sources of oil.   

The United States will still have to deal with the international community as it relates to global warming, so the environment cannot be completely ignored when it comes to energy policy.  

I also believe the environmental movement here in the United States will continue to exert pressure on the government, although they are at a disadvantage in terms of money they have at their disposal and cannot come close to matching the oil companies.  

There is the potential for the environmental movement, private investors, and interested consumers to come together and take alternative energy into their own hands.  T. Boone Pickens' plan is evidence that any major change in energy usage in the United States might indeed be up to the private sector instead of the government.  It is also possible that State Government will play a bigger role in energy policy.  Ten states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have chosen to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is essentially a cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  The states worked closely with a very influential environmental group, the National Resources Defense Council to implement a cap and trade program.  The environmental movement and State Governments were able to succeed where the Federal Government has not.  I take this as a good sign that the push for environmentally responsible energy programs will continue to progress with or without the Federal Government's assistance.

T. Boone Pickens, He's Our Man. If He Can't Do It...

It may be time for us all to familiarize ourselves with T. Boone Pickens' Energy Plan.  I bring this up, because with every passing day, it seems more and more likely that the government either won't have the money to invest in alternative energy, or will choose not to invest in alternative energy because it isn't top priority.  At a rally in Belton, MO yesterday, McCain contradicted himself  by saying that he would freeze government spending on all programs except defense, veterans care, Social Security, and health care, but later in the very same speech he said that if he is elected, the government will invest in all energy alternatives including nuclear, wind, solar, tide, and clean coal.  Of course he also emphasized that new oil drilling will begin immediately if he is elected president.  Obama has not specifically said that he will cut some of the money he proposed to spend on his energy plan, but he has been hedging, saying that he may need to delay some programs.  The dropping oil and gasoline prices also tend to lower the priority of alternative energy in the minds of some.

All this leads me to the point about T. Boone Pickens.  If indeed the government is not going to invest in alternative energy, then private investors may be the only way to go.  If you're not familiar with the Pickens Plan, it essentially includes two parts.  Part A includes a substantial investment in wind energy and the infrastructure required to harness the energy and get it to the electrical power grids.  Part B, and where his plan gets a little tricky, involves "freeing up" the natural gas currently used to power the electrical grid, made possible because in theory, the wind power will replace the natural gas power on the grid, and then using that natural gas in hybrid vehicles.  Most are in favor of the investment in wind energy.  Most are against the plan to use natural gas to power vehicles, for all the usual reasons.  Environmentally, it's not much better than gasoline.  

There are so many different ways the future of our energy may be headed.  The fact is that hybrid cars will be partially powered by electricity, but unless we have a fully electric car, they will still be dependent on some sort of fuel.  Will it be gasoline, natural gas, or ethanol, or some other biofuel?  T. Boone Pickens has a plan and he has money to back it.  If it goes his way, then natural gas is the answer.

**** UPDATE ****

It seems as if Mr. Pickens may have hit a bit of a roadblock, which may be related to tough economic times and the impact on the automotive industry.  T. Boone Pickens is the majority share holder of a company called Clean Energy Fuels, which is a natural gas vehicle distribution company.  Clean Energy Fuels was in negotiations with Honda to buy FuelMaker, one of their subsidiaries.  FuelMaker manufactures natural-gas refueling appliances, one of which is designed for consumers to use at home.  T. Boone was hoping to acquire FuelMaker in order to try to capitalize on the use of the in-home fueling device (Phill), which would alleviate the need to invest in infrastructure to equip gas stations with natural gas refueling capabilities.  Details as to why the deal fell through were not really provided, although it seems Honda was the initiator in terminating the agreement.  The termination was announced on October 16, 2008, and Clean Eenergy shares were trading at $9.44 which is down about 50% from September, when they were close to $20.  

Three Blogs I recommend

Following are links to three blogs I recommend:

Homeland Security

Jumping the fence

The Warming of our Globe

Homeland Security is an excellent blog dedicated to providing up to the minute details on what the Department of National Security is doing to protect American citizens.  In particular, the blog focuses on the latest advancements in airport security, an issue that most Americans consider to be of great importance.  In addition, the blog fosters healthy conversation with regard to balancing issues of personal privacy with the need for security.

Jumping the Fence is a beautifully designed blog, and addresses many issues related to immigration.  One major focus of the blog is challenge the stereotype of an illegal immigrant.  The blog includes a healthy discussion about some of the problems with our laws regarding immigration and the treatment of illegal immigrants.  The author of the blog is upfront with expressing support for legal immigration, and is here as a legal immigrant to the United States.

The Warming of Our Globe blog offers thoughtful insight with regard to the issue of global warming.  The blog provides information about the negative effects of greenhouse gasses on the environment.  Historical data as well as predictions for the future of our environment are included.  The environmental issues as a whole are then situated within the current political climate, and candidate's positions are investigated.  The author of the blog also provides balance by reporting counter arguments against global warming.  

Question for today: PLEASE RESPOND!

With Fall arriving here in the Southeast, I've become acutely aware of the number of gasoline powered leaf blowers being used.  It seems I can't walk through my neighborhood or across campus without seeing at least one on a daily basis.  Maybe I've become hypersensitive to energy issues, so I'm looking for some feedback.  Here's my question:

What would happen if starting today, no one EVER used leaf blower again?  Would there be any negative consequences?  

Okay, I guess that was two questions.  But seriously, tell me what you think.

JUST CLICK on COMMENTS to share your opinion!

Government spending past and future

Last night's presidential debate underscored for me just how critical this year's election is to the future of our country.  The hot-button topic present throughout the debate was government spending, and rightly so.  There is no denying that we find ourselves in an unprecedented financial mess.  So when McCain says things like "spending freeze," I'm sure it resonates with many Americans.  Yes, on the surface, many of us think to ourselves that government spending is out of control and it must stop.  However, this mess is not due to government spending, but rather the GOVERNMENT SPENDING MONEY ON THE WRONG THINGS.  Let's remember how we got here.  We did not wind up in this position because government was wisely spending our dollars on investing in the future of our country.  It's not like over the past 8 years our government has been putting money toward education or healthcare or alternative energy.  We all know where the money went; in large part to the war in Iraq. 

And that's why we need to recognize that an across the board "spending freeze" will just keep us stuck in this horrible mess.  Now, more than ever, we need a leader who can temper response to the severity of the financial crisis, and look forward with a sharp eye for investments that are critical to the future of our country.

Let's look how the issue of spending plays itself out under each of the candidate's positions on spending.  

It's pretty clear that John McCain's energy plan under a spending freeze boils down to just one thing: drilling.  The technology is already there, so no government investment is required.   What you get is more of the same.  We will continue to be dependent on oil, and no matter how much we drill, we will still need to import oil.  McCain made it very clear last night, that he has no problem with us being dependent on oil, he just wants us to become independent from having to buy it from the Middle East and Venezuela.  I take that to mean that he is not concerned with the environmental issues surrounding oil, at least not in a way that would influence his policy regarding energy.  His plan is clear.  We stay status quo.  And we will be no better off on this issue four years from now if John McCain is elected.

Barack Obama does not plan to scrap his energy plan for the future.  He continues to believe that to reach our goal of energy independence, we must invest.  We will drill, but we cannot just abandon our focus on alternative sources of energy.  The investment in hybrid vehicles cannot be sacrificed.  The transportation sector uses 30% of our energy, over 90% of it comes from petroleum products.  If we don't change those numbers in a big way, our dependence on oil does not improve.  And as for where that electricity comes from to feed the hybrid vehicles, under the McCain plan, it would mostly come from nuclear energy.  However, under the spending freeze, I guess he won't invest in nuclear at this time, which in my opinion is not necessarily a bad thing.  Obama prioritizes wind, solar, hydroelectric, and other clean non-nuclear forms of energy to produce electricity.

So, the "spending freeze" may sound like a welcome relief to most Americans right now.  It could be perceived as much needed tough talk for tough times.  But these tough times didn't result from government spending on energy, education, and other forward thinking programs.  It is exactly because we were NOT investing in the future that we ended up where we are.  And that's where the "hatchet" will keep us.  It seems to me the more reasonable approach is to cut spending where it isn't working and fine-tune what little spending we can afford, and target it toward our future. 

A little off topic...A summary of the Bank Nationalization.

It had to be done.  Europe forced our hand.  Britain, Spain, France, and Germany injected capital into their banks and brought them back from the brink of disaster.  There was nothing else to be done.  We had to follow their example.  And so for the first time since the 1930's we now have partial bank nationalization.  Our government offered an "optional" deal to the nine leading banks, and then told them they had to sign. Now the government partially owns those banks.  And they expect a reasonable return.  The price tag for the capital injection is $250 billion, with about half going to the big nine, and the rest going to smaller banks.  The $250 billion comes from the $700 billion bailout bill signed into law on Friday, October 3, 2008.

The global markets initially responded positively, but enthusiasm leveled as the day progressed.  Positive market reaction, however, was not the intended goal.  The goal is to thaw the credit freeze and reopen lending between banks and customers.  So far, there has been only minimal progress.

 

Both presidential candidates in the end said they agreed with the program.  Presidential candidate Barack Obama has expressed approval of the program from its inception.  McCain initially withheld judgement, and has since offered a lukewarm reaction, essentially stating that it needed to be done because of the extreme circumstances, but that it needs to be reversed as soon as possible.

Reaction from financial experts is mixed. They wonder if the government overstepping its bounds.  The future will tell.  If the government works quickly to get out of the banks as soon as conditions are stabilized, it will most likely be viewed as a success.  On the other hand if the government stays in the banks, free-market fans will wonder if the market would have corrected itself if the government had not intervened?  We won't ever know the answer to that question.  The conditions we were facing were unprecedented.  The risk of letting the free-market ideology play itself out was judged to be too great.  It had to be done.  

Although what goes on in the banking industry may seem unrelated to energy, the fact is they are intertwined.  Tonight, during the last presidential debate, it appears that the candidates will finally be addressing how the current financial crisis may affect the costly programs they have both proposed.  The investment into alternative energy will no doubt be one of the items that may be on the chopping block.  I suspect that neither candidate will be willing to admit exactly where they will make cuts, but maybe they'll surprise me.

****UPDATE OCTOBER 27, 2008****

It's been two weeks since the move to inject capital into the banks, which is not a lot of time, but I thought I'd check in and see how things are progressing.  The main goal was to thaw the credit freeze, and as of today it looks like there has been some improvement, but not much. Since the partial bank nationalization, governments and banks of leading nations have been 

scrambling to find additional solutions to the financial meltdown. Today, the Federal Reserve began a program aimed at improving the lending markets used by banks and big businesses. Global markets are still volatile, and opened down this morning.

Is it possible for both sides to come together?

Is there any way that the environmentalists and oil drilling fans can get together and agree on an energy policy?  Sounds like an insurmountable task, but I've always been an optimist, so I've got a theory on what might at least help get the two sides closer together.  

In fact, I'd say that most folks fall somewhere in the middle of the two extreme, polar opposite viewpoints that get most of the attention.  If you listen to the media, there is one side of the coin who cares only about protecting the environment at all costs.  It's green energy or no energy.  Forget about jobs, foreign policy or any other factors, just stop global warming.  The other side is portrayed as caring only about reducing dependency on foreign oil.  What global warming?  It doesn't even exist, or if it does, it's not man that caused it.  We just need to drill to get out of this mess.  These are the extremes.  

After reviewing the presidential candidate's positions, it is clear that neither one holds either of these extreme viewpoints.  I would say most people have some level of concern about the environment, foreign oil dependence, and economic factors such as gas prices, when it comes to how they feel about energy.  John McCain certainly doesn't want to wreck the environment, and Barack Obama doesn't doesn't want to ignore the risk of relying on foreign countries for oil.  I think their views are reflective of the views of the members of Congress and probably the population at large, excluding of course the small minority of people that hold extreme views.  When you look at it from that perspective, the two sides don't seem so far apart anymore.  There are differences to be sure, and those differences are to be expected.  As long as members of government are representing their constituencies, and their opinions, then government is doing its job.

The problem is, elected government officials do not always make decisions based on the beliefs of he people who voted them into office.  At times they are influenced by lobbyists.  I believe the lobbyists work at keeping the two sides polarized.  Big business lobbyists exert their influence on the government in order to push their own agendas, which is not representative of the desires and opinions of the citizens.  In the energy game, big oil is where the big bucks are.  The oil industry is on track to spend over $83 million lobbying this year.  The renewable energy industry and the environmental movement combined will likely spend half of what the oil companies spend.  If members of Congress were not under the influence of special interest groups, I believe the two sides would be closer.  The influence of lobbying always sets an unfair playing field, which gives the advantage to the side with the most available dollars.

The issue of lobbying also leaves the environmentalists and alternative energy industries at a disadvantage in terms of getting their message out to consumers.  They are forced to spend money to compete with oil companies in the lobbying arena, but inevitably, they are not given the same tax breaks and incentives.  Oil companies are some of the largest companies in the world and also are some of the most profitable, yet they continue to get the biggest tax breaks.  Of course they outspend the alternative energy and environmental movement in terms of advertising as well.  That's why the drilling message is so much more prevalent than the conservation message. 

Strong leadership is a must in order to bring the two sides closer together.  A major energy bill has yet to be passed even though many have been introduced in Congress.  This can be attributed to several factors, but a key one has to be the lack of leadership in bringing the two sides together on energy, which both sides recognize to be a very serious issue.  Leadership is also key in order to get the message out to consumers regarding conservation.  If we truly have the ability to impact our foreign oil dependency by making a concerted effort at conservation, then everyone should know about it.  This is one area that both sides should agree on.  It satisfies the environmentalists while reducing our foreign oil dependency.  It doesn't require any capital investment.  So if both sides are for it, who is against it?  The big oil companies of course.  They don't want us to use less oil, it means less profit for them.  Perhaps that's why we rarely hear about conservation.  It's been talked about for some time, but now is the time that we need to act on eliminating the influence of lobbyists in Washington.  If we do that, we will definitely remove at least one obstacle that is in the way of both sides coming together on the energy issue. 

How to Choose an Energy Plan

My Advice: When comparison shopping the McCain energy plan  vs. the Obama energy plan, it's easy to get lost in the details. In fact, on the surface, they are surprisingly similar. Reduce foreign oil dependence - check.  Clean Coal - check.  Renewable Energy - check. It's all there in both plans. But look deeper, the differences are in the priorities, and the philosophies.

Let's face it, one of the main reasons the energy issue is receiving so much attention in this election year is due the recent spike in gas prices.  The soaring prices combined with other economic challenges set off fear in the American people, and suddenly the need for "energy independence" became priority number one. Energy independence of course is really targeted at reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and under the McCain/Palin plan, specifically oil that comes from "countries that don't like us very much".  Now it's hard to disagree with that concept, but it does suggest that our dependency on oil is not really the problem, it's only a problem when we get it from countries that hate us. I believe that is the cornerstone of the McCain/Palin energy plan. Unfortunately, if that is what is seen as the problem, it follows that the solution will be targeted toward replacing the "bad oil" with "good oil", and that's why the McCain/Palin energy plan is focusing its efforts chiefly on domestic drilling. 

As I've said before, energy decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. A comprehensive energy plan must address impacts on the environment, economy and foreign policy. A one-sided approach cannot work, whether it's skewed toward fixing ONLY the economy and foreign policy woes, such as the "drill baby drill" plan, or if we address ONLY the environment.  There is a lot of hype about "going green" and converting to "renewable energy sources". Again, it's hard to argue with that logic, the only problem is, if you really understand where we are as a country with our energy usage, you just can't get there from here anytime soon. 

Let's look at some quick facts to illustrate the above point.

United States energy usage in a nutshell:

By Source:
39.8% - Petroleum
23.6% - Natural Gas
22.8% - Coal
6.8% - Renewable Energy
8.4% - Nuclear Electric Power

One very important fact to note: when you break down where these different sources of energy are allocated, 70% of petroleum products go to transportation. Transportation accounts for 29% of our total energy usage and 96% of it comes from petroleum.

Most of our renewable energy (51%) gets converted into electricity and fuels the electric power grids. Only a very small amount of renewable energy (9%) goes to transportation, which accounts for only 2% of our transportation usage.

If you examine the candidate's position on energy, and I encourage you to do so, you will see that they both have plans that propose to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and invest in clean energy for the future. That's the good news.

The confusing part is figuring out how they plan to do it, and which plan is more closely aligned with your views. Both plans appear similar on the surface, however there are some significant differences on how each candidate proposes to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. McCain seems to favor domestic drilling. Obama's energy plan is organized by short-term and mid to long-term solutions. One short-term fix involves releasing some light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to reduce gas prices. The second step involves reducing oil consumption in order to cut imports. This is a distinct difference; reduce consumption rather than replace it with domestic oil drilling. Obama does endorse domestic drilling where it has already been approved but has not yet happened, as well as limited approval for new domestic drilling. McCain's plan for alternative energy seems heavily weighted toward nuclear power, with an aggressive plan to construct 45 new Nuclear Power plants by 2050, with an ultimate goal of constructing 100 new plants. Obama's alternative energy plan is weighted toward diversifying sources of electricity, including nuclear, but expresses concern with some of our nuclear waste storage techniques that need to be addressed.   With regard to renewable energy sources as a whole, Obama supports a Renewable Portfolio Standard  or RPS of 10%, which would set a Federal Mandate that 10% of all consumed energy would be from renewable sources by the year 2012.  McCain does not support a mandate, but would encourage renewable energy by offering tax incentives.  Both candidates have plans for getting that electricity to translate to the transportation sector in the form of development and implementation of more hybrid vehicles. In this case, Obama's plan seems more aggressive in terms of timeline and number of vehicles, calling for 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015, as well as a $7,000 tax credit to those who purchase hybrid vehicles .  McCain's plan focuses on what he refers to as "Clean Car Challenge" which is a $300 million dollar prize for the development of a battery that is superior to those currently being used, and would offer a $5,000 tax credit incentive to encourage consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles.  Both candidates have a fairly good record on the environment.  Both McCain and Obama have been accused of flip-flopping with regard to domestic drilling. 

A major difference I noticed in the plans has nothing to do with the different types of energy. I discovered an interesting, almost philosophical difference, and that is that throughout the Obama plan, he references the responsibilities of the citizens of the United States that are necessary for us to realize our energy goals. The McCain plan is structured in a way that says what John McCain believes to be the solution, and what his government will do. I think this difference is extremely important in that it shows Obama's grasp on the reality that the government can create whatever programs it wants to, but without the support and the commitment of the American people, they will not be successful.  

The voting record tells the story. Or does it?

If you watched the Presidential Debate, I'm sure you all remember the moment, where McCain refers to Obama as "that one" when accusing him of voting for a bill that gave "all kinds of goodies" to the oil companies. And if you check the voting record, Obama did indeed vote in favor of the 2005 Energy Bill, and McCain voted against it. But we're not naive. Most of us know that bills often serve conflicting interests, much to our dismay. The reason they do of course, is so that they will PASS! It's got to have a little something for both sides, or nothing would ever pass. So the bill did contain some subsidies for oil companies and also some incentives for alternative energy industries. Now it's not so clear. Did Obama vote yes to support the alternative energy, swallowing the bitter pill of oil subsidies? Did McCain vote No to block the alternative energy incentives, or was his No vote because he opposed the oil subsidies? I don't know, and really the neither does anyone else besides Obama and McCain. The problem seems to me to be the insane way bills are structured.

To check out the video of McCain: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccainvideos/youtube/mccain-that-one.htm

For more information regarding the 2005 Energy Bill and how it was used during the debate:

McCain-Obama Debate Ignored Impact of Economic Crisis on Energy Plans - US News and World Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/what-does-the-2005-energy_b_83130.html

Keeping the Spotlight on Energy

As expected, the news since my last posting on Wednesday October 1, 2008, has been focused on the financial crisis.  However, the topic of energy did receive some attention during the Vice Presidential Debate between Governor Palin and Senator Biden, held on Thursday, October 2nd.  Both candidates support the idea of becoming less dependent on energy from foreign sources, or said another way, becoming energy independent.  The differences are seen in how each candidate proposes we get there.  Palin's focus is on domestic oil drilling, which she called "safe, environmentally-friendly drilling", but also said that all energy options will be considered.  Biden's focus is on clean coal and safe nuclear, as well as wind and solar.  He conceded that we must drill, but mentioned that any new drilling will not produce oil until 10 years from now.

Another important difference between the two candidates is related to energy and how it impacts the environment.  Although both candidates agree that climate changes are occurring, Biden attributes the changes to man, whereas Palin is unsure as to whether or not they are caused by man, and said that arguing about the cause was not important. 

I was pleased that the energy issues received some attention during the debate.  The presidential and vice presidential candidates have yet to say what, if any, programs that they have promised may need to be cut due to the $700 billion being spent on the bailout.  It stands to reason that something will need to be sacrificed, and I'm afraid some of the investment required for clean energy may be in jeopardy.  When there's not enough money to go around, it's easy to fall back into the same old trap and continue to buy foreign oil.    

A full transcript of the debate (text and/or video) can be found at:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

The time is now

In this important election year, we are hearing a great deal about energy.  It's not easy to separate fact from fiction.  At times I am tempted to just tow the party line and support the democratic energy plan.  But I realize that I cannot stick my head in the sand and hope for the best.  Too much is at stake.

I have always made my personal energy choices with the environment in mind.  While the environment is of great importance, energy decisions cannot be made in a vacuum.  There are issues of employment, foreign policy, and the economy that must be taken into account.  The record high gas prices we are currently experiencing clearly illustrate the complexity of the subject.  

We cannot afford to be overwhelmed.  I intend to break the energy issue down into bite-sized pieces, and analyze them.  I am not a scientist, or an expert in economics, however, I can offer fair, non-biased, common sense analysis that I believe the average person will find useful.  I hope you agree.  So if you're wondering, as I am, if windmills are the way to go, or if they are just a clean energy dream...Is it time to "Drill Baby Drill" in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, or is the environmental impact too great...If you have questions about these issues, then stick with me and together we can try to make some sense out of all the rhetoric.