The 2008 candidates in this election have serious gaps in their energy policies. The lack of knowledge in science is evident. For example, Sarah Palin’s policy is vague in many areas, even though she is presumably the expert on energy policy compared to the other candidates. The blasted media really gets you going with Palin. Coupled with John McCain’s views for energy independence, Sarah Palin has spoken passionately about domestic oil drilling to lessen America’s dependence on oil. Although Palin says that she supports research and development of new alternative resources, her plan to drill oil seem to overshadow any plans that she or Senator McCain have to convert America to more renewable energy resources. In four or eight years, I doubt that we will have enough renewable energy resources to power our homes and cars.
More Oil, less R&D?
Palin does not have a grasp on promoting renewable energy. Does she support protection of the environment? It’s all in the short term—how long is that short term oil drilling plan of her’s is my question? And, what exactly is going to happen if more land is given to major oil companies? Will there be any regulation on how the companies influence the price of oil?
Also, I wanted to ask the following about McCain. Even though I did not get a chance to bring this up, why doesn’t Senator McCain support funding for research and development of plug-in hybrid technology? What is a challenge going to do to spur the development of technology?
More R&D, less oil?
Fast forward to Senator Biden and Senator Obama, we notice that their energy policy focuses more on long-term R&D. They do not support oil drilling, sharing fears that our addiction to oil will devastate our non-renewable resources. The plan includes a charge, a “use it or lose it” penalty, that oil companies will incur if they do not drill on lands leased to them already. A great point was raised in saying that the idea actually forces companies to drill in order to make profits. They will lose their lands, which in turn results in a profit loss, if they do not drill on domestic land.
The lack of practicality in Nader’s plan almost seems as though he has given up. His plans are not well thought out. There is no short-term solution to the energy crisis. Yes, he has been a staunch advocate for renewable energy, but, realistically speaking, there is no way that we can turn America into an alternative fuel source nation without using current sources, such as oil, to supply our energy first. Compared to Nader, Obama and Biden’s plan looks a little more realistic because–correct me if I am wrong–even though, the two Democrats advocate research for alternative fuel sources, the country will still rely on oil until a concrete solution is found, right? So, as Lisa mentioned in an earlier post, our country’s non-renewable supply will be depleted by the time an alternative solution is found.
Bob Barr perhaps cares the least about energy crisis. Let the economy and industries have its way? If we were to support that, then our economy and our climate issue would be worse off than it already is. Given the hard times that the economy is facing, the mentality of the people is probably not to support a failed economy. The mentality might not be rational, but it certainly is reactionary. Also, just because the supply and demand says oil and gas prices will eventually go down, does not mean that major corporations will actually do the research for renewable energy resources. Profits are gained, but socioeconomic endeavors are sacrificed. With no regulation by the government, there is no way to tell or even measure how close to energy independence, this nation is becoming.
I don’t know how the candidates get their projections for energy independence in 10 years.
None of these candidates have a real solution.
Entries (RSS)