At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, there is little significance in the policy platforms adopted by the presidential candidates. Aside from making suggestions for the policy agenda, the president has very little control over the regulations passed. Hence although we are given a packaged solution to the energy crisis, even from the most honest politicians, there is absolutely no way the entire solution will be passed by congress. Consider us lucky if we get a portion of it passed. The power lies with congress. The president is simply the spokesperson of the nation, not the man who sets the laws. After all, Clinton approved the Kyoto Protocol only to have congress reject it. Candidate positions only reaffirm their definition of morality and cement voter identification with each candidate.
Policies that are quantified look good because they portray a clear goal and imply a knowledgeable candidate who knows what he’s doing, but how realistic are these numbers and what are the effects, especially long-term?
The ANWR (Artic National Wildlife Refuge) is home to 8,000 people, an entire ecosystem, and a historically and culturally significant area with Native American carvings on the trees. Alaska is America’s Last Frontier, a truly unique place that attracts a large number of tourists. Governor Palin welcomes Big Oil to destroy the natural beauty that is an asset to her state’s economy. Exceptions are easy to rationalize and if we continue to allow this to happen now, it will continue until we have nothing left. And when we realize that mistake, it will be too late.
As for the promotion of hybrid cars and ethanol fuels, many consumers complain that ethanol damages their engines and gives them must less mileage, requiring more frequent fill-ups, simply an added inconvenience. And consumers are very vocal about this so develop all the hybrid cars you want but good luck getting consumers to buy them.
So here’s my take on the candidates:
Barr- needs to adjust to the now era- social responsibility matters
McCain/Palin- drill in pristine land? Is nothing sacred?
McKinney- Environmentalist winner, Consumer loser
Nader- no comment (was too tired to listen)
Obama/Biden- an ultimatum to use the land or lose it? Is it ok to turn socialist when we are in crises? What happened to the fundamental right to property?
One cannot help but wonder who has ties with oil companies and who has been getting the most funding from Big Oil. (Think the Cheney scandals.)
McCain has received over $1 million in contributions from oil companies, over 80% of which was received after he announced support for off-shore drilling in June. It really has you wondering about the game played in presidential elections because the candidates want money and are promising things they cannot guarantee. These lobbyists are better off sticking with congress. (http://prezoilmoney.oilchangeusa.org/)
Obama claims to not accept money from oil companies but he has received a lot of money from oil company executives. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html
Entries (RSS)
I am confused. You say the President is only the spokesperson of the nation and yet you ask Mr. Barr to adjust to today and take responsibility. I am also not quite clear on what you mean by “social” responsibility. Mr. Barr completely agrees that Presidents do not have any power over energy policies. That is, in fact, his platform. It is NOT the President’s job to fix the economy or the energy sector. He simply wants to remove restrictions on businesses that prevent them from utilizing our natural resources.
Although your comment lies under McCain/Palin, Barr is major proponent of drilling. So I feel obligated to respond. The word “pristine” bothers me. I assume you are referring to ANWR. It is strange that most people do not have any qualms to drilling in the OCS as long it is made sure no disasters occur.When it comes to ANWR, however, people say it is “pristine” and it has the word “natural” in it. I claim that the oceans are more pristine or more “natural” that ANWR.
Mr. Barr says that drilling for oil can be done with as little damage to the environment as possible. There is no doubt that we need a lot of oil and although, the results will only show in a few years, the demand will still be as high as it is now. There is no reason that we should not drill for it.
Sorry for the double post.
I was also asked how Barr would make sure the oil that was produced by drilling would stay in the United States.
Again, it is best if government stays out of this business and let it regulate itself. The very high demand for oil in the United States will ensure that oil companies deliver their oil here and not export it elsewhere. There is no reason why oil companies would pay money to transport the oil some where else when they can gain a higher profit by selling it in the United States.
To people who are still not convinced, Bob Barr knows that the economy functions best when it is left alone save a little bit of regulation. If the situation arises (unlikely) that oil companies export the oil drilled in the United States, legislation would be passed to make it very hard for them to do so.
As Lisa says, the candidates can promise a lot of regulations and changes but it is up to Congress to pass them. Bob Barr’s platform is then, the most credible approach to the crisis as it does not promise a lot of regulations that are dependent on Congress.
Ok, I just wanna get one thing straight. It’s Palin whose all “DRILL DRILL DRILL”. McCain supports drilling but only in the OCS. He has supported several pieces of legislation against drilling in ANWR.
“Obama/Biden- an ultimatum to use the land or lose it? Is it ok to turn socialist when we are in crises? What happened to the fundamental right to property?”
Well the question is, is it the government’s right to take away the fundamental right to property in the time of crisis? Well of course not, if you give up your rights now, when oil is scarce, then you have no rights. The crisis of oil can be solved in other ways. Drilling is not our last resort, we have to deplete all our other options. And it would be proficient if we looked toward alternate energies instead of wasting our time trying to figure out if it is environmentally save to drill in ANWR.
And whose right is it to own the property? Not drilling in ANWR does not mean that we are “losing” the land, in fact we are making a sound decision to preserve the little land we have not destroyed. Why do we have to “use” and exploit everything in order for it to seem like we care that the land exists? Maybe we can show that we care just by leaving it alone. And like I said we are not “losing” but rather “gaining” because we are able to preserve greenery and animals.
And an answer to your question Lisa, is is not okay for us to turn socialist in order to fulfill the need and want to today and not think of the future. We have doors open to us (alternate energy) yet we seem to still want to jump out the window (drilling).
-Samema Sarowar
I am not sure that oil will stay in the US, even with the high demand. Oil prices are much higher elsewhere in the world. People abroad, such as in the UK, are used to and willing to pay higher prices on gas than what Americans pay, therefore it could be more profitable to export oil, even with the transport costs.
Don’t you think that this crisis justifies a push from government to get things moving? We learned that companies want to see an immediate return on their investment and alternative energy development will take years before a profit is returned. The free market is wonderful but we have to be practical. If we let the market run its course, the environment will be depleted and our future, the future of the generations after us, YOUR CHILDREN, will be jeopardized. This is what I meant by social responsibility.
To Lisa’s comment:
Sure, Barr also believes that the economy needs a little nudge to push it out of its current crisis but afterwards, it should be left alone. Oil prices may be higher elsewhere, but oil companies would have to pay to transport it. Oil tankers are slow (therefore no “immediate return on their investment” as there is a time lag before they get their profits). Not to mention they would have to store and provide protection.
If all fails, (which is very unlikely) as I mentioned in my comment earlier, legislation could be passed to make it very difficult for oil companies to sell their oil outside. This is definitely more feasible than other far-fetched (or very Congress dependent) schemes the other candidates have come up with.