Mr. Barr accepts the problem of Global Warming but as there is no definite proof of the fact that decreasing emissions will affect Global Warming, he opposes hastily prepared government solutions to the problem.

Twiddling our thumbs, as you put it, is definitely more apt than sticking our feet into our mouths when all our plans (accomplished by huge investments of tax dollars) backfire and we are in more of a crisis that we started out with. What happens if your federal funding does not accomplish anything? So, in addition to still having a crisis, albeit one that is worse, we have spent taxpayer dollars and landed us into further debt.

One of the cornerstones of the New Energy for America plan is implement an economy-wide cap and trade system that will significantly reduce carbon emissions. The system will require that all credits are to be auctioned off, in order to ensure that all idustries pay for every ton of emissions they release. A portion of the receipts generated by this system (about $15 billion a year) will be used to support development of clean, efficient, and alterantive energy resources.

By accomplishing things such as investing in the implementation of a Smart Grid, increasing the investment of lithium ion batteries, and learning to build more sustainable communities, we will effectively be bringing costs down and bring more jobs to Americans and strengthing our now wounded economy. These effects are not going to be immediate. Mr. Biden never claimed that they will be. I don’t think anyone could make a claim like that. But if we don’t try to take action in the form of smart investments, I know that our economy will only continue to hurt.

Yes, federal funding of course will not immediately lower gas prices. But it will bring us a lot closer than if we just sit down and twiddle our thumbs and hope that the fuel companies will eventually realize that there is a problem. This is a very unrealistic approach that Mr. Barr is taking. We need to set standards to increase our energy efficiency and reduce our emissions.

The funds will NOT come from the government. When R&D etc. is necessary, the market will do it and not the government.

I hope that clears up any further questions.

Government will basically remove restrictions and let free market handle the energy sector. See, Ms. Liu’s topic for further clarification.

Thanks to the research in class, This is where my candidate was kind of unique. What set McKinney out particularly from other Green Party candidates, was her desire to take both drilling and nuclear off the table. Drilling was an absolute no, whether off-shore or in ANWR. Secondly, she believed nuclear energy to be an unclean, unsustainable, expensive, and carbon intensive method of producing energy, that should not be considered.

Nonetheless, I really think it comes down to one point Obama made during the debate, who can the people trust when the campaign is finally over? I highly doubt as Obama said, it will be the Senator who has admitted for 26 years that something has to be done to improve our energy efficiency and conservation, yet has voted against alternative fuels 23 times.

Who decides where to stop with the “limitations”? How can one presidential platform guarantee so many changes without the approval of Congress? Can one platform really take responsibility for all the precedents you will set by making these changes? You call Mr. Barr’s views on the traditional capitalist market radical while your candidate proposes instituting a “cap and trade” program and plans to “auction” off pollution credits?

I agree with you that fuel is a necessity. That is exactly why we must not rush into a hastily prepared solution. Any action taken will have far reaching ramifications. Your plans may (emphasis on ‘may’) lower pump prices for the present, but ultimately, all the excess spending that you propose will end up being the consumer’s responsibility or into our already enormous debt. I would like to see your response to Mr. Ettikkalayil’s question.

I would like to point out that federal funding for R&D will not immediately lower pump prices either. Even you use the word “ultimately” in the same sense that I used “sooner or later”. I would also like to point out that a certain Mr. T. Boone Pickens, an oil magnate, is very active in the alternative energy field even though you claim he has “absolutely no motive” to be doing so.

Mr. Barr does not say that Big Oil earning more profits will lower oil prices. He does not even claim he will lower pump prices. I think that is a point people are completely missing. Mr. Barr is being attacked here on the presumption that he says he will lower oil prices. He does not. It is not his job to say anything of that sort. He simply wants to allow the exploration of the abundant natural resources that the United States possesses and let the market come up with a solution. He says government interference will cause way more problems than it aims to solve.

You propose to provide short-term relief to the consumer by temporarily investing huge amounts of money into the energy field. Long term, the tax payers will have to take responsibility. That, to me, seems more circular than any response that you think Mr. Barr ever gave.

To Mr. Leung:

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I completely agree with you that candidates should not make promises they cannot keep. Mr. Barr’s proposal is a promise that will be definitely be kept unlike many others whose policies depend extensively on Congress.

It would not be fair to compare a crude oil product to many other consumables. The market will definitely regulate itself if “poor quality and unsafe” oil is sold to consumers.

I am shocked that you claim Mr. Barr believes the “government should play no role in the affairs of our nation”. Mr. Barr would never say anything of that sort. The government is set up to do precisely what you claim Mr. Barr does not believe in. The economy, however, is a different story. Bob Barr does not want to see small businesses crushed and mutilated but he definitely does not want the United States economy crippled beyond future recovery by incessant governmental interference.

Oil companies will not drill recklessly. It costs huge amounts of money to prospect, set up and drill for oil. No company would randomly pick a beautiful scenery and start creating holes in it. You seem to paint a picture of the oil company as a ravaging monster endlessly craving profits with no regard for the environment. They are simply businesses providing what the market demands. Current technologies ensure that oil can be extracted with very little damage to the environment.