Once the grandstands have been taken down in Charlotte and
Tampa and we’ve heard from candidates and celebrities alike, it’s time to
examine the platforms of each political candidate under a microscope. While
both candidates subscribe to the All-of-the-Above Energy Policy, they plan to
execute them in traditionally partisan ways. Deciding which candidate to support ultimately comes down to
one question: how big an issue is global warming?
 |
| Romney supports renewable energy but doesn't view it as being at a critical juncture yet. He feels it is important to keep the cost of electricity down in this economy by continuing to drill for oil and natural gas. (Courtesy: NPR). |
As one would expect from a business titan who built his
fortune in the free market, Romney plans to approach energy policy with a more
hands-off approach. At the beginning of his chapter on America’s Natural
Resources he declares that under his administration the government “will not
pick winners and losers in the energy marketplace. Instead, we will let the
free market and the public’s preferences determine the industry outcomes.”
Republicans love to point to the half-million loan guarantee
now-bankrupt Solyndra received from the current administration as an example of
mismanaged government funds. He says that his party “encourages the
cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not
serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors.” Instead of grants and
incentives for new technologies, Romney says that he will focus government
spending on research and development through organizations like the Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy, a subset of the Department of Energy.
What this means is that loan guarantees and grants like the
Renewable Energy Grant 1603, which expired late last year, will continue to
disappear. This could be bad news for technologies that are not capable of
being economical without government subsidies, such as the majority of solar
and wind projects. Although this will deal a heavy blow to the biomass industry
as well, it may actually help the field in the long run. With solar and wind
spending down, biomass projects which are more economical, may have a better
chance of getting funding.
Romney also plans to rely on coal and natural gas more
heavily than Obama has by encouraging the Keystone XL Pipeline and allowing
states to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing. At a time when unemployment
has hit eight percent for 42 months in a row, the U.S. should be not shutting
down the coal industry, eliminating thousands of jobs and raise the price of
energy, according to Romney. Images of Europe, who is well ahead of the U.S. in
renewable energy but is paying almost twice the amount for electricity during a
deep recession, comes to mind.
The Republican platform signifies a party that acknowledges
the issue of global warming, but is not yet sure it is necessary to radically
change policy. Democrats, on the other hand, see climate change as an issue in
need of decisive action now. Democrats acknowledge the financial risk in
supporting emerging technologies but feel that if one technology can succeed on
a large scale, it will be well worth the investment. Erin Voegele of Biomass
Magazine says that like venture capital firms, the government has budgeted for
some projects to fail and claims that “agencies that offer loan guarantee
programs have often experience lower-than-expected failure rates for projects.
She takes this as a sign that the government could in fact take MORE risks in
these programs.
 |
| President Obama sees global warming as an imminent threat, requiring immediate action. (Courtesy: White House) |
Obama claims to have created more than 225, 000 green jobs
through governmental incentives and tax credits. His position is that if the
government gives tax breaks and subsidies to the oil industry, it should at
least offer them to an industry that is trying to save the planet. Obama feels
that continued investment in alternative energy practices as well as
regulations such as fuel economy standards are necessary to reach his goal of
having 80% of America’s electricity come from clean energy by 2035.
For the average voter this all boils down to how big an
issue you believe global warming is right now. During World War II, the U.S.
misspent millions as it fought a two-front war. No one would have dared grumble
about the way tax dollars were spent at the time because it was absolutely
necessary; bickering over the best way to spend military dollars while Nazis
and Communists crept closer to our borders just wasn’t an option. Today voters
are asked to gauge the threat of climate change and the effect the U.S. can
have on an international problem.
The
Renewable Energy Components of the Democratic and Republican Platforms – By
Erin Voegele, Biomass Magazine (Sept.
7, 2012)
Energy
Innovation Under Romney and Obama – By Kevin Bullis, MIT Technology Review (Sept. 6, 2012)
2012 WE
Believe In America – Republican Platform
Moving
America Forward – 2012 Democratic National Platform
No comments:
Post a Comment