Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Potential energy policy of america-From obama&mccain

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I'm excited about this new forum we have here!

And so, I've decided to post my second thread of all time.

Undoubtedly one of the major issues for our next president is energy. I wanted to see how the two forerunners for the next president view this issue. I pulled up both their pages and took a look. Indeed they both have stated plans for most of our energy needs and current problems.

Now, I didn't see anything on Obama's page about Domestic oil exploration. So i can't say what his opinions are on the subject. McCain however does. And to be honest, it's my only gripe about his energy plans. I personally do not think we should even be thinking about exploring new venues of domestic oil. Oil is what got us into this mess, sure we need it for plastics, some medications etc, but I think it's time we moved past any thoughts about using it for day to day energy needs.

Obama energy plans

McCain energy plans


Basically I'm hopefull that if either candidate wins the presidency we will see a revolution in American energy production from industry to home. what are your thoughts on their proposed energy plans, and do you think either or both candidates need to add more to them or subtract anything from them?
Looking forward to the replies.




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I am very excited about Barack Obama's Energy plan. He is proposing action that we should have been taking for the past 30 years. If we had been improving alternative technologies, it's likely we wouldn't be in the position we are, with our current dependence on foreign oil. And our Energy programs need to be balanced with the Environment. I don't think we can properly talk about one without the other.

At the beginning of this month, Obama actually talked about a Compromise regarding his stance on Off-shore drilling.



'My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,' Obama said..."

"'If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done,' Obama said."


Not only does this show his focus on alternative fuels and power sources, it shows his absolute willingness to work "across the aisle" to compromise with Republicans to get things done for the people.

For this, I have great respect.

In addition, he:



Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas.
Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur.
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence.


According to his Voting Record.

Obama On The Issues

Obama has a stable history and record of being concerned about the Environment and working for environmental protection.



His efforts on behalf of the environment have been so consistent and comprehensive, in fact, that LCV and the Sierra Club endorsed Obama in his bid for Congress this year over half a dozen other Democrats competing in the primary. Last month, the LCV named him a 2004 Environmental Champion, one of 18 sitting and prospective members of Congress to receive the award.

Obama is "by far one of the most compelling and knowledgeable politicians on the environment I've ever sat in a room with," Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president for political affairs at LCV, told Muckraker. "I've been playing national politics for more than 20 years and I quite literally can't remember one person I've met -- even on a national level -- who was more in command of facts, more eloquent, and more passionate on these issues than Sen. Obama."


John McCain has some good ideas, too, like offering tax incentives to people who buy zero carbon emission cars. I wish I could afford one.
For me, he is a bit too eager to expand our domestic drilling program without what I consider to be reasonable restrictions. I am concerned that, unless it is specifically spelled out, lifting the ban on drilling will cause ecological damage that is not being taken into consideration fully. So, I'm hesitant to back his energy plan.

According to McCain's Voting Record, he:



Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment.


McCain On The Issues

These 2 men are running for president. I think it's VERY important to look at their voting records of the past as well as their promises for our future.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Excellent points!

i was unaware of that statement by obama about domestic exploration, and i find it heartening as that is the stance i personally would take if in his position.
And indeed, past voting records on the subject are of great import.

It was that fact, no clearly obvious restrictions for domestic drilling to ensure as little environmental damage as possible, that really put me off to McCains domestic exploration ideas.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Well, I like McCain's $300 million prize offer... it sounds hokey on the surface, but it might just be the incentive some bright youngster needs to make it happen.

In general, though, I'm not much in favor of McCain's favoring of expanding sources, instead of reducing demand.

I would also support the idea of extremely limited additional drilling to help bridge the gap as new technology is developed. But there would have to be some very strong incentive to actually do the R&D, and not just pump oil.

One thing that I would like to see from either one of these guys is more "outside the box" sort of thinking...

For instance, in an information-driven economy, a LOT of work can be done by an information worker in their home. However, there is currently still a strong prejudice against telecommuting.

I'd like to see some sort of incentive to encourage information-based companies to actively support telecommuters, thereby reducing that traffic.

Of these two, Obama's overall approach is more in line with mine.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
While both candidates has been very open about the energy issue and both bring some good points, I feel that in order for any of them to be able to deliver what they are offering as campaign promises they will have to get Washington clear of oil energy lobbyist.

I am doubtful that either or will be able to be successful on that side of the problem.

How can I truth this two candidates if they are taking money from oil companies or in Obama example individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


i was not aware of this. could you perhaps provide sources to the information regarding both candidates getting money from oil companies and/or people involved in them or their spouses?

-----
reply to Open_Minded Skeptic

i agree about the prize money. if there's one thing that motivates new tech, it's money. In point of fact, i like any incentive that pushes people off of the fence and gets them to go for the goal with new tech.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
No problem,

McCain,


The demand to fire the lobbyists comes as McCain gives a speech on environmental policy today. Oil and gas interests have donated $780,662 in campaign contributions to McCain’s candidate and leadership committees over his career, according to a Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
.

www.gwu.edu...


The Washington Post recently reported that oil and gas industry executives and workers donated more than $1 million to McCain in June, the same month he announced support for offshore drilling as a way to lessen pain at the pump.


www.campaignmoney.org...

Obama,

Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick..


Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
.


Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


www.factcheck.org...

Who Took the Most Campaign Money from Big Oil?
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain - Each Has Accepted Over $100 Thousand Dollars



Democrat Barack Obama, Republican John McCain, and Democrat Hillary Clinton all stand in relation to campaign contributions from the oil industry; Exon, Shell, Occidental, Global Partners Ltd., ConocoPhillips, etc. The very corporations and companies that may be or may not be manipulating the prices of oil to line the pockets of their shareholders. The companies and corporations traditionally associated, at least by Democrats, with big money, old money, Texas money, smart money and Republicans.
.

www.associatedcontent.com...


[edit on 22-8-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
interesting. McCain's situation seems pretty cut and dry. He'd do well to get rid of the lobbyists like the article suggests.

As for Obama, the link you posted to the article is not functioning so i can only go on what you quoted. It only says people involved in oil companies and/or their spouses. And while it is suspicious it is no indicator that he's in the oil companies pockets. After all, if he recieved donations from a firefighter, or a firefighters spouse you probably wouldn't be claiming he's in their pocket, would you?

I'm more concerned about senators/congressmen taking money from lobbyists, or companies themselves(not individuals who happen to work for a company). As that's a better indicator that one is probably being persuaded to give those groups favors or special treatment.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


I checked both links they are working for me, sorry that they are not for you.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
the freep.com one is not working, it brings up a 404 error. perhaps something went wrong in the hyperlinking?



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Oh, I thought you were talking about Obama links, sorry I see now the error, I will try to fix it if I can.


I hope the new link works.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I don't think we should lift the ban on offshore drilling simply because it doesn't REQUIRE us to think of innovative new ideas to pull away from using oil at all. It only prolongs our dependence on it.

Personally, I don't think the issue should be about our dependence on foreign oil at all. It should be about our dependence on OIL, period.

This day in age, oil should be a thing of the past. There are so many more ways to get energy now that our oil demand should be extremely low and that alone would lessen our dependence on foreign oil and oil altogether.

I think the problem is that most people aren't looking at it that way. They are looking for domestic oil to replace foreign oil when they should be looking for alternative, renewable energy to replace domestic AND foreign oil.

You start with baby steps. For one, all of my cities buses are run on natural gas. I think that we could also run them off biodiesel. We could start with school buses. It costs very little money to convert a diesel running vehicle to biodiesel. Where do you get biodiesel from? The vast amounts of vegetable oil that our multitude of fast food restaurants use every single day. A friend of mine was telling me about some sort of weed, it's name has the word "grape" in it, but it isn't a grape vine, of course. Anyway, it can grow in nonfertile fields in vast numbers once it's planted (it is a weed of course) so all the farm land and whatnot that is unusable due to soil erosion, depletion of nutrients and so on can be used for the plant and the plant can be converted into biodiesel.

An SE Johnson company manufacturing plant runs it's entire plant solely off recycled methane gas from a nearby farm.

Those are innovative ideas that need to be implemented. And I'm just not sure that either candidate, especially McCain, is willing to take those revolutionary steps to accomplish the task. Yeah, it's going to cost a lot of money, but how much money has the war cost? Really, we could have easily, a while ago, used that money to save lives instead of take them (based on the idea that these wars are for oil anyway).

There is one hope that I do have and that is that these people that are hardliners for oil will start getting pretty damn old and dying off eventually and a new generation of people will start moving in. It might be awhile but I'm looking forward to it. My generation especially and the one behind me (possibly even the one before me) will be the ones to take these bold new steps because we've grown up in an era where we've seen the effects that totally neglecting the planet and the environment has had. I think people in their 40's and younger will be those people.

THAT is a change we can believe in. And I don't believe it's Obama's nor McCain's type of change.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
No doubt. The money we spend in Iraq monthly could be put to better use, i agree wholeheartedly. If we spent ten percent of it on each of the various issues that affect us as americans; education, infrastructure, science, etc. we'd be in a much better state as a nation. And I agree that i find it doubtful if either candidate could do that, however if one of them is wiling to put us in the right direction I'll be happy to vote for that one.






top topics



 
0

log in

join