Presidential Candidates' Energy Policies

Given the current situation with the middle east, I think the country's energy policy will become increasingly important. I have compiled some of the more important points from a few of the presidential candidates' energy policies:

George W. Bush (Republican)

The President�s energy plan will increase the quality of life of Americans by providing reliable energy and protecting the environment by meeting specific national goals:

• Modernizing and increasing conservation by ensuring that energy is used as efficiently as possible;
  
• Modernizing and expanding our energy infrastructure;
  
• Diversifying our energy supply by encouraging renewable and alternative sources of energy;
  
• Accelerating the protection and improvement of the environment; and
  
• Strengthening America's energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and by protecting low-income Americans from soaring energy prices and supply shortages.
  

www.georgewbush.com...
www.gop.com...

John Kerry (Democrat)

John Kerry believes that America needs a national market for electricity produced from renewable energy, such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydrogen. Kerry supports a national goal of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This standard will encourage the market to respond by finding the most efficient and effective way of meeting that goal through a credit trading system.

John Kerry has outlined an energy plan that will reduce our dependence on Mideast oil, assure that American industries and ingenuity will lead the new energy economy, and protect our environment. Americans spend more than $20 billion each year on oil from the Persian Gulf -- often from nations that are unstable and hostile to our interests and our values. Kerry believes that we must end this dangerous dependence because it leaves American security and the American economy vulnerable. Kerry�s plan will reduce oil dependence by two million barrels of oil a day, as much as we currently import from the Middle East.

www.johnkerry.com...
www.democrats.org...

Michael Badnarik (Libertarian)
No apparent energy policy. As a Libertarian, this is logical. My guess would be that he supports free enterprise determining the future of the country energy-wise.
www.badnarik.org...
www.lp.org...

Ralph Nader (Independant)

We urge a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests -- an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy including renewable energy like wind and other forms of solar power, more efficient automobiles, homes and businesses - one that breaks our addiction to oil, coal and atomic power. A new clean energy paradigm means more jobs, more efficiency, greater security, environmental protection and increased health.

www.votenader.org...

Michael Peroutka (Constitution)
I could not find Peroutka's stance on energy; however, this is the Constitution Party's platform:

We call attention to the continuing need of the United States for a sufficient supply of energy to sustain the nation�s standard of living and its agricultural, business, national security, and industrial activities.

Private property rights should be respected, and the federal government should not interfere with the development of potential energy sources, including natural gas, hydroelectric power, solar energy, wind generators, and nuclear energy.

We also encourage the use of coal, shale, and oil sands for the production of power, and the conversion of coal, shale, and agricultural products to synthetic fuels.

We oppose any increase in federal fuel taxes. Federal fuel tax revenue should be used exclusively for the maintenance of federal highways.

www.constitutionparty.com...
www.peroutka2004.com...

I suggest you check out the links to get a fuller understanding of these policies. Feel free to add any other candidates, or other points on these positions.

I am concerned with Kerry's plan of 20% renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, sources such as wind and solar are dependant upon environmental factors, and are not good candidates for base load. Also, he includes hydrogen as a renewable source - how do we produce hydrogen?

Not to be single-sided, Bush proposes some good ideas, but he doesn't go into much detail on how his plan will be implemented. Similarly, Nader follows his Green Party roots with an "environmentally-friendly" energy policy, but does not give much in the way of alternatives.

The Constitution Party seems to have the most realistic view on energy, as it would take a while for us to move away from "classic" energy sources such as oil and coal. Also, they recognize the importance of nuclear energy, which is the cleanest source of base load electricity we have. Nuclear energy is also a prime candidate for hydrogen generation, which would support the "hydrogen economy" supported by both Bush and Kerry.

In the spirit of the "new" Mud Pit, I ask that all replies be thoughtful contributions to the topic - no personal attacks on ATS members or the candidates in question. Please support your claims with facts and figures.

Bush and Kerry, both say some form of:

~Accelerating the protection and improvement of the environment; and

~Strengthening America's energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil;

Which I consider to be counter-intuitive without some real effort to:

~Diversifying our energy supply by encouraging renewable and alternative sources of energy.

Granted, they both say that too, but Kerry sets a goal to "assure that American industries and ingenuity will lead the new energy economy" with:

~a national goal of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. This standard will encourage the market to respond by finding the most efficient and effective way of meeting that goal through a credit trading system.

I know you said this worried you PurdueNuc, but not doing this worries me. I mean we have to take our medicine sometime. Why not get it over with?

This is nothing IMO and entirely realistic...even necessary. Only 20% progress by 2020, meaning 80% same old Mid East conflicts and complaining about the price of gas while we guzzle it out of existence?

I have nothing constructive to say about Nadar, the Constitution Party or the Libertarian "platforms" here so I'll just skip those as I encourage all voters to do in November.

I agree, we definitely need to figure out how to get off oil. It's bad for the environment and it's bad for national security, economically and otherwise. We just need a realistic view on how to get there, which neither Bush nor Kerry give us. Hydrogen is great, but we're not going to be able to produce it in large enough amounts for a couple decades (HowStuffWorks has a good discussion on the hydrogen economy).

So where does that leave us? Vehicles will have to be hydrogen or electric powered. We need to get that electricity from somewhere, though (I'm assuming we use electricity to crack water for now). The US has a very large domestic supply of coal, which is good in the short-term, but ultimately we need something better. The only real option I see is nuclear (yes, I'm pulling my agenda back in). Unfortunately, Kerry doesn't include nuclear as part of his plan, which explains his emphasis on coal. Again, thinking short-term.

John Kerry believes that we need leadership to lower the four leading power plant emissions � nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide. He also is committed to helping the coal industry and the communities that support it be part of America�s energy future. He wants to make the coal industry part of the effort in developing and implementing new cleaner coal technology. John Kerry believes we must invest $10 billion over the next decade � a five-fold increase � to help transition from the current generation of older and dirtier coal plants to cleaner and more advanced coal-fired power plants Kerry believes we must also invest in new research that can make sure clean coal is a major contributor in meeting future energy needs, including playing an important part in the production of hydrogen. This approach will be good for the environment and public health and will assure coal workers and their families are an important part of the next generation of energy technology for our nation.

www.johnkerry.com...

I'm sorry to hear your dismissal of third parties, RANT. I'm worried that a lot of people are sacrificing some of their principles and vote Republican or Democrat only because they're worried about "throwing my vote away." It's been said before, and I'll say it again, that this mindset is self-supporting. People need to realize that many of these parties are very ligitimate, and by voting for them we give them power, which can help eliminate this corrupt government and give the power back to the people.

i dont like this dependance on oil. hydrogen seems like a great alternative but as you said its not mass produced at the moment and i feel we may need to use other fuels during this transition should we ever make one to hydrogen.

i dont like nuclear energy as we have found other forms of energy that are better and less harmful to us and the environment but if used as a transistional fuel i might be ok with that. i despise coal when used in a large scale for power plants as an example, maybe personal use but even then...with enough people you get the same result as with a large power plant.

now i know hydrogen can be used in a regular internal combustion engine with some minor tweaking. and unlike gas hydrogen CAN be produced on site so you wouldnt need tankers hauling the stuff around. in fact if its done right and we find a good way to store it (pressurized tanks wont cut it in a car) we can use it to heat our house power our car, just about anything! hydrogen isnt a cure all but its a cure most IMO and i think it will be explored more and more and will eventually be used to replace gasoline and maybe even diesel fuel. that alone would make a world of difference. no more fluctuating prices, hydrogen can become a steady economic market once it goes through its gowing pains. and its not like oil companies cant take advantage of it. they can make it and sell it to displace their lost revenue from gasoline sales.

geomthermal cant be done just anywhere (lets see anyone drilling into the permafrost in alaska) and thats the problem with it, as is with solar power.

however hydrogen doesnt need to be transported, it can be but isnt necassary. so no more oil spills in the ocean! (or far less as you'll still need lubricants to make engines and machines work but these can be made synthetically and at better quality with more uniform molecules than hydrocarbon based oil)

i look forward to the day when hydrogen stations start replacing gas stations (but dont expect cleetus at the 7-11 to be any smarter).

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
I'm sorry to hear your dismissal of third parties, RANT. I'm worried that a lot of people are sacrificing some of their principles and vote Republican or Democrat only because they're worried about "throwing my vote away." It's been said before, and I'll say it again, that this mindset is self-supporting. People need to realize that many of these parties are very ligitimate, and by voting for them we give them power, which can help eliminate this corrupt government and give the power back to the people.

Well, I'm glad you brought the Constitution Party to my attention since prior to that all I saw in Third Parties were carbon copies of Democratic Platforms (with minor fiscal tweaks) further splintering the socially conscious vote in America to ensure continued MINORITY RULE by Republicans.

But now that I've looked up the Constitution Party Preamble:

We, the members of the Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation. We solemnly declare that the foundation of our political position and moving principle of our political activity is our full submission and unshakable faith in our Savior and Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Divine Providence as we work to restore and preserve this Nation as a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic under God, rather than a democracy.

I see Bush has competition in the crazy department.

Sorry this isn't about energy. Just following the flow.