kluge

Bullet: Well put. I couldn't agree more. You and I might disagree on the best implementation of a plan to wean America off of its addiction to oil, but I'd like to see the debate start with a serious approach to that ultimate goal.

A quick check of the candidate's websites shows that Clinton and Obama have very similar sets of detailed proposals - none of which come close to the level you're talking about in terms of specific actions designed to achieve the goals set. McCain doesn't seem to have an energy policy of any sort, although he has detailed information about how he'll encourage everyone in America to have a gun with a large capacity magazine...

(cross-posted with Idad and 1sokkermom)

tega

All the proposals will take years to implement, and they will also be fighting the very powerful oil lobbyists in Washington. These group have been able to convince congress that they need subsidies to be profitable despite record profits last year. It just does not make sense at all.

interesteddad

Klude:

From Clinton's Senate website is detail on legislation she introduced to tax oil company windfall profits above a 2000-04 baseline and use the revenues for a Strategic Energy Fund. It's an amplification of several of the campaign bullet points above:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator for New York: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Outlines Plan to Create Strategic Energy Fund to Invest in Clean Energy Technology

[quote]Senator Clinton's legislation will create a Strategic Energy Fund to help pay for the clean energy transition. The legislation eliminates oil company tax breaks and ensures that they pay their fair share of royalties for drilling on public lands. The legislation also places a temporary fee on major oil company profits that exceed a 2000-2004 profit baseline. The fee would be in place for two years, and companies could offset their fee by investing in alternative energy technologies such as ethanol and wind power. The Strategic Energy Fund would raise $50 billion to fund research, development and deployment of energy technologies that will reduce America's oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Strategic Energy Fund will:

• Deliver Clean Coal Technology. $3.5 billion in tax incentives and grants to build 5 clean coal plants that can capture and store carbon dioxide and reduce global warming.

• Invest in Renewable Energy. Move America towards the goal of producing 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by extending the production tax credit for generating electricity from wind and other renewable sources for five years.

• Transform America's Vehicles. Put more efficient vehicles on the road by quadrupling consumer tax breaks for hybrids, clean diesel, and other advanced vehicles, creating incentives for auto manufacturers to retool their facilities, and putting $500 million towards advanced battery research to speed development of "plug-in" hybrid vehicles.

• Accelerate Homegrown Biofuels. Extend the ethanol tax credit until 2012, and speed the development of cellulosic ethanol by providing loan guarantees for the first billion gallons of commercial production capacity, and providing $2 billion for research.

• Improve Efficiency. Increase incentives to make homes and offices more comfortable and cheaper to operate by improving energy efficiency.

• Unleash American Ingenuity. Accelerate energy research by creating a $9 billion "Advanced Research Projects Agency" for energy. [/b]

And, here is MP3 audio of the conference call with reporters from the day when she introduced the legislation.

http://clinton.senate.gov/audio/02_2...nergy_call.mp3

interesteddad

Of course, the proposals take years to implement. The energy problem is a long-term challenge that only has long-term solutions.

As for oil-company interests, that's why you want to look at the RECORD of each candidate. These people have experence in public life. They have introduced legislation. They have cast votes.

For example, look at who voted for massive giveaways to the oil companies (tax breaks, below market fees for drilling on public parkland, waving environmental regulations for oil companies, etc.) in the 2005 Cheney Energy Bill.

Clinton: Nay
McCain: Nay
Obama: Yea

Why did Obama vote for it? This passage in a WaPost article on the bill might explain:

Exelon had been Obama's largest corporate benefactor. Exelon is the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the United States.

Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud

mathmom

Bullet, all THREE candidates? It was my impression that Obama was advocating exactly what you are, a long term energy policy not short term fixes. Though more emphasis on saving energy and less on drilling for more oil.

epistrophy

Idad:

As far as I know, not even the Hillary camp - whose candidate famously observed that Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know" - has ever insinuated what you have here: that Obama's vote on critical issues can be bought.

In your one-man race to the bottom, don't worry: you're winning.

(P.S. I decided a long time ago that there must be two Idads: a good one and a bad one. The good one can be a seemingly inexhaustible source of valuable information. The bad one peddles nonsense like this.)

kluge

Idad, the problem is, I'm not sure that "cleaner" coal burning power plants is the answer anymore. I think biofuels are a scam. And while reducing energy use is a good goal, it's not enough. At this point I'm prepared to consider nuclear as a lesser evil compared to some of the possibilities, although I'd like to see less risky alternatives maximized first.

What I'm not seeing anywhere is a Manhattan Project-type campaign to immediately maximize energy production from the only source is entirely powered by America-based resources, has no environmentally adverse impacts and which could be dramatically scaled up on a widely dispersed, massively parallel basis without an immediate major public infrastructure investment, coupled with the necessary transportation infrastructure changes needed to minimize the need to use petroleum-base power generation.

There is a way out from here. The problem is, there is no currently existing major corporation or industry group which can see itself being the primary beneficiary of the change, so it isn't being promoted by anyone.

tega

I-DAD, I agree with you. I know Obama voted for that bill, and it is very hypocritical of him to talk about the influence of lobbyist in Washington after he was influenced by Exelon lobbyist to vote for that bill.

This bill was basically a giveaway to the energy companies, full of subsidies that they don't need.

mercymom

If you want to see a far ranging look at what's in store for the US and the world, including all the various technical and geo political issues/consequences/potential solutions and reactions,go to The global homepage of the Shell Group and click on "Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050" in the upper right-hand corner.

interesteddad

Give me a break. Obama has said that Clinton is corrupt and beholden to special interests at every campaign stop for 15 months and you want to squeal like a stuck pig when it is pointed out that Saint Obama has been known to carry a little water for his corporate patrons? I've never seen a campaign with such thin skin.

And, by the way, Clinton has leveled the Exelon charge at Obama...in the last debate....questioning why he watered down the public notification requirements for nuclear spills in his own bill after he met with the CEO of Exelon.

She also hit him hard on his Exelon ties before the Nevada causus. Exelon has spent millions lobbying for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, a hot-button issue in Nevada.

Obama has also carried Exelon's water protecting their coal-burning power plant interests.

Exelon associates have given $179,000 to Obama's Presidential campaign...almost all of it early when they were his number 2 donor.

Exelon associates gave Obama $46,000 for his 2004 Senate race.

Exelon's PAC has given $98,000 to Obama for his state races, beginning in 1998. Oh, but wait, Saint Obama "doesn't take PAC money" so he won't be beholden, right?

interesteddad

Here's a June 2007 Washington Post article (you have to go back before they were in the tank for Obama to get any real reporting) on Obama's coal contortions:

Coal Fuels A Debate Over Obama - washingtonpost.com

mercymom

Here's the Scenarios 2050 booklet (51 pages):

Download the Shell Energy Scenarios 2050 (PDF, size 1.5MB) - opens in a new window

It contrasts "Scramble" vs "Blueprint". Scramble is what happens if govts ignore energy problems until it reaches crisis proportions. Blueprint is more of a think ahead approach. It reaches across the spectrum, relying heavily on CO2 capture and storage, but also touching on nuclear, biofuel, electric/hydrogen cars, conservation, etc. Shell recommends Blueprint.


Dang. The link won't transfer. Well, you can find the booklet on the Scenarios 2050 site and click on it. There is also a video you can watch, plus links to prior scenarios projections going back to the mid 90s. Have fun.

interesteddad

What timing. I'm listening to Obama's stump speech in Indianapolis and he's railing about how we can't keep selling our energy policy to the highest bidder like Senator Clinton does. We can have politicians taking money from energy company special interests.....

Funny. He doesn't mention Exelon.

cottonwood513

Of the three, only Obama is not taking money from PACs.

kluge

Mercymom - very interesting presentation from Shell. Definitely food for thought.