Discussion on:

Obama vs. Romney: Who has the best energy plan?

No matter what Obama or Romney do, it appears that energy supply and demand in North America are coming closer in balance. The maximum demand and minimum production in North America occurred in 2005. Ever since then demand has been going down (well before the recession) and supply has been going up as new drilling technologies are taking hold. Thus we have a trend that started in the Bush administration and continued through the Obama administration, despite two very different energy policies. See http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/index.cfm#fnote1 , http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a , http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9010us2m.htm , and http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/17/us-usa-api-monthly-idUSBRE87G0UQ20120817 . If current trends continue in line with both parties' "all of the above" strategy, there is a possibility we could see overall North American energy supply and demand come into balance by 2020. However, this won't happen without the new mileage standards promoted by the Obama administration, and which are not supported by Romney. Romney's plan also assumes about 1 million barrels a day coming from biofuels, even though he is not a big proponent of them and they still require huge government subsidies.

Contrary to what Mr. Neider asserts, government subsidies for coal and natural gas electricity production amount to only 64 cents per MWH while solar is $765.64 per MWH and wind is $56.29 per MWH (see http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1201253705 , this link should get around the Wall Street Journal paywall for the next few days). The $4 billion per year federal subsidies the oil industry as a whole gets is derived mainly from the same capital depreciation tax laws that are available to any business. It's a tiny amount in an industry that contributes tax revenues of tens of billions a year. Solar, on the other hand, just creates black holes like Solyndra that swallow hundreds of millions without a trace (though it appears this loss will be available as tax credits to Solyndra's investors, some of whom are major Obama contributors, see http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=2002391853 ).

As for carbon emissions, the actual truth is that today the US is already close to meeting the Kyoto standards (basically reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels). US energy related CO2 emissions (including transportation and electricity production) are the lowest since 1992 (see http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350 ). While warmer weather played a part, as well as lower gasoline demand due to higher prices (supply and demand again), most of it has come from moving away from coal electricity production to cheaper natural gas (again driven by supply and demand). A byproduct of this is lower CO2 emissions since natural gas produces much less CO2 per MWH than coal. Who knew fracking would be the single most effective means of reducing CO2 in the last 20 years?

why not end government subsidies for all energy and let the market sort it out?

why not end government interference and regulation (government spends less money)

the government could then use the money saved to invest in research, or humanitarian concerns.

Politicians and government derive most of their wealth and power through regulation and subsidies, which wealthy individuals and companies pay handsomely to influence. Once these "feedback loops" are in place, they are virtually impossible to eliminate.

For example, it's almost universally accepted today by both industry and environmentalists that our Ethanol policy is a disaster, resulting in billions of dollars wasted, massive market dislocations, environmental damage, and food shortages. (Even Al Gore admits it was a mistake and that he supported it only to buy votes) And yet, no matter who wins come November, we will still have the same policy of mandates and subsidies in place next year, and the year after, and after. Why? Because a portion of the subsidies are directly fed back to the politicians who have the power but not the will to put a stop to it.

In 100 years, all cars could be powered by solar, wind and high self-esteem, but we'll still be subsidizing and mandating Ethanol.

How much oil would be washing up on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico without government interference and regulation? Self regulation seldom works. Did you ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair?

In ending government subsidies for all energy would you include the subsidy that fossil fuels get when they don't have to pay the cost of externalities such as increased asthma and heart disease, etc for people exposed to the byproducts of their use?

It's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Government regulation is not the only solution to most problems. If BP had just let the oil spill go, they would have been sued out of existence under existing general tort laws. People would stop buying gas at their stations.

Even "The Jungle" or "Silent Spring" were countervailing forces. They each were written by an individual, but they changed whole industries.

Government needs to provide the general legal framework and the courts to settle disputes. But the more specific regulations get, the more government interferes with people and companies going about their productive business.

You're idealism is sweet but in the real world am I going to risk my meager assets trying to go against someone like BP? Especially difficult would be cases where it's not possible to assign liability directly to an individual entity such as the asthma or heart disease caused by the pollution from vehicles. Are you going to sue every driver? or all of the filling stations that enable them?

If the company officers and shareholders had a more direct link to the consequences of their failures (read criminal liability) they would probably be more responsible but corporations are set up to shield those people from personal liability. If corporations and business entities weren't allowed to externalize costs they'd be more responsible but that's pretty impossible to do. I'd rather have government act in my stead.

What the difference is between needed business regulation and over regulation.

Needed regulation is the FAA saying that all commercial airliners must be carpeted with fire resistant carpeting that meets certain pollution emissions standards when smoldering to limit choking smoke in the event of a fire.

Over regulation is the FAA under the Obama administration saying that replacement carpet must meet the same standards AND be made of all natural materials obtained from only sustainable sources.

Seeing that no such carpet existed, that new regulation effectively stopped the replacement of worn carpets on commercial planes until such a product was created.

Just end ALL Government interference and READ the CONSTITUTION?

The Constitution IS THE BASIS of the government, after all.

Without what you are calling "Government interference," (I call it doing what government is SUPPOSED to do), reading the Constitution would be absolutely useless.

(Have YOU read it?)

Evidently you have not. 95% of what the Feds are doing is actually the purvey of the individual states to decide and act upon.

Article 1 Section 8. Powers of Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and navel Forces;

From the Preamble of The Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It clearly states the government is there to serve the people. That is why no corporations, groups or organizations should be allowed to be involved with elections or lobbying.

"why not end government subsidies for all energy and let the market sort it out?" Americans sometimes forget (or don't know) that the five major U.S. oil companies have to compete in the international marketplace against foreign oil companies that are heavily subsidised. And while President Obama restricted offshore drilling in tthe U.S., he subsidized it in Brazil, for a comany connected to one of his largest contributors..

Barack Obama promised that ,"under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" and that "will cost money

Obama has not restricted offshore drilling. He just put a temporary moratorium on deep water drilling while they were sorting out the aftereffects of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Shallow water drilling was still allowed and now deep water permitting has resumed.

It's amusing how I get negative votes for a simple factual statement, I suppose because it doesn't fit the voters worldview. Prove me wrong!

the Brazil bs was debunked long ago

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_offshore_drilling_brazil.htm

So the U.S. Export-Import Bank loaned money to Petrobras, Brazil's national oil company, so it would buy American equipment.

If the US government made low-interest loans to an US oil company drilling in the US under similar circumstances, the outcry from greens complaining about US government oil industry subsidies would be deafening.

Are you kidding? You are not sure "if Romney plans to annex Canada and Mexico"??? How about addressing this administration's refusal to have the DOE consider safe, cheap, thorium nuclear energy? This would not only avoid the possibility of nuclear melt-downs, but also create the medical isotopes so sorely needed, and free us from the Chinese stranglehold on rare earth metals! Renewable energy sources are good additions to the pool of sources, but these have the disadvantage of either being made from FOOD (i.e., ethanol) or are intermittent (i.e., solar, wind). We need two articles like this. Yours, and "the rest of the story". Shame on you.

You are living in lala land, if you think ANY of this matter in current time. What is at issue in this election is simple: putting the brakes on a runaway car, or stepping on the accelerator as it runs for the cliff.

My main issue with nuclear power is that it uses massive amounts of fresh water. Plants that can use grey water are being worked on, but it still requires millions of gallons of water each day.

You are concerned by the fresh water use by nuclear power? How much power do I get for the water used? What about what consumption of water to produce biofuels. According to a study the Virginia Water Resources Research Center in liters per 1000KWh:
Ethanol - 32,400-375,900
Biodiesel - 180,900-969,000
Nuclear - 31,000-74,900

This is not a doomsday comment, but there is an unfortunate reality to consider here. Namely, that even if Pres. Obama *does* get re-elected, and is hopefully able to serve the whole of his second term, that still only brings us 4 years into what is a roughly 24 year energy plan, in terms of his goals for efficiency. 24 years folks, that's a bare minimum of *THREE* presidents after this one, or if everyone serves their full four years, as many as SIX. Anyone of of these people could up and derail or out right kill this much needed action. And given the highly divisive state of our country's mind set right now, the likelihood of this getting the axe before it can bear fruit is very, very likely.

I'm not saying don't vote, and I'm not saying it's hopeless, and I'm not supporting one party over another. What I AM saying is that, if the environment is important to you, make sure your elected officials, whatever their party affiliation, know that, and have their facts straight. There are tons of bits of misinformation and half truths out there, even a few brilliantly crafted lies, and unfortunately, a great deal of false hope about how little we need to change our behaviors as a species to prevent this looming disaster. We cannot wait to tighten our belts on energy usage, and to stop using the more polluting fuel sources, until all the other countries do. Polluting the earth is not a right, or a privilege, it's a shame and it ought to be a crime. We need to step up and lead by example, rather than complaining that other people in other countries still get to do what we shouldn't want to do anyway.

If you feel similarly, and you want to see things get done to protect the planet, make sure sure that ALL your candidates on ALL levels of your government know that, because this has got to happen on all levels for the foreseeable future. We can't pin our hopes on one guy, who's power is actually pretty limited, who has some good ideas, and assume he'll make the problem go away. The problem doesn't just "go away." It's going to take consistent effort by a series of people who understand what's going on and are willing to make the right choice for the environment, regardless of how unpopular it may be in the view of big business and other special interests. Because at the end of the day, whether they realize it or not, those groups still live here too, and they still need a habitable planet, and whether they get it or not, letting them run amock with outdated energy policies is a slow suicide for all of us.

After all, we've been subsidizing Ethanol for 3 decades now, or 6 more years than Obama's supposed 24-year plan.

Some bad ideas just never go away.

Fine, you don't like ethanol or the fact that our government subsidizes it. Thing is, that has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all. You missed it entirely. My point is that caring for and healing the environment is a LONG TERM GOAL that is EVERYONE'S responsibility. Most of us aren't in a position to make the decisions that will guide the country in this respect, but we DO choose those decision makers. And we need them to be conscientious about it.

...which is that as long as the government takes the role of choosing winners and losers based almost entirely upon pop science and who's buddies and bundles with whom, there will be no "healing the environment".

It's certainly true that "Most of us aren't in a position to make the decisions that will guide the country in this respect", but it's also true that the ones we've been choosing to do so aren't either. The current state of the President's alternative energy agenda is painful enough proof of that.

All we can do is promote a clean culture, and hope that people start adopting it. Let's say that I feel like 6Wolves: I vote for whoever has the environmental priority (or that's what the slimy politician told us). That's how you end up with crooks in office that will say anything to get elected by people that believe anything that a "pro-green" politician tells them. As long as the government is involved, the correct way of doing the task at hand will never happen. Less government=more things happening the way that they're actually supposed to happen. Slash and burn the government wherever possible, and make a clean planet (and whatever else the majority supports) "cool."