In case you’re wondering how the presidential candidates differ in their energy policies here are some bullet points from their energy policy.
- Will approve the Keystone Pipeline on his first day in office.
- Strip EPA of authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
- Strip DOI of authority over federal lands and give authority to states.
- Kill wind energy by eliminating the production tax credit.
- Keep all incentives and tax breaks for oil & gas industry to the tune of $4 billion/year.
- Stick with federal ethanol mandate.
- Drill all federal lands and water, both coasts and even the Arctic National Refuge.
- Opposes fuel efficiency standards.
- Neuter the EPA.
- Let states regulate fracking
Obama:
- Raise fuel efficiency standards.
- EPA maintains authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Maintain incentives for wind & solar which have doubled during his administration.
- Eliminate $4 billion incentives and tax breaks for oil & gas.
- Maintain drilling moratorium on Pacific and most of Atlantic Coasts & DOI keeps leasing authority.
- Allow State Department to decide if Keystone XL is in nation’s best interest.
- Seeks federal safety standards for fracking.
Source: Washington Post
there is no contest on this - not even close
Mitch Slagghorn says
I really can’t help but wonder,.How most Texans feel about
the media blackout on one of their own ? Kind of odd
isn’t it ? Here’s a candidate from the oil rich state of Texas,
representing a major port district too,.. and he responds
to an interview question :
Interviewer-
But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Ron Paul-
“Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of “market” that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the “cheapest energy sources,” as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.
To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.”
Ron Paul- The Underground Independent Dark Horse Write-It-In Candidate
Pie in the sky.
Beth says
So clearly spelled out like that, there really is no choice . Moving forward with the President is how I will vote.
Well said. Take away the subsidies, the creative reserve reports, the funny money, and few of these wells make any economic sense. And that’s before they offload the environmental costs to the taxpayers.