Real Differences in Candidate's Energy Plans

By BJ

Last week, McClatchy noted that while the two Presidential candidate's sound quite similar in their energy proposals, there are actually quite significant differences between the two.

Voters have a clear choice on energy issues in this fall's presidential election.

However, it's not the choice that this week's torrent of rhetoric from presumptive presidential nominees John McCain or Barack Obama suggests.

Both have been touting positions that sound vaguely alike. Each has said he'd accept some offshore oil drilling, urge more nuclear power and accelerate alternative energy development.

The article then goes on to layout the different approaches the two candidates are actually proposing. Obama is far more focused on developing alternative energy sources and increasing energy efficiency, while McCain is, unsurprisingly, vague on such things while pumping up the "snake oil" of offshore drilling and proposing major increase in nuclear power. The article ends:

Some experts wonder if voters are getting any of this.

"The debate has been almost ethereal," said Kearney. "It's all so tangled."

Well, Thomas Freidman today has decided to take McCain to task over this issue.

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.

Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.

It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.

“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.

TPM carried much the same story yesterday, and as our colleague Ron noted, this puts McCain in a tough position as his own rhetoric has pushed him into a corner thanks to the, "Gang of 10" energy proposal. As Friedman puts it:

That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.

Well, this is a country that swallowed the "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" initiatives, so I remain skeptical that we'll hear any more about McCain's energy hypocrisy, but at least some people are noticing.