First and foremost, we are not out to shift voters.  This post is not about who the better candidate is, but rather how important Energy is to our nation.  This post in no way reflects our own political views.

That being said, let’s dig into the Energy.  As we have posted previously, energy is an enormous problem that needs to be solved.  Relating back to a previous post, what happened to the days where Americans raced with Russia to get to the moon?  What happend to the United States being a head of the game?  Most of this has to do with we are losing Math and Science specialists.

So, the coin flip goes up on which candidate goes first, and it is tails, which was Obama.

On cars and driving:

Obama: Would provide $4 billion in loans and tax credits to American auto plants and manufacturers so that they can retool factories and build fuel-efficient cars; would put 1 million 150-mpg, plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years and would give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy fuel-efficient cars.

McCain: Proposed a $300 million award for “the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” Called for the suspension of the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4-cent-a-gallon diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.  Says the lost revenue would be paid for by money from the general fund.

Both of their ideas and plans are solid.  The break at the pump would sure be nice, but as we have stated before, it isn’t just about cutting the cost, we need to find alternatives.  Obama’s idea would be phenomenal, but is it obtainable?  McCain has a good idea, because in order for the electric car to flourish, the battery needs to be improved….In your opinion…who wins on this topic?

Renewable energy

McCain: Would commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technologies.  Calls for a permanent tax credit, which he says will “simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries,” according to his campaign Web site.  Encourages development of low-carbon fuels — wind, hydro and solar power.

Obama: Would require 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first presidential term. The plan would extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy.  Create five first-of-a-kind, coal-fired demonstration plants that would capture and store carbon dioxide emissions and invest in technology that will allow for more coal use.

Very good debate material.  As before they both have very good ideas, with the same common goal.  In this topic Obama basically wants to improve the usage of coal for power.  He wants to make it cleaner and more effective.  Mccain advocates the usage of alternative energy, giving better incentives to the people who do use it.  Who wins this topic?

Climate change

McCain: Proposes a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies.  It is a market-based approach that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and provide industries with tradable credits.

Obama: Calls for a reduction of carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would create what his campaign calls a “Global Energy Forum” and re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This is proof once again of similar outcomes, different approaches.  Which one has the better approach?

Nuclear energy

McCain: Calls for building new nuclear reactors, saying barriers to nuclear energy are political, not technological. Would put a plan in place to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 — with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public would share in the economic benefits.

Obama: Says he’ll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.  In Democratic debate earlier this year, he said, “We should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.”

Could nuclear Energy be the future?  What do you think?

Offshore drilling

McCain: Proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.  Would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.   Opposes drilling in some wilderness areas — including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and said those places must be left undisturbed.

Obama: Opposed new offshore drilling, but later shifted to say that he would consider it if it were part of a larger strategy to lower energy costs.  Supports bipartisan energy plan from the Senate that combines alternative energy innovation, financial, nuclear energy and drilling proposals. Effort by five Democrats and five Republicans to break Congress’ energy impasse would allow expanded offshore oil exploration and embrace ambitious energy efficiency and efforts to develop alternative fuels.   Believes oil companies should drill on the 68 million acres they have access to but haven’t used and would require oil companies that will not drill to give up their leases.

Is offshore drilling going to lower the cost of fuel in the next 5-10 years?  It is said that the drilling off-shore could take up to 10 years to enter production.  What do you think?

We think this is proof that no matter who you vote for, there is a problem, and we as a society need to

Take a Stand…

Help Make a Difference