The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, June 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need to Know About Where the Candidates Stand on Energy Policy

Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman, Center for American Progress
September 28, 2012  |  35 Comments

Print

Clean energy is an important part of the economy of Colorado, which is the location of the first presidential debate on October 3rd.

Colorado’s robust wind industry and 70,000 jobs in green goods and services could suffer if the Production Tax Credit for wind isn’t extended by the end of 2012. The presidential candidates differ on this, as well as other energy issues. Hopefully the Denver debate, scheduled to focus on the economy, will also address energy policies so vital to Colorado and the nation.

The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.

President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.

In short, there are stark differences between the two presidential candidates that must be discussed on October 3 so Americans have a clear view of the energy path each candidate would lead us down.

Below is a more detailed direct comparison of their positions on the most visible energy challenges facing the nation. Following this chart is documentation on the candidates’ positions:

Oil and gas production

Obama:

  • Oil imports lowest since 1997; dropped by 15 percent during term to 42 percent; vowed to cut current oil imports in half by 2020. [[Energy Information Administration, 6/12]
  • Domestic oil production is the highest in 15 years. The United States has more drilling rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. [Center for American Progress Action Fund,9/13/12; Energy Information Administration, 9/11/12]
  • Crude oil production from federal lands and waters was higher in 2009, 2010 and 2011 than in any of the last three years of the Bush administration. [EIA, 3/14/12]
  • Raised worker and environmental safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, strengthening well design, testing, control equipment, and workplace safety. The Gulf Coast region was not hurt economically by a temporary moratorium, which has the same unemployment as two years ago and had rising personal income in 2011. [White House, 3/30/12, NOLA, 4/15/12]

Romney

  • Would open the Florida portion of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, public lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to new drilling. Would accelerate drilling permits, short circuiting health and environmental reviews. [MittRomney.com, 2011]
  • Defense Department concerned about Florida and Virginia drilling expansion since it could interfere with military training. [Panama City News Herald, 4/4/12]
  • Called the temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf following the Deepwater Horizon disaster “illegal.” [CBS News, 3/9/12]
  • See “Public lands protection”

Big Oil tax breaks

Obama:

  • Calls on Congress to end $4 billion in oil tax breaks and to invest in clean energy instead. [White House, 3/28/2012]
  • Pledged to cut subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas internationally, along with  G20 nations. [Economist,10/1/09]

Romney:

  • Romney supports the House Republican budget, authored by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which preserves $40 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry over a decade. [CAP, 3/20/12]
  • Romney’s economic plan would give the big five oil companies–BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell–an additional $2.3 billion annual tax cut on top of existing tax breaks they currently receive. [CAPAF, 7/26/12]
  • Romney’s plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but does not make specific mention of oil and gas loopholes which let oil companies pay much lower effective federal rates. [MittRomney.com, 2012]
  • Asked directly in an interview about whether he is for or against subsidizing Big Oil, Romney responded: “I’m not sure precisely what big tax breaks we’re talking about.” [Fox News, 4/3/2012]

Clean energy

Viewing Page 1 of 3

  • View All
  • Next Page

35 Comments

Register To Comment
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
October 5, 2012
Too bad the US doesn't have the voting system common in Australia, where you can vote for an obscure or little known candidate (like Jill Stein of the Green Party or Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party), but then have a second, third, etc choice. You can express your deepest desire, but if that candidate gets very few votes, the bottom candidate's votes will be transferred to their second choice, third choice, etc., until someone gets over 50% of the vote. Thus you could vote for Jill Stein, without the risk of effectively supporting Romney if Obama were your second choice, or vice versa.

Sure beats the current CA system, where a majority-Democratic district had three Democrats and two Republicans in the primary, so now the choice is between 2 Republicans.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
October 3, 2012
There is already a price on carbon being released in most states if they have an RPS. The carbon payments gets paid back to the utes, mostly, for their RE programs in all the states that do not have a "solar carve-out". The solar carve-out opens it up to distributed energy (solar) for all who can keep count of the KWhr's of energy produced. The little state of NJ is second only to CA in solar because of a generous solar carve-out and an SACP high enuff to keep it going. Their market tanked when they adjusted the carve-out and the market became saturated. It is a tricky thing to keep balanced right, but they are learning how. Some other states are going forward also. Too slowly IMO.
Diana Prieto
Diana Prieto
October 3, 2012
THANK YOU DANIEL AND JACKIE EXCELENT!!!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 3, 2012
That could well be, Ron.

I'm also better than the Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates on renewable energy issues. Elect me Dictator and I'll establish a price on carbon release, boost EV subsidies to at least $15k, and increase subsidies for renewables. I'll also put the full weight of the US behind developing better large scale energy storage. If Ambri, Aquion or any of the other companies developing grid batteries needs some money I'll send over a few dump trucks full.

That said, neither Jill, Rocky, or I will be elected President of the United States in November 2012. Best to vote for the person who best represents your positions and has a chance of getting elected.
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
October 3, 2012
Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party seem to be better than the Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates on renewable energy issues.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 3, 2012
Phil, I just saw this on another site and it made me think about your suggestion to vote for Green Party candidates in November...


"Each political decision is made based on how that choice will advance the voter's core principles, however imperfectly."


I probably agree with the Green Party more than the Democratic Party, but the Green Party has not built itself into a viable force that can win national elections.

I would suggest that if you want to advance your green core principles you should be working to elect the candidate who will advance those principles, even imperfectly, rather than taking a chance that we end up with a president who will work against your principles.
Joseph Riley
Joseph Riley
October 3, 2012
I am not comparing John Podesta to Joseph Goebbels. As a matter of fact, John Podesta didn't even write this "article." I am simply making the connection between an organization who's only job it is to promote progressive ideology and it's ability to evaluate issues with a neutral and objective eyeball. It's called an analogy.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 3, 2012
David, Palin was claiming that we could drill our way out of our oil problems. We clearly couldn't, there are not enough oil reserves in the US to supply our needs.

PBO has taken a wiser route, allow more drilling in the short term while working to lower the need for oil down the road. Between doubled CAFE standards and in introduction of electric vehicles we can greatly reduce the amount of oil we need to keep our economy humming.
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
One thing that always catches my eye is the part about oil prices going up under Romney. I personally think that would be the best thing that could happen.Want to see fast change ? Remove the money we give the oil companies. Let the price rise to $8 a gallon fuel like the rest of the world pays.Renewable energy would take off like a rocket. The high oil price comment is always thrown in like it would be a bad thing. Let it go America.
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
Coal dust on one hand, oil on the other with a distinct aroma of eau du frac - can't these political supporters even launder their money properly? It's high time to give the go ahead to horizontal fracing under the Arlington cemetery.
Joseph Riley
Joseph Riley
October 3, 2012
Opinion and commentary from the Center for American Progress? Really? You do know that this organization is founded by John Podesta, don't you? Anyone know who he is?

This is like asking Joseph Goebbels to write an opinion piece on why Hitler is good for Germany and giving it the same value as if someone of intellectual honesty had actually written it! Shame on you. Opinion is one thing, but out and out distortions is another!
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
This article is biased as heck. It's even hardly a reporting article but rather an Obama ad.

I feel for Romney. I bet if he showed up for breakfast (without his entourage, cameras, etc), he'd would be very pleasant, funny, compassionate, charismatic, forward-thinking, etc. A real nice guy.

But Romney wants to be president and alas picked the GOP for party. That's the real mistake, akin to McCain picking Palin. So Romney knows he must please the GOP base, which has turned old, racist, bigot, sexist, xenophobe, elitist, redneck, gun crazy, Christian crazy, nonsense, etc. And the only way is to preach crazy nonsense on top of crazy nonsense and be against everything the half-white president stands for. I'm sure that burns Romney on the inside. He's an intelligent, educated, traveled fella. He knows better than his party nonsense.

And energy is no exception. If Obama wanted to ban the last Amish horse buggies and ranch horseback riding citing a made-up environmental concern, the GOP base would raise up arms, cry "liberal agenda", and say we all must have horses to cut on oil imports. And and poor Romney would have to go along to get those votes.

I feel for Romney.
David Carl
David Carl
October 3, 2012
Some comments about what is in the article and other's comments.

Oil production is much higher today. Obama and his supporters ridiculed Palin over drill baby drill because it "would take years for new production to hit the market". Therefore, the higher production is the result of things that happened before Obama was president. It is not surprising that someone who blames others for his shortcomings claims credit for others success.

3.1 million green jobs is the current count. The majority of these jobs are transit system employees. I suspect nearly all of these transit jobs existed before Obama became president. The BLS reports that 85,000 people in the US work in the wind power industry and 93,000 in the solar power industry. The implication of the report is that green energy jobs are numerous and were created during the Obama administration. This is not true.

The author claims the auto industry has been revitalised due to higher CAFE standards. It is way to early to make such a claim as they have only now been finalized with goals years down the road. Most economist claim the auto industry is improving because people can no longer put off buying a new car.

$9 trillion spent on wars? Really, you believe every penny spent on the DoD has gone to Iraq and Afghanistan? Most analyst put this cost at $3 trillion. Still a large number and some will debate whether it was necessary, but that leaves a deficit of $13 trillion not 7, and even 13 (7 is too) is a number that should be demanding everyones attention. It reduces future growth and it limits the ability to use the tax code to push for desirable outcomes in energy efficiency and energy production.
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
I agree this is a complete opinion piece. Let me give my opinion, while B. Hussein Obama has given his support to green industries it is more to fuel his own agenda than real support for the industries. Take a look at Solyndra.

Mitt Romney has pledged energy independence including a solid mix of renewable energy sources. To me solid energy independence is much, much, much more valuable than handouts from the government propping up an industry that can't make it on its own. Don't get me wrong, renewable energy has its place in the economy, I just think it needs to stand on its own two feet.

Obama made a lot of promises during the 2008 campaign and I can't think of any that he has kept. Obama spent $5 Trillion in 4 years and wasn't able to do anything in terms of improving the economy or unemployment rate. To attempt to artificially make it look like unemployment is not as bad as it actually is, Obama made it so people don't have to be searching for employment to receive unemployment. He also adjusted the time people are able to receive unemployment from 6 months to 2 years. Now they can receive an unemployment check but not be counted in the percentage of unemployed. This is only one of the disastrous changes to the economy that Obama has made.

Romney has been completely solid in his accomplishments. He turned around the 2002 Winter Olympics. I remember the primary in Massachutes where Romney was previously Governor. With 4 people running in the primary, Romney won 72% of the vote. This to me is a very, very solid backing of his record.

Last but not least, Obama has submitted at least 3 budgets to congress (well they were brought before congress) and he didn't receive a single vote one any of these budgets, not Reid, not Pelosi not any of the Democrats (not even one). Currently, the very real problem that needs to get fixed is the economy and Obama has proven in very stark colors that he is very much unable to do so.
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
It is clear that the Obama agenda is more favorable to the renewables movement, and I think an unbiased, side by side comparison of positions would be a valuable resource. But COME ON, this "article" belongs as a blog or editorial.

I value this portion of the publication as a source of renewable energy NEWS and this is not NEWS, it is an opinion piece...
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
Liberals absolutely unbelivable. Mr Obamma siad if I can't get unemployment down I only deserve 1 term. Not one of the replys state the whole truth of what is going on. "fundemantally change" are the key words. I want to improve our fundementals not change them. You think the present energy policies are good? Look at your fancy light bulbs. Full of mercury! In my buisness they started removing old thermostats because of the mercury in them..ha Now we have lightbulbs deseminated to the masses that actually require you to have them properly removed. Who is going to do the procedure to properly dispose of these bulbs? Certainly not the people who do not understand what's in them. Wind evidently costs more to maintain than the value of the power they produce. I appreciate progress and believe all these new technologies should imporove however forcing shut downs of already usable energy and folding in the new would be a much better ,more profitable and a little less disrupting than the methods used now. None of us here really have the full story and impacts on all involved. Most replys here sound like "I found something I like so I will run with what I ageree with"...not a complete picture. Emotionly charged ...not good conclusions. It may not meet the full defination of socialism but I was always told that they sneak it in, comes slowly we are loosing rights every day and getting further away from our core beliefs...my grandmother came here because of this type of bullying from the government she was raised in...She was 16 when she got here, became a citizen, learned to speak english and worked he whole life successfully raising 4 kids.
The majority of people today forget where they came from!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 3, 2012
It's too late Phil. If Jill and the Greens want to be players then they need to do the hard work of building a party that has numbers and not turning up at the last moment to play spoiler.

This is not a game. We are going to elect one of two people to be president for the next four years. It will not be Jill or Gary or that other guy whose name I've forgotten. Voting for someone with zero possibility is taking a chance that someone you would absolutely hate to be president might turn out to be.

If you're concerned about climate change, if you want to see more renewable energy installed, if you want to see us use less fossil fuels then use your vote to put someone in office who will take things in those directions.

Just go to the booth with the thought that you have the ability cancel out David Koch's vote. He may have billions of dollars, but you've got the same number of votes as he does and you can neuter him.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
October 3, 2012
@ phil-manke79191

If only it were that easy.

Just vote for 'the other guys'!

Even a billionaire like Ross Pero,who could fund his own campaign and actually had as high as %19 approval learned his lesson.
Never heard a peep out of him again once he was set down and had the 'facts of life' explained in detail.

Political parties cannot survive or even be relevant unless they reach critical mass and must have grass roots support beyond just a few malcontents preaching to their own private choir.

Until and unless things get bad enough and there's enough disgust with the two parties who serve the same masters, so that the few critical thinkers left take over one of the established parties, voting for the so called third party is an effort in futility.

Just as the fossil fuel interests have figured out how to keep their prices just below a point of mass rage of the consumers and the resultant search for an alternative, the "masters of the universe' have also learned how to keep the lid on this boiling pot we call society. So long as the lid stays on they can feel confident that keeping the fires burning will only cook 'them' and not 'us'.

Of course Marie Antoinette felt the lid was tight enough just before her head rolled into that bucket.

Maybe there is hope yet.
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
October 3, 2012
Google the Green Party! Another choice for Pres and VP. Jill Stein and Sheri Honkala. The mplatform is well thought out and "GREEN" for RE and all the policies the republocrats and demublicans talk about. Then there is the Progressive Party. Check them out too. If we make no other choices, nothing different will happen. It's that simple. Of course, you can choose the "fear party" of "nay saying" and "pooh buttin"; =same old shit. I recommend voting "Green"!!!! Ending aggression and war, and promoting peaceful energy without influence by corporate lobbiests. Just don't say their is no other choice! There it is.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 2, 2012
I don't yet know if I object to "their profit".

That profit, BTW, is not 20%, it's what is left from 15% (large group policies) or 20% (individual policies) after operating expenses. Start with 15% or 20% and subtract insurance company personnel costs, office expenses, advertising expenses, and all the other costs of running a business - what's left is their profit. Apparently it costs Medicare 10% to operate so profits are more along the 5% to 10% line.

Now, I've worked for the federal government, a couple of state governments, private for-profit and private non-profit agencies.

What I saw working for government agencies was that there was not a lot of energy put into saving costs and "customer satisfaction". There were a lot of good people trying to do the best job they could, but the system was not working toward efficiency and best service.

The PPACA has put insurance companies in direct competition. In order to appear on the Exchange page they have to offer the same quality policies and their costs will be clear. It will be easy to open another tab with sites that measure customer satisfaction.

I can see that competition to lower operating costs and make their customers happy possibly driving us to better health insurance than a non-competitive system. It's something we won't figure out for a few years and other than slightly higher costs for government subsidies I don't see a cost.

After a few years of trying it this way we may see that single payer would provide same coverage at a better price and then we can reconsider. In the meantime 40 million Americans get health insurance and we avoid tens of thousands unnecessary deaths per year.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
October 2, 2012
@ Bob-Wallace

Yes I suppose I lightly dismiss the "nothing more" issue.

Primarily because I see all the things you listed as being a bare minimum that should be and is offered by all other advanced Western societies concerning their health insurance programs

As to the profit?

Yes I object to their profit

In Germany and in most truly democratic societies it is illegal for a health insurance company to make a profit on primary care insurance.

Giving a %20 profit to insurance companies for a simple service of facilitating transfers of funds based on actuarial tables when a country such as Canada achieves this same service with less than ten people running computers and at about a %1 or %2 overhead is corruption and cronyism and is at best insane.
Yes I was offered very little of real value so calling it nothing is not far from the truth.

And yes I will still vote for Obama

Unlike many who will vote for Romney my President does not have to be a white man.

The powers that be only give us two choices pre selected and approved of. So far I don't see the American Sheeple objecting to much of anything the %1 chooses to do to them.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 2, 2012
"How can Obama be labeled a socialist when his Obamacare program does nothing more than pad the pockets of the for profit insurance companies."

Nothing more?

Coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Health insurance for 40 million uninsured Americans.

Closing the prescription med doughnut hole for seniors.

Allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they have a chance to get themselves established.

Providing enormous funds for new urban and rural treatment centers.

Providing for the training of large numbers of new health care providers.

Cutting down on Medicare waste and fraud.

Raising payments for treating Medicaid patients so that more doctors will be willing to treat our poorest.

Computerizing our medical records so that there are fewer doctor mistakes and we don't have to pay for redundant testing.

Forcing insurance companies to spent 80% to 85% of the collected premiums on patient health services and to operate their businesses and take the profit from the remaining 15% to 20% rather than taking more than a 20% profit as some were doing.

Making it very easy for all of us to shop for the insurance company with the best services and best prices on a single internet page rather than spending hours and hours filling out insurance company forms just to get a number.

Is that "nothing more" in your book?

Will insurance companies make more money? They might. But those extra profits they might enjoy will come from insuring more people at lower per-person profit rates.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
October 2, 2012
@ justice-middleton


"Obama is gonna put people like me and my family in the ground if he goes in for four more years. Shut down oil, spend more money, control health care....socialist much?"

You either listen to exclusively that multibillion dollar right wing propaganda machine the so called right likes to humorously call Liberal, or you are just being silly. Either way what you say is equivalent to you standing your ground when proclaiming that there is no gravity or that water flows up hill.

Read carefully what you wrote.

How can Obama be labeled a socialist when his Obamacare program does nothing more than pad the pockets of the for profit insurance companies. Corporate socialism perhaps.

Obama has done more to promote domestic oil drilling than even the Oil Patch Shrub administration. Just look up the statistics if you are not adverse to facts derived using mathematics and science.

Also Obama spent only what he was forced to by the disaster left for him by the Bush Crime Family (by the way Romney will have all the same criminals in his cabinet) and his budget figures now reflect the cost of the bloated military obscenity they like to call defense rather than hiding the costs in off budget like the Bush Crime Family did.

So check carefully and see if you are floating and if the water in your bath tub is heading for your roof.

You make absolutely no sense on any level except as reflected in an alternate universe.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 2, 2012
Romney practically invented sending jobs overseas. That was one of the ways he earned his vast fortune.

Romney cares only for making the rich richer. I hope you heard the tape of him telling his rich friends his disdain for working Americans.

Want some really good blue color jobs? The support candidates that will support green energy and put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work building wind farms and installing solar panels.

There really aren't very many jobs in the oil industry. Check it out.

You want a strong America? Work to get us off oil so that we con't get caught up in Middle East oil wars. Work to get us operating on nothing but American wind, Sun, geothermal, tidal, and hydro energy. Clean up our air by getting rid of oil and coal, make our children's future healthier.

And support the new health care bill. Enough of powerful insurance companies run by greedy people like Romney jerking us around, overcharging us, refusing to pay when we get sick, and kicking us off when we get really sick.

It's not socialism. It's Americans deciding that they've been screwed enough by insurance companies and demanding good service for their dollars.
Justice Middleton
Justice Middleton
October 2, 2012
You guys are all either rich or dumb. Romney wants to use American resources! That's means blue collar, hard working americans can survive. Obama is gonna put people like me and my family in the ground if he goes in for four more years. Shut down oil, spend more money, control health care....socialist much? Let's go all american and save our money so the country won't go bankrupt??? IDIOTS!!!!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 2, 2012
Congress has to be the ones to cut subsidies for foreign oil.

PBO called on Congress to do just that in March of this year.

In March of this year Senate Republicans refused to cut subsidies for foreign oil.

Your post - a bit dishonest or simply misinformed?
ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012
The article is a bit dishonest. For example it claims, "Obama....Pledged to cut subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas internationally, along with G20 nations." But just last year President Obama offered Brazilian oil producer Petrobras $2 billion in US loan guarantees for their deep water drilling efforts.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
October 1, 2012
Obama vs Romney??

All one needs to know is that Romney is willing to align himself,apparently with no shame, with a political party that for at least the last three decades has been a total disaster for everyone except for the %1 who own it.

Evidence of the destruction is everywhere one looks after one takes off the 'rose colored glasses' or the Fox bubble shield.

Zebra's don't change their stripes

Republicans will never change either

Safest bet.at least until or unless we have a viable second party is to just ignore Republicans and not waste time in trying to figure them out.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 30, 2012
Mitt's base is largely less educated white males and "corporate" folks.

What's sad is how much those less educated white males continue to vote against their best interests. They are the group who most need access to affordable medical insurance and who will be most dependent on Social Security and Medicare/caid when they retire.

Eighty years ago these are the people who would have been active in the labor movement, fighting for a fair share of the gains. Now they vote to give more and more power to those who abuse them.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
September 30, 2012
It is certainly curious where Romney's 39-45% apparent support is coming from. It is hard to imagine many women supporting someone who chooses as running mate a co-author with Todd Akin of a bill based on nonsensical gynecological ideas and "legitimate rape" concepts, or for that matter those men with wives, sisters, daughters, granddaughters etc. Subtract also those men with rational ideas about environmental effects of climate change etc., and Romney's "free-loading" 47%, and one can hardly imagine he would be left with double digit support. And yet, the surveys seem to say it's close.

Maybe the voting rolls are filled with aliens from outer space, who plan to take over our still-livable planet after we have wiped ourselves off it and the phytoplankton have restored the CO2 levels...
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 29, 2012
US national debt = $16 trillion and change.

US expendatures on three oil wars = ~$9 trillion.

$16 trillion - $9 trillion = $7 trillion, a much more affordable bill to pay.

See why doubling CAFE standards and increasing domestic supply can do our economy a lot of good?
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 29, 2012
PBO plays a long game. He doesn't necessarily go for quick fixes but tends to look for ways to solve problems and sometimes those problems can't be fixed overnight.

Look for a moment at his overall oil policy.

First, imported oil is the major driver behind our national security problems, both economic and military problems.

We have been spending about a billion dollars each day on imported oil. That $350 - 400 billion would greatly grow our domestic economy were it sloshing around inside our boarders, being spent in American businesses. And the extra activity would greatly increase tax revenues which would reduce our deficit problems.

Some of that $350 - 400 billion is making its way to the terrorists who want to harm us. Plus we spend additional hundreds of billions keeping a military presence in the Middle East to protect "our" oil supply. Our troops there are making the ME terrorists mad at us. We piss them off and fund them, thanks to our use of imported oil.

Second, oil is one of the 'big two' when it comes to CO2, greenhouse gases and climate change. If we don't significantly cut our CO2 emissions we are going to totally screw the planet.

So, what has President Obama done?

First, increased domestic oil production. We spend more money in-country, less out. And we pump oil under US enviornmental laws which is an improvement over what other countries permit. We decrease the flow of money to other oil-producing countries and make ourselves less dependent on their oil.

Second, supported the development of electric vehicles and doubled CAFE standards. In 2009 36 percent of America's oil came from domestic sources. If we increase that a bit and double average MPG for our vehicles we could produce 80+% of the oil we burn, stop hemoraging cash, cut the politcal power of the Middle East, and cut our oil-produced CO2 in half.

That's an approach I can love....
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
September 29, 2012
That's kindly put, Phil.

I would have said that Romney has reversed postion so often that he's in danger of burning out his spin bearings....
Phil Manke
Phil Manke
September 29, 2012
Ron peterson; The article is about Romney's stated views, not party platform, which is more composed and thought out with sophistications. I see no conclusions in the article that Romney did not state in his campaign or exemplify by past actions. He has back pedaled some on his mistakes, but that is merely political maneuvering.
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
September 28, 2012
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf has the 2012 Republican Party Platform including their ideas on energy. It's different from the conclusions that the article states.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 4
    Women in Power – It’s a Natural Fit
  • 4
    Renewable Energy in Myanmar: Not Just Clean, It’s Necessary
  • 3
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Talesun Solar USA, Ltd.
  • SunHedge
  • Brightergy
  • OnGrid Solar
  • CivicSolar
  • Sol Systems LLC
  • Renewable Energy Corporation
  • Upsolar
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information