John McCain's plan, The Lexington Project, reflects his underlying belief that government intervention in free markets
should be avoided when possible. Geoffrey Styles, author of blog Energy Outlook offers an interesting analysis of McCain's stance on the matter. He argues that the Republican nominee advocates enacting measures that focus on achieving results through the use of incentives to stimulate private industry. Under this model, encouraging investment would develop technologies necessary for alternative fuel development. For instance, Senator McCain has proclaimed that if elected, he would hold the Clean Car Challenge, a contest open to the public that would award $300 million to whichever party could markedly improve the current rechargeable car battery. While it aptly demonstrates the use of rewards to catalyze progress, I find this type of competition to be a gimmick designed to placate voters who want alternatives for the way in which automobiles are powered. America’s growing energy issue must instead be addressed with much more aggressive legislation to ensure necessary change. The Arizona Senator’s disapproval of involvement by the federal government is made further apparent by his objection to the introduction of a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The proposal would institute the adoption of alternative fuel types by requiring specific benchmarks to be to be achieved. Instead, he believes that such consumption milestones should be left to the discretion of the states. I see a distinct problem with this however, as some of them have not elected to enact any form of stringent regulation in the past. Thus McCain’s two principle strategies are not aggressive enough in reducing America’s reliance on foreign nonrenewable resources. Under laissez faire policies, free markets have not adequately responded to the nation’s true energy needs, while vesting regulatory powers to the states, which eschew heightened emissions standards and the mandatory use of different fuel types, would continue to allow unabated energy consumption. His support for these types of policies reveal why his expectations for carbon emission reduction, 60% below 1990 levels by 2050, are substantially more modest in comparison to Mr. Obama's declared cutback goals. Yet if these examples were not enough to show the degree to which John McCain prioritizes America’s energy crisis, the Republican nominee has been quoted for stating his disbelief in the ability for alternative fuels to provide a greater supply of power to America. An article written by Joseph Romm cites a YouTube video in which Mr. McCain declared at a town hall meeting that "the truly clean technologies don't work.” Furthermore, the Senator’s extensive voting history portrays him as a representative who by and large has not supported legislation that deviates from traditional power sources. Susan Kraemer, a correspondent MatterNetwork, reveals how Mr. McCain's record in the Senate affirms this fact. Thus a significant part of the presidential candidate's strategy centers not upon diversified investment in new technologies, but continued reliance and expansion of existing policies and practices. His proposal to drill into America's untapped oil reserves does not reflect an emphasis on utilizing renewable resources, and his long-term plan to build forty-five nuclear power plants by 2030 has been criticized for its feasibility and the danger nuclear technology presents. The Senator has also reported his support for developing clean coal technology at a cost of $15 billion per year, though the probability of the technology actually coming to fruition has been shown to be suspect. Such solutions proposed by John McCain represent the inadquecy of his plan to solve our nation’s energy crisis.Barack Obama considerably differs in his view of how the United State's energy woes should be remedied. He puts forth a plan demonstrating his belief that results can only be truly achieved through substantial government involvement and spending. This proposal is dissected in a similar way by Geoffrey Styles, who offers that the Democratic candidate advocates a hands-on approach, as current policies concerning the energy market has not properly facilitated an environment necessary for encouraging the development of alternative fuel sources. Instead, he writes that Mr. Obama would implement a system which would “[entail] the collection and redistribution of many hundreds of billions of dollars--not temporarily…but on an effectively perpetual basis.” This quote emphasizes the permanence of this policy type, which directly contrasts with the temporality of the current Republican administration’s decision to stimulate the financial markets through an injection of federal capital. Thus, the presidential hopeful emphasizes the need for legislation that would set mandates enforced by the government in order to guarantee energy improvements. I believe this is a more effective strategy, for it would force companies and states, two groups largely held unaccountable
for their emissions, to adhere to more stringent requirements. Furthermore, unlike Senator McCain, Mr. Obama supports the federal RPS, which would make it mandatory for the United States to produce 10% of its electricity from renewable resources. Commitment to this policy demonstrates his confidence in a diverse set of alternative energies as viable solutions to satiate our nation's consumption needs. I feel that this underlying optimism, in tandem with real regulation, is the recipe for successful results. Not only this, but as Its Getting Hot In Here discusses, the Democratic candidate views alternative energy development as a significant source for new jobs and industry, a growth driver which would help lift our country out of the current recession. Additionally, Barack Obama favors higher fuel efficiency standards for consumer vehicles and has stated that if elected, all new cars produced in the United States would be forced to fulfill flex fuel requirements. I think that these types of systematic government regulatory measures should be encouraged, for they ensure that the United States is energy self sufficient through a diversified portfolio of renewable resources. To emphasize just how reliant we are a single fuel type, the graph to the right illustrates the disproportionate amount of petroleum used by our country. Dependency on a single energy source has resulted in the substantial influence of oil interest groups in Washington, a lobbying constituency that represents companies who desire to maintain their control as primary suppliers of American fuel. I fervently believe this has led to policy benefiting a select few, while sacrificing the greater good for many. Thus, Barack Obama's call for encouraged development of alternative fuel sources is encouraging, as it lessens our dependence on oil and introduces positive competition into the industry. The subsequent diversification of resources that results not only decreases the influence of unchallenged oil companies, it facilitates the development of more efficient methods of fuel production while breaking our dependency on foreign companies for our energy needs. Addressing each of these concerns in this way would actively solve the growing crisis our country currently faces.Though both presidential hopefuls hold the energy issue to be top priority, I find Barack Obama's comprehensive proposal is better suited to enact the degree of change our nation needs. In studying the past, it has become apparent that hands on federal intervention is the most expedient and reliable way to encourage and embrace the integration of alternative energy into our country’s power grid. Though it would be the largest degree of involvement seen in this industry, Mr. Obama’s energy plan ensures an overhaul of this sector. Furthermore, our economy is in need of new growth drivers, and a reduction in dependency on foreign oil would not only be economically shrewd move, it would likely decrease our potential for conflict abroad as well.
