Barack Obama is to be the 44th President of the United States. Obama won the majority of the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college by a landslide. It seems that the majority of Americans are looking for change in the way this country is governed and can identify with what Obama is saying and what he represents. While the economy is the main concern of most Americans, energy security and independence were important topics of both candidates' campaigns.
McCain's energy policies would likely not have been as environmentally friendly or as progressive as Obama's. Both candidates had some similarities in their policies, but overall Obama is more concerned with finding alternative sources of energy and decreasing emissions by a greater amount. McCain's reluctance to promise to provide a greater cap on industrial emissions was probably because he was hesitant to anger big business interests. McCain seemed to be following the standard Republican policies and his support of President Bush's policies on energy and the environment certainly did not help him garner support from the American people.
Four, or even eight years is not going to be enough time for Obama to completely turn the country in the right direction, but it will be a start. Hopefully, Obama will be able to make some positive changes in environmental and energy policy. There is environmental damage that needs repair and we need to institute preventative measures to keep from further damaging the planet. Energy policy needs to be environmentally friendly, but economically viable as well. Obama's win means hope and the opportunity for positive change for the United States.
Fiona Bowie
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Writer's Election's '08 Paper: Extended essay discussing each candidate's positions on energy security and independence policy, with added commentary
Energy Security & Independence: Obama vs. McCain
Barack Obama and John McCain both have a plentitude of information about their positions on energy security and independence available on their campaign websites, and there is also a self-proclaimed nonpartisan website, ontheissues.org, that details each of their positions on energy. Campaign websites offers a stylized presentation of their positions, while ontheissues.org offers potentially more candid interview responses, and further provides senatorial voting records and fact checks. From a combination of these resources, mixed in with some other resources from the blog and beyond, a fairly clear picture of each candidate’s positions on energy security and independence can be presented.
Obama and McCain’s stated differences of opinion on how to deal with oil dependence are actually fairly minimal. Both assert the notion that we must promote domestic oil supplies to create a drop in oil prices that are mutually perceived as unreasonably high. They both think that consumers should be compensated for the punishment high gas prices have inflected upon them, though Obama wants to achieve this through a windfall tax-funded cash rebate to consumers, while McCain has supported suspension of the highway fuel tax, which he has proposed be funded by the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.
They also both believe that the wealth transfer to hostile oil producing countries that dependence on foreign oil creates threatens our national security, though McCain puts more focus on his belief that the empowerment that our dependence gives these states is a threat to the balance of power.
They are in agreement not only in their belief that part of reducing oil dependence is creating decreased demand through incentives for the development, production and consumption of alternative fuels to power our transportation sector, but also in the auto-industry centric policies they would implement to achieve this goal, though subtle differences between them exist.
Additionally, they make a cognate “climate change” case for decreasing dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic, pointing to the role of fossil fuel dependency in creating the surplus greenhouse gases that have resulted in the melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts and storms, and disease migration, and agree that a cap and trade strategy will best foster a market change in this direction.
They further settle on the shared opinion that domestic natural gas production should be promoted through investments in infrastructure via the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to decrease dependence on oil, though McCain believes we should also lift the present moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, while Obama believes we should harvest unconventional shale supplies in Arkansas and Texas.
The most significant difference between the candidates on the issue of oil dependence lies in their belief of how domestic oil production should be promoted. Obama believes we should require oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land they currently have the leased right to drill on but aren’t, by forcing them to either develop the leases or surrender them to competing companies for development. He also believes we should look into the feasibility of accessing as much as 4 billion barrels of oil the U.S. Geological Survey indicates is available in Montana and North Dakota, as well as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Lastly, he believes we should promote enhanced oil recovery, which uses carbon dioxide to produce more oil from existing fields, through a carbon cap-and-trade bill that will provide incentives for emitters to send their carbon dioxide to existing fields for this process. He believes that development of this cap-and-trade industrial relationship between emitters and oil fields should be further supported by mapping carbon dioxide sources and creating a database that matches emitters with oil fields. McCain believes that to produce the necessary changes of perception the price-influencing oil futures market relies on we must expand drilling operations beyond their current reach through lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the only specific plan he has to promote domestic oil production.
Both candidates see a benefit of, if not a need in the future for the U.S. to become leaders in the newly environmentally aware international economy of the 21st century, for the reasons of controlling energy costs, promoting energy security, creating jobs, and fostering a livable climate for the future. Both want to actuate a multi-faceted strategy to achieve this through institutional support of a green automotive and energy sector, like government incentives that will foster the development of green automotive and energy sectors. Both want to use biofuels, or alcohol fuels, and they both want to upgrade to a digital electricity grid.
The differences between them lie in the policy details their respective strategies would employ to achieve these goals. Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to promote the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles that can get up to 150 miles to the gallon, encourage energy efficiency, promote commercial development of renewable energy on a commercial scale, produce a highly skilled green workforce, fund research and development of second generation biofuels, and support low-emission coal plants. He additionally plans to create an initiative in which a pathway connecting veterans, disadvantaged youth, and other displaced workers to green technology jobs is institutionally supported. He wants to implement policies that will encourage manufacturers to modernize factories to run on and produce green products. He also wants to encourage conversion to flex fuel vehicles that can run on biofuels by requiring new autos manufactured here to have this capability. He tempers his support for biofuels with the disclaimer that a national low carbon fuel standard must be implemented which will ensure that these biofuels do not just replace dependence on oil, but also result in reduced carbon emissions. McCain’s positions on this issue are extremely akin to Obama’s. McCain also wants to invest in clean coal technology, fund green technology research and development, encourage the market for solar, hydro and wind power, and institutionally support the creation of a green workforce, He also believes we should develop better biofuels, though he is more concerned with market distortions created by biofuel sources than he vocalizes about carbon emissions impact, and in this difference policy proposal distinctions can be made. Also, unlike Obama, McCain wants to end subsidies and tariffs that support corn-based ethanol exclusive of other potential alcohol-based fuels.
When it comes to policies specifically designed to tackle the problem of climate change, there are many similarities between Obama and McCain, though differences do exist. The candidates are each proposing a cap-and-trade system to address climate change, in which carbon emissions levels are capped at an allowed level, and those emitting below allowed levels can sell emission credits to high emitters, creating an economic incentive to being a low emitter.
On this subject of cap-and-trade, the primary difference between the candidate’s views is that Obama sees the “cap” in cap-and-trade as vitally important to success of that program, while McCain tends to think capping isn’t necessary because the economic benefit of trading will provide enough of an incentive to create the desired market changes. Despite this small difference, both candidates are firm in their belief that a cap-and-trade strategy will encourage the development of clean coal technology that each believes is important as both a domestically consumable product and an importable commodity.
The most significant difference between the campaigns on climate change has to do with their relative emphasis on either natural renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power, or a nuclear source. Obama emphasizes the former, McCain the latter. Obama points to the security risks and radioactive waste issues that increasing the number of nuclear power plants presents, while McCain doesn’t feel these are issues that generate enough concern to justify not taking advantage of an available form of energy that helps us to reduce our carbon footprint. He also believes that since other nations are using nuclear energy, if we fail to keep up, we will fall behind and lose in the international balance of power. Therefore, McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with an eventual goal of 100 new plants. He believes resulting security risks are minimal, and that the technology that will allow us to cleanly reprocess nuclear waste is essentially around the corner. Conversely, he has consistently voted against new investments in renewable energy during his time in the Senate.
Obama believes we must increase our dependence upon clean sources of renewable energy, and find ways to make non-renewable, dirty sources of energy such as coal more environmentally friendly. He believes nuclear energy presently plays an important role, since it makes up 20% of our energy and 70% of our non-carbon emitting electric energy. However, he believes that discussions about the creation of new plants must be weighed carefully against factors related to international security, and nuclear waste production and storage. Accordingly, his plan does not call for an increase in the number of nuclear power plants.
Another difference between Obama and McCain regarding climate change is the role each believes the U.S. should take in international diplomacy. Obama believes we should reengage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that is the main forum on an international scale that addresses challenges related to climate change. He also believes the U.S. should lead the creation of a Global Energy Forum comprised of the G8 plus Brazil, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa, who are the world’s top energy consumers. McCain has previously indicated that he would have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, if given Bush’s opportunity to do so, but his campaign’s official line is along the lines of ‘no international diplomatic discussions or agreements without commitments from China and India’.
Despite specific differences as to how to deal with climate change, as the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, McCain is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression is likely to result both domestically and internationally regardless of the candidate chosen.
Issues related to energy have been at the forefront of the current U.S. Presidential election largely because of the relationship of these issues to oil prices, climate change, and geopolitical conflicts, all three of which appear to be perceived as serious, imminent threats to the American way of life by both of the major candidates.
However, the different solutions each propose can at least partially be attributed to their respective ideologies. While it appears McCain relies on the identity perspective to an extent, and Obama appears to employ a critical theory perspective in many ways, most would agree that Obama’s perspective is principally liberal, and that McCain’s is essentially realist. It is due in part to the interaction between each candidate’s perspectives and the issues which produces the differentiated policy proposals regarding energy security and independence that each campaign has espoused.
McCain’s and Obama’s energy policy proposals agree with each other more often than they disagree with one another. But even where they agree there is a relationship to their ideologies in that it is often the borrowing from other perspectives which each candidate has employed in the creation of their own ideologies that opens up opportunities for common ground between them to emerge. Ours is not a black and white world, and among the grays are common shades betwixt the end extremes. Obama and McCain each start out on either side of the middle, but not so far from each other that the flexibility of their perspectives doesn’t lead them to sometimes cross paths.
This flexibility might be the product of a sort of political appeasement each party has made to appeal to the peripheral voters of the other’s party, or perhaps a result of a sort of political homogeny that has emerged out of our mass media culture, or a combination of these and/or other factors, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates how the role of ideology in policy-making is tempered by other influences.
This is an important aspect of discussions about energy security and independence, because the most favorable results that logically lead from empirically determined solutions are undermined in the current reality in which perspective competes almost evenly with empiricism as the wellspring of solutions, but the flexibility within ideologies created by cultural factors provides a countermeasure from which energy policy progress appears to have emerged. By measure of how near a candidate comes to empirically-derived solutions within this paradoxical reality, then, one can evaluate and compare their efficacy.
How to measure empiricism? After all, we all operate from our own perspectives, and often U.S. voters consider empiricism to be whatever comes closest to the beliefs of their party’s platform. Ethical, moral judgment must be employed, which takes not only objectivity, but knowledge of the issues. Unfortunately, around election time campaigns and the media tend to highlight ideological differences as a matter of marketing strategy, and voters have little opportunity to acquire empirical knowledge about energy issues or the objectivity needed for sound evaluation. In this context, discussions about campaign energy policies in part point out the failures of either campaign to adequately address energy issues, but also become examples of how energy policy progress can be derived from the campaign process.
In the case of climate change, empirical evidence has outweighed perspective, and both candidates believe climate change is real, consequential, and needs to be addressed. However, even in this counter-argument, one can find the role of ideology, for it can be argued that it was largely the protection of domestic economic markets dependent upon oil and coal that was perceived as vital to maintaining the balance of power in the international political order which led the current administration to ignore the reality of climate change in the previous two elections - the zero sum argument. Climate change is more perspective friendly to liberals who believe in a positive sum possibility, because conceding the ineffectiveness of our current energy system does not convey weakness and subsequently loss of power to the liberal, but rather opportunity for progression through diplomacy and international cooperation. It is John McCain’s break from his ideology, that flexibility, which has allowed the role of empiricism to influence energy-related policy decisions.
By this argument, liberals are more likely to come up with solutions that will be based on empirical evaluations of reality sooner than realists in the current international order, because as of now, the U.S. is on top, so from a realist perspective, it would be unwise to upset the status quo. For realists, it took serious evidence of need, like hard to ignore massive melting of the polar ice caps and intensified storm patterns that threaten the human way of life before action was considered necessary, while liberals trusted experts predicting these events’ call to action as sufficient proof that action was needed. In this respect, Obama is typical, and McCain is not. As the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, he is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression will undoubtedly result, both domestically and internationally. It appears that the demonstrated severity of climate change and subsequent international responses have convinced the realist that the status quo will no longer work in the U.S.’s favor in the quest to stay at the top of the international order.
Heather Wegan
References
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Promoting a Healthy Environment.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf.
“Barack Obama on Energy & Oil.” OnTheIssues.org. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #1, Item #1: McCain’s Conflicted Views on Energy.” 28 Sept
2008. Blogger.com. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #4, Item #2: Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy.” 01 Nov 2008.
Blogger.com. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Cohen, Steven. “Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely
not the answer.” Soapbox, Aug 2009. Grist.org. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/.
“John McCain on Energy & Oil”. OnTheIssues.org. 01Nov2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
“The Lexington Project: An All of the Above Energy Solution.” JohnMcCain.com.
01 Nov 2008. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues1767laa4-2fe8-4008859f
0ef1468e964f.htm.
“Remarks by John McCain on his Comprehensive Plan for Energy Security.”
JohnMcCain.com. 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771aec271bf823e.htm.
Barack Obama and John McCain both have a plentitude of information about their positions on energy security and independence available on their campaign websites, and there is also a self-proclaimed nonpartisan website, ontheissues.org, that details each of their positions on energy. Campaign websites offers a stylized presentation of their positions, while ontheissues.org offers potentially more candid interview responses, and further provides senatorial voting records and fact checks. From a combination of these resources, mixed in with some other resources from the blog and beyond, a fairly clear picture of each candidate’s positions on energy security and independence can be presented.
Obama and McCain’s stated differences of opinion on how to deal with oil dependence are actually fairly minimal. Both assert the notion that we must promote domestic oil supplies to create a drop in oil prices that are mutually perceived as unreasonably high. They both think that consumers should be compensated for the punishment high gas prices have inflected upon them, though Obama wants to achieve this through a windfall tax-funded cash rebate to consumers, while McCain has supported suspension of the highway fuel tax, which he has proposed be funded by the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.
They also both believe that the wealth transfer to hostile oil producing countries that dependence on foreign oil creates threatens our national security, though McCain puts more focus on his belief that the empowerment that our dependence gives these states is a threat to the balance of power.
They are in agreement not only in their belief that part of reducing oil dependence is creating decreased demand through incentives for the development, production and consumption of alternative fuels to power our transportation sector, but also in the auto-industry centric policies they would implement to achieve this goal, though subtle differences between them exist.
Additionally, they make a cognate “climate change” case for decreasing dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic, pointing to the role of fossil fuel dependency in creating the surplus greenhouse gases that have resulted in the melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts and storms, and disease migration, and agree that a cap and trade strategy will best foster a market change in this direction.
They further settle on the shared opinion that domestic natural gas production should be promoted through investments in infrastructure via the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to decrease dependence on oil, though McCain believes we should also lift the present moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, while Obama believes we should harvest unconventional shale supplies in Arkansas and Texas.
The most significant difference between the candidates on the issue of oil dependence lies in their belief of how domestic oil production should be promoted. Obama believes we should require oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land they currently have the leased right to drill on but aren’t, by forcing them to either develop the leases or surrender them to competing companies for development. He also believes we should look into the feasibility of accessing as much as 4 billion barrels of oil the U.S. Geological Survey indicates is available in Montana and North Dakota, as well as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Lastly, he believes we should promote enhanced oil recovery, which uses carbon dioxide to produce more oil from existing fields, through a carbon cap-and-trade bill that will provide incentives for emitters to send their carbon dioxide to existing fields for this process. He believes that development of this cap-and-trade industrial relationship between emitters and oil fields should be further supported by mapping carbon dioxide sources and creating a database that matches emitters with oil fields. McCain believes that to produce the necessary changes of perception the price-influencing oil futures market relies on we must expand drilling operations beyond their current reach through lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the only specific plan he has to promote domestic oil production.
Both candidates see a benefit of, if not a need in the future for the U.S. to become leaders in the newly environmentally aware international economy of the 21st century, for the reasons of controlling energy costs, promoting energy security, creating jobs, and fostering a livable climate for the future. Both want to actuate a multi-faceted strategy to achieve this through institutional support of a green automotive and energy sector, like government incentives that will foster the development of green automotive and energy sectors. Both want to use biofuels, or alcohol fuels, and they both want to upgrade to a digital electricity grid.
The differences between them lie in the policy details their respective strategies would employ to achieve these goals. Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to promote the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles that can get up to 150 miles to the gallon, encourage energy efficiency, promote commercial development of renewable energy on a commercial scale, produce a highly skilled green workforce, fund research and development of second generation biofuels, and support low-emission coal plants. He additionally plans to create an initiative in which a pathway connecting veterans, disadvantaged youth, and other displaced workers to green technology jobs is institutionally supported. He wants to implement policies that will encourage manufacturers to modernize factories to run on and produce green products. He also wants to encourage conversion to flex fuel vehicles that can run on biofuels by requiring new autos manufactured here to have this capability. He tempers his support for biofuels with the disclaimer that a national low carbon fuel standard must be implemented which will ensure that these biofuels do not just replace dependence on oil, but also result in reduced carbon emissions. McCain’s positions on this issue are extremely akin to Obama’s. McCain also wants to invest in clean coal technology, fund green technology research and development, encourage the market for solar, hydro and wind power, and institutionally support the creation of a green workforce, He also believes we should develop better biofuels, though he is more concerned with market distortions created by biofuel sources than he vocalizes about carbon emissions impact, and in this difference policy proposal distinctions can be made. Also, unlike Obama, McCain wants to end subsidies and tariffs that support corn-based ethanol exclusive of other potential alcohol-based fuels.
When it comes to policies specifically designed to tackle the problem of climate change, there are many similarities between Obama and McCain, though differences do exist. The candidates are each proposing a cap-and-trade system to address climate change, in which carbon emissions levels are capped at an allowed level, and those emitting below allowed levels can sell emission credits to high emitters, creating an economic incentive to being a low emitter.
On this subject of cap-and-trade, the primary difference between the candidate’s views is that Obama sees the “cap” in cap-and-trade as vitally important to success of that program, while McCain tends to think capping isn’t necessary because the economic benefit of trading will provide enough of an incentive to create the desired market changes. Despite this small difference, both candidates are firm in their belief that a cap-and-trade strategy will encourage the development of clean coal technology that each believes is important as both a domestically consumable product and an importable commodity.
The most significant difference between the campaigns on climate change has to do with their relative emphasis on either natural renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power, or a nuclear source. Obama emphasizes the former, McCain the latter. Obama points to the security risks and radioactive waste issues that increasing the number of nuclear power plants presents, while McCain doesn’t feel these are issues that generate enough concern to justify not taking advantage of an available form of energy that helps us to reduce our carbon footprint. He also believes that since other nations are using nuclear energy, if we fail to keep up, we will fall behind and lose in the international balance of power. Therefore, McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with an eventual goal of 100 new plants. He believes resulting security risks are minimal, and that the technology that will allow us to cleanly reprocess nuclear waste is essentially around the corner. Conversely, he has consistently voted against new investments in renewable energy during his time in the Senate.
Obama believes we must increase our dependence upon clean sources of renewable energy, and find ways to make non-renewable, dirty sources of energy such as coal more environmentally friendly. He believes nuclear energy presently plays an important role, since it makes up 20% of our energy and 70% of our non-carbon emitting electric energy. However, he believes that discussions about the creation of new plants must be weighed carefully against factors related to international security, and nuclear waste production and storage. Accordingly, his plan does not call for an increase in the number of nuclear power plants.
Another difference between Obama and McCain regarding climate change is the role each believes the U.S. should take in international diplomacy. Obama believes we should reengage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that is the main forum on an international scale that addresses challenges related to climate change. He also believes the U.S. should lead the creation of a Global Energy Forum comprised of the G8 plus Brazil, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa, who are the world’s top energy consumers. McCain has previously indicated that he would have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, if given Bush’s opportunity to do so, but his campaign’s official line is along the lines of ‘no international diplomatic discussions or agreements without commitments from China and India’.
Despite specific differences as to how to deal with climate change, as the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, McCain is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression is likely to result both domestically and internationally regardless of the candidate chosen.
Issues related to energy have been at the forefront of the current U.S. Presidential election largely because of the relationship of these issues to oil prices, climate change, and geopolitical conflicts, all three of which appear to be perceived as serious, imminent threats to the American way of life by both of the major candidates.
However, the different solutions each propose can at least partially be attributed to their respective ideologies. While it appears McCain relies on the identity perspective to an extent, and Obama appears to employ a critical theory perspective in many ways, most would agree that Obama’s perspective is principally liberal, and that McCain’s is essentially realist. It is due in part to the interaction between each candidate’s perspectives and the issues which produces the differentiated policy proposals regarding energy security and independence that each campaign has espoused.
McCain’s and Obama’s energy policy proposals agree with each other more often than they disagree with one another. But even where they agree there is a relationship to their ideologies in that it is often the borrowing from other perspectives which each candidate has employed in the creation of their own ideologies that opens up opportunities for common ground between them to emerge. Ours is not a black and white world, and among the grays are common shades betwixt the end extremes. Obama and McCain each start out on either side of the middle, but not so far from each other that the flexibility of their perspectives doesn’t lead them to sometimes cross paths.
This flexibility might be the product of a sort of political appeasement each party has made to appeal to the peripheral voters of the other’s party, or perhaps a result of a sort of political homogeny that has emerged out of our mass media culture, or a combination of these and/or other factors, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates how the role of ideology in policy-making is tempered by other influences.
This is an important aspect of discussions about energy security and independence, because the most favorable results that logically lead from empirically determined solutions are undermined in the current reality in which perspective competes almost evenly with empiricism as the wellspring of solutions, but the flexibility within ideologies created by cultural factors provides a countermeasure from which energy policy progress appears to have emerged. By measure of how near a candidate comes to empirically-derived solutions within this paradoxical reality, then, one can evaluate and compare their efficacy.
How to measure empiricism? After all, we all operate from our own perspectives, and often U.S. voters consider empiricism to be whatever comes closest to the beliefs of their party’s platform. Ethical, moral judgment must be employed, which takes not only objectivity, but knowledge of the issues. Unfortunately, around election time campaigns and the media tend to highlight ideological differences as a matter of marketing strategy, and voters have little opportunity to acquire empirical knowledge about energy issues or the objectivity needed for sound evaluation. In this context, discussions about campaign energy policies in part point out the failures of either campaign to adequately address energy issues, but also become examples of how energy policy progress can be derived from the campaign process.
In the case of climate change, empirical evidence has outweighed perspective, and both candidates believe climate change is real, consequential, and needs to be addressed. However, even in this counter-argument, one can find the role of ideology, for it can be argued that it was largely the protection of domestic economic markets dependent upon oil and coal that was perceived as vital to maintaining the balance of power in the international political order which led the current administration to ignore the reality of climate change in the previous two elections - the zero sum argument. Climate change is more perspective friendly to liberals who believe in a positive sum possibility, because conceding the ineffectiveness of our current energy system does not convey weakness and subsequently loss of power to the liberal, but rather opportunity for progression through diplomacy and international cooperation. It is John McCain’s break from his ideology, that flexibility, which has allowed the role of empiricism to influence energy-related policy decisions.
By this argument, liberals are more likely to come up with solutions that will be based on empirical evaluations of reality sooner than realists in the current international order, because as of now, the U.S. is on top, so from a realist perspective, it would be unwise to upset the status quo. For realists, it took serious evidence of need, like hard to ignore massive melting of the polar ice caps and intensified storm patterns that threaten the human way of life before action was considered necessary, while liberals trusted experts predicting these events’ call to action as sufficient proof that action was needed. In this respect, Obama is typical, and McCain is not. As the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, he is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression will undoubtedly result, both domestically and internationally. It appears that the demonstrated severity of climate change and subsequent international responses have convinced the realist that the status quo will no longer work in the U.S.’s favor in the quest to stay at the top of the international order.
Heather Wegan
References
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Promoting a Healthy Environment.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf.
“Barack Obama on Energy & Oil.” OnTheIssues.org. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #1, Item #1: McCain’s Conflicted Views on Energy.” 28 Sept
2008. Blogger.com. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #4, Item #2: Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy.” 01 Nov 2008.
Blogger.com. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Cohen, Steven. “Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely
not the answer.” Soapbox, Aug 2009. Grist.org. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/.
“John McCain on Energy & Oil”. OnTheIssues.org. 01Nov2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
“The Lexington Project: An All of the Above Energy Solution.” JohnMcCain.com.
01 Nov 2008. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues1767laa4-2fe8-4008859f
0ef1468e964f.htm.
“Remarks by John McCain on his Comprehensive Plan for Energy Security.”
JohnMcCain.com. 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771aec271bf823e.htm.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Week #4, Item #2, Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power is a controversial subject when it comes to the discussion of sustainable and renewable energy sources. Recently, some members of Greenpeace have changed their stance from opposing nuclear energy production to supporting it. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, spoke out about his change of opinion over two years ago.
Moore used to believe that nuclear energy was "synonomous with nuclear holocaust" as did many other members of the organization. Mr. Moore now feels that people need to change their perspective on nuclear power. He feels that at this time nuclear power is the only sustainable energy source that can support our needs and our economy. Additionally, there will be no increased carbon footprint on our planet if nuclear energy production is increased.
Moore states that 36% of the emissions produced in the United States are due to the 600 plus coal-fired electric plants in the country. This is equal to almost 10% of the entire earths emissions. Nuclear power can provide the country with enough energy to sustain its own needs with surplus energy to export to other countries in need. This can be done without causing further damage to the environment.
All of this must be considered only if nuclear energy production can be kept secure. There are terrorist groups and countries that given the opportunity might use nuclear technology as a means of threatening and/or terrorizing other states. Moore points out that banning technology that can provide us with so many benefits due to fear of threat from a few sources is impracticle and reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Fiona Bowie
Source: www.washingtonpost.com
Moore used to believe that nuclear energy was "synonomous with nuclear holocaust" as did many other members of the organization. Mr. Moore now feels that people need to change their perspective on nuclear power. He feels that at this time nuclear power is the only sustainable energy source that can support our needs and our economy. Additionally, there will be no increased carbon footprint on our planet if nuclear energy production is increased.
Moore states that 36% of the emissions produced in the United States are due to the 600 plus coal-fired electric plants in the country. This is equal to almost 10% of the entire earths emissions. Nuclear power can provide the country with enough energy to sustain its own needs with surplus energy to export to other countries in need. This can be done without causing further damage to the environment.
All of this must be considered only if nuclear energy production can be kept secure. There are terrorist groups and countries that given the opportunity might use nuclear technology as a means of threatening and/or terrorizing other states. Moore points out that banning technology that can provide us with so many benefits due to fear of threat from a few sources is impracticle and reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Fiona Bowie
Source: www.washingtonpost.com
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Week #4, Item #1, Nearing the Election
Most of the topics that McCain and Obama have discussed regarding their platforms on energy security and independence has remained unchanged since the beginning of this blog. The election is nearing and the only major change that has been heard from the candidates regarding their energy policies has been McCains recent mention about renewable, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources, such as solar and wind power.
Until the fourth and last debate McCain had made no mention of solar and wind power. It has become quite apparent that McCain realizes these types of energy are those being discussed by Obama - who happens to be leading in the poles, and therefore McCain has suddenly decided to include them as a part of his energy platform. But, does the fact that McCain quite suddenly mentions solar and wind power as viable energy alternatives now makes him a more credible candidate?
I don't believe that McCain's recent adoption of renewable and sustainable forms of energy is genuine. I thik that the threat posed by Obama has forced McCain to adopt a policy that he feels will make him more electable to the American public. Obama has a history of being an environmentally friendly candidate. McCain, on the other hand, has a history of voting against environmental policy.
There have been numerous skeptics in regard to nuclear energy from many fronts - myself included. However, if nuclear power can be safe from threat of terrorism and maintain, if not improve environmental conditions, there is no reason that we cannot implement nuclear power as a means of sustaining our own energy needs, but also as a means to export surpluss energy to countries in need. If it is safe and secure, then it may be of economic benefit to the United States to utilize more nuclear energy in the future, but this is not to rule out safer alternative forms of energy. So, recognition should go to both candidates who support safe nuclear energy.
Fiona Bowie
Until the fourth and last debate McCain had made no mention of solar and wind power. It has become quite apparent that McCain realizes these types of energy are those being discussed by Obama - who happens to be leading in the poles, and therefore McCain has suddenly decided to include them as a part of his energy platform. But, does the fact that McCain quite suddenly mentions solar and wind power as viable energy alternatives now makes him a more credible candidate?
I don't believe that McCain's recent adoption of renewable and sustainable forms of energy is genuine. I thik that the threat posed by Obama has forced McCain to adopt a policy that he feels will make him more electable to the American public. Obama has a history of being an environmentally friendly candidate. McCain, on the other hand, has a history of voting against environmental policy.
There have been numerous skeptics in regard to nuclear energy from many fronts - myself included. However, if nuclear power can be safe from threat of terrorism and maintain, if not improve environmental conditions, there is no reason that we cannot implement nuclear power as a means of sustaining our own energy needs, but also as a means to export surpluss energy to countries in need. If it is safe and secure, then it may be of economic benefit to the United States to utilize more nuclear energy in the future, but this is not to rule out safer alternative forms of energy. So, recognition should go to both candidates who support safe nuclear energy.
Fiona Bowie
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Week #3, Item #2, Powell Does Not Endorse McCain
It came as little suprise to me that former Secretary of State Colin Powell has decided to endorse Senator Obama for President. Powell, who is a Republican, divulged his choice for President on NBC's "Meet the Press." His views on the presidential candidates are so strong that he has decided to break away from the Republican Party to support a Democratic candidate.
It may be some people's view that Powell can identify with Obama based on issues such as race and socieo-economic background - Powell made it quite clear that Obama's "ability to inspire" and his inclusive campaign were some of the reasons why he has decided to endorse Obama. It is unlikely however, that he does not see Obama's political platform as one he can stand behind. Despite Powell and Obama's difference in their previous political party affiliations it is evident that Powell feels more political common ground with Obama than McCain.
One might think Powell, who has a strong military background, would be a strong supporter of McCain, but he is not. It just goes to show that military experience is not a fundamental requisite for a good presidential candidate. Military experience aside, one has to think that Powell views Obama's platform as an overall better platform than McCains.
Powell questions McCain's judgement, especially in regard to McCains's choice of running mate Palin. Powell also sees that McCain's campaign has become somewhat negative overall and dislikes McCain and Palin's claims that Obama has close ties to Bill Ayers - a former 1960's radical and accused terrorist. Powell believes that linking Obama with the "washed up terrorist" Ayers only puts the United States in a bad light internationally.
Though Powell did not address McCain and Obama's energy plans directly, this endorsement of Obama from Powell seemed especially important and interesting. Maybe Powell with give us more insight into Obama's energy platform versus McCain's plan at some point in the future.
Fiona Bowie
It may be some people's view that Powell can identify with Obama based on issues such as race and socieo-economic background - Powell made it quite clear that Obama's "ability to inspire" and his inclusive campaign were some of the reasons why he has decided to endorse Obama. It is unlikely however, that he does not see Obama's political platform as one he can stand behind. Despite Powell and Obama's difference in their previous political party affiliations it is evident that Powell feels more political common ground with Obama than McCain.
One might think Powell, who has a strong military background, would be a strong supporter of McCain, but he is not. It just goes to show that military experience is not a fundamental requisite for a good presidential candidate. Military experience aside, one has to think that Powell views Obama's platform as an overall better platform than McCains.
Powell questions McCain's judgement, especially in regard to McCains's choice of running mate Palin. Powell also sees that McCain's campaign has become somewhat negative overall and dislikes McCain and Palin's claims that Obama has close ties to Bill Ayers - a former 1960's radical and accused terrorist. Powell believes that linking Obama with the "washed up terrorist" Ayers only puts the United States in a bad light internationally.
Though Powell did not address McCain and Obama's energy plans directly, this endorsement of Obama from Powell seemed especially important and interesting. Maybe Powell with give us more insight into Obama's energy platform versus McCain's plan at some point in the future.
Fiona Bowie
Why not nuclear power, anyway?
Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely not the answer By Steven Cohen Grist Soapbox 08 Aug 2006
The author of the above article has some great points about why not. One of the most practical is that it isn't politically viable in the end, because history has shown that it is one thing to get a citizenry to accept the idea of nuclear energy, but quite another to accept an actual facility in THEIR community.
The author also touches upon the terrorist issue, on which Wednesday's lecture also shed some light. Being a non-state actor, and subsequent "placelessness" is fundamental to the definition of terrorist action, thereby rendering the threat of retaliation as a deterrent completely useless. Since states don't have that comfort zone, we don't really have to worry so much that they will launch an offensive nuclear attack. The real threat of nuclear attack comes from terrorists. This logically leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent nuclear devastation on this planet earth, what we really need to do is keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
It does not take a great leap to see that more nuclear power plants create more opportunities for terrorists to hijack a facility and subsequently wreak havoc in some way, as the author points out. As the lecture revealed, the science behind nuclear power and nuclear weaponry is essentially the same, which means that there is a much greater risk than just that from increased hijacking opportunities. If Russia comes into Iran and puts a nuclear power plant, how are we going to really monitor how long the uranium has been in the centrifuges? What if they put another one? And another? And if this is mirrored globally, will it really be possible to know whether every plant is enriching uranium to 20% vs. 80%? How will the fact that the technology will become more readily available improve terrorists' ability to illicitly obtain 20% enriched uranium and cultivate it to 80% enrichment? Will we be somehow more savvy than the Japanese were in the Aum Shrynko nerve gas attacks, and determine who is planning to attack us and how they are preparing, and more savvy than our own country was before 9/11, and determine when they will attack, before the attack takes place?
From the liberal or realist perspective, nuclear energy is a bad idea. Nuclear energy threatens security, and carries with it risks that can't be moderated by diplomacy. Not to mention the more commonly cited potential environmental impact of nuclear waste, and human risks like those that were realized at Chernobyl.
When it comes to this issue, here's what Barack Obama's official line is (copied from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf ) :
• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.
And here is John McCain's official line on this issue (copied from http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm ) :
>John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
Barack Obama seems to think about the issue as much more complex than does McCain, who seems to view the issue simply from the realist perspective of "other big players have it, we must have it to compete as a state"... Barack Obama seems to take a critical theory approach, acknowledging the aims of the realist as valid, but considering other factors such as security, environmental factors, safety factors, etc., as well. He seems much more alert to the risks that are associated with nuclear energy than does McCain, and much more prepared to create a safe context for nuclear energy than does McCain.
However, neither one of them addresses the issue of "Not in MY backyard" that the above commentator points to, that will create real barriers to either candidate's immediate or eventual plans to open new nuclear power plants.
-Heather Wegan
The author of the above article has some great points about why not. One of the most practical is that it isn't politically viable in the end, because history has shown that it is one thing to get a citizenry to accept the idea of nuclear energy, but quite another to accept an actual facility in THEIR community.
The author also touches upon the terrorist issue, on which Wednesday's lecture also shed some light. Being a non-state actor, and subsequent "placelessness" is fundamental to the definition of terrorist action, thereby rendering the threat of retaliation as a deterrent completely useless. Since states don't have that comfort zone, we don't really have to worry so much that they will launch an offensive nuclear attack. The real threat of nuclear attack comes from terrorists. This logically leads to the conclusion that in order to prevent nuclear devastation on this planet earth, what we really need to do is keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
It does not take a great leap to see that more nuclear power plants create more opportunities for terrorists to hijack a facility and subsequently wreak havoc in some way, as the author points out. As the lecture revealed, the science behind nuclear power and nuclear weaponry is essentially the same, which means that there is a much greater risk than just that from increased hijacking opportunities. If Russia comes into Iran and puts a nuclear power plant, how are we going to really monitor how long the uranium has been in the centrifuges? What if they put another one? And another? And if this is mirrored globally, will it really be possible to know whether every plant is enriching uranium to 20% vs. 80%? How will the fact that the technology will become more readily available improve terrorists' ability to illicitly obtain 20% enriched uranium and cultivate it to 80% enrichment? Will we be somehow more savvy than the Japanese were in the Aum Shrynko nerve gas attacks, and determine who is planning to attack us and how they are preparing, and more savvy than our own country was before 9/11, and determine when they will attack, before the attack takes place?
From the liberal or realist perspective, nuclear energy is a bad idea. Nuclear energy threatens security, and carries with it risks that can't be moderated by diplomacy. Not to mention the more commonly cited potential environmental impact of nuclear waste, and human risks like those that were realized at Chernobyl.
When it comes to this issue, here's what Barack Obama's official line is (copied from http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf ) :
• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish
guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear
material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.
And here is John McCain's official line on this issue (copied from http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm ) :
>John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.
Barack Obama seems to think about the issue as much more complex than does McCain, who seems to view the issue simply from the realist perspective of "other big players have it, we must have it to compete as a state"... Barack Obama seems to take a critical theory approach, acknowledging the aims of the realist as valid, but considering other factors such as security, environmental factors, safety factors, etc., as well. He seems much more alert to the risks that are associated with nuclear energy than does McCain, and much more prepared to create a safe context for nuclear energy than does McCain.
However, neither one of them addresses the issue of "Not in MY backyard" that the above commentator points to, that will create real barriers to either candidate's immediate or eventual plans to open new nuclear power plants.
-Heather Wegan
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Week #3, Item #1 Latest Presidential Debate
Presidential hopeful John McCain seems to have changed his tune regarding his plans for energy security and independence in the latest and last debate before the election. He decided to include solar and wind power in his answer to the energy crisis during the dabate. With McCain's focus on the energy issue being off-shore drilling and nuclear power he has evidently given some additional thought to what viable answers to the energy crisis might be.
McCain must certainly be feeling the pressure now that Obama is ahead in the polls. Therefore, it is no suprise that he has suddenly adopted an energy policy more in line with Obama's. Unfortunately, he still views off shore drilling as an acceptable means to sustain the countries energy needs.
Obama seems to have a better long term energy plan than McCain because Obama's focus is on sustainable, renewable resources. McCain's main interests remain in off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. It is not likely that his plans will truly include other sustainable alternative forms of energy. McCain is only now discussing the alternative forms of energy that Obama is supporting because he hopes it will get him elected.
Fiona Bowie
McCain must certainly be feeling the pressure now that Obama is ahead in the polls. Therefore, it is no suprise that he has suddenly adopted an energy policy more in line with Obama's. Unfortunately, he still views off shore drilling as an acceptable means to sustain the countries energy needs.
Obama seems to have a better long term energy plan than McCain because Obama's focus is on sustainable, renewable resources. McCain's main interests remain in off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. It is not likely that his plans will truly include other sustainable alternative forms of energy. McCain is only now discussing the alternative forms of energy that Obama is supporting because he hopes it will get him elected.
Fiona Bowie
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Week #2, Item #2 Energy Security & "The Dirty Energy Dilemma"
The exerpt from "The Dirty Energy Dilemma" by Benjamin K. Savacool provides us with some excellent reason as to why we need renewable, sustainable and clean energy sources. Savacool also gives us a reasonable explaination as to why the United States has failed to become a world leader in clean energy production.
The security of the United States relies heavily on the nation's vulnerabilities. If we were to use clean, renewable sources of energy that were stable, and not viewed as potential targets for terrorism the nation would be safer than we are now. McCain's plans for energy independence and security include off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. Neither of these are safe or cost effective methods of providing the country with energy.
Savacool makes the point that as a nation we have the technology to employ environmentally friendly, safer and cheaper forms of energy, but that due to organizational conservatism - largely based on our current administration we are unable to implement the changes necessary to modernize ourselves in the world energy market.
In regard to the energy crisis, it is apparent that the current administration has not attempted to change the country's situation. Based on McCain's solutions to the energy crisis it appears unlikely that McCain has any intention of altering the staus quo.
The security of the United States relies heavily on the nation's vulnerabilities. If we were to use clean, renewable sources of energy that were stable, and not viewed as potential targets for terrorism the nation would be safer than we are now. McCain's plans for energy independence and security include off-shore drilling and nuclear energy. Neither of these are safe or cost effective methods of providing the country with energy.
Savacool makes the point that as a nation we have the technology to employ environmentally friendly, safer and cheaper forms of energy, but that due to organizational conservatism - largely based on our current administration we are unable to implement the changes necessary to modernize ourselves in the world energy market.
In regard to the energy crisis, it is apparent that the current administration has not attempted to change the country's situation. Based on McCain's solutions to the energy crisis it appears unlikely that McCain has any intention of altering the staus quo.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Dirty Energy Dilemma: What's Blocking Clean Power in the United States
'The American electric utility system is quietly falling apart. Once taken for granted, the industry has become increasingly unstable, fragmented, unreliable, insecure, inefficient, expensive, and harmful to our environment and public health. According to Sovacool, the fix for this ugly array of problems lies not in nuclear power or clean coal, but in renewable energy systems that produce few harmful byproducts, relieve congestion on the transmission grid, require less maintenance, are not subject to price volatility, and enhance the security of the national energy system from natural catastrophe, terrorist attack, and dependence on supply from hostile and unstable regions of the world. Here arises The Dirty Energy Dilemma: If renewable energy systems deliver such impressive benefits, why are they languishing at the margins of the American energy portfolio? And why does the United States lag so far behind Europe, where conversion to renewable energy systems has already taken off in a big way?Corporate media parrot industry PR that renewable technologies just aren't ready for prime time. But Sovacool marshals extensive field research to show that the only barrier blocking the conversion of a significant proportion of the U.S. energy portfolio to renewables is not technological--the technology is there--but institutional. Public utility commissioners, utility managers, system operators, business owners, and ordinary consumers are hobbled by organizational conservatism, technical incompatibility, legal inertia, weak and inconsistent political incentives, ill-founded prejudices, and apathy. The author argues that significant conversion to technologically proven clean energy systems can happen only if we adopt and implement a whole new set of policies that will target and dismantle the insidious social barriers that are presently blocking decisions that would so obviously benefit society.'
- Summary Description of The Dirty Energy Dilemma: What's Blocking Clean Power in the United States, by Benjamin K. Sovacool (See Author Info below). Link to book at http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/C35540.aspx -- Available 10/30/08
About the Author:
BENJAMIN K. SOVACOOL is Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He is Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Government and International Affairs Program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. He investigated the social impediments to renewable energy systems for the NSF Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program. He has worked in advisory and research capacities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, and the U.S. Department of Energy's Climate Change Technology Program. He is the co-editor with Marilyn A. Brown of Energy and American Society: Thirteen Myths (2007) and a frequent contributor to such journals as Electricity Journal, Energy Policy, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, and Daedalus.
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
The above book looks to be a well-informed analysis of the troubled state of domestic energy infrastructure and policy, that appears from the description to be written from a combination of the liberal/identity perspectives: Liberal, in that the author seems to feel that success is about cooperation, but also identity, in that he speaks to the values, belief and norms of the actors as what is hindering this cooperation. A domestic level of analysis is employed: The author feels firmly that it is the breakdown of domestic-level institutional relationships that has perpetuated our failing energy policy, and stifled progressive action.
While I don’t know that the author does, one could further argue that an individual level of analysis could be fairly employed in this issue, since the President and his Secretary of Energy are the spokespeople for and promoters of energy policy. The lack of progress we have made in energy policy could be argued to be the product of their failed leadership.
If employing these perspectives and levels of analysis (especially the identity perspective and individual level of analysis), it seems clear that Obama would be the best candidate for effecting change in energy policy, because he is clearly committed to centering energy policy around the promotion of renewable energy sources. McCain, with his energy policy centered around non-renewable oil and questionably safe nuclear energy, simply can't make the claim that he will foster institutional changes towards progress.
--Heather Wegan
Week #2, Item #2 The Rising Cost of Energy
According to the Energy Department, Americans are expected to have to pay at least 15%, or more on average to heat their homes this Winter. Consumers who rely on natural gas will pay approximately 18% more for their heating costs. With the economy in decline, the higher cost of energy is going to cause additional strain on the budgets of lower and middle-class consumers.
Low income families can receive subsidies through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. For middle class Americans there are no subsidy programs to assist them as energy costs continue to rise. American consumers need some immediate relief from the increasing cost of energy, but it is not realistic for the government to continue to provide funding indefinately to assist only low income consumers who need help. All of America needs a realistic long-term plan to reduce energy costs, increase clean and sustainable energy production to become energy self-sufficient and produce surplus energy to export.
During the latest presidential debate held on Tuesday, October 7, it was again clear to see that McCain's plans concerning the energy crisis involve nuclear power and increasing off-shore drilling of gas and oil. On the other hand, Senator Obama sees energy conservation and alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power as viable short and long-term solutions to the energy crisis.
McCain's plans for drilling are not helpful in the short-term, as it will take almost a decade after drilling begins to produce any oil. In the long-term the gas burned as fuel in American vehicles will damage the environment. And can nuclear energy really ever be "safe"?
Fiona Bowie
Low income families can receive subsidies through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. For middle class Americans there are no subsidy programs to assist them as energy costs continue to rise. American consumers need some immediate relief from the increasing cost of energy, but it is not realistic for the government to continue to provide funding indefinately to assist only low income consumers who need help. All of America needs a realistic long-term plan to reduce energy costs, increase clean and sustainable energy production to become energy self-sufficient and produce surplus energy to export.
During the latest presidential debate held on Tuesday, October 7, it was again clear to see that McCain's plans concerning the energy crisis involve nuclear power and increasing off-shore drilling of gas and oil. On the other hand, Senator Obama sees energy conservation and alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power as viable short and long-term solutions to the energy crisis.
McCain's plans for drilling are not helpful in the short-term, as it will take almost a decade after drilling begins to produce any oil. In the long-term the gas burned as fuel in American vehicles will damage the environment. And can nuclear energy really ever be "safe"?
Fiona Bowie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
