People are mighty miffed at the price of gasoline and my favorite
presidential candidate, Sen. Obama, does not seem to be offering much. Yes, he
talks about a grand “go to the moon” scheme of “alternative energy” development
a la Kennedy and like Mitt Romney. But he’s tied to orthodox Democratic
objections to more drilling and to nuclear power, both of which people sense are
needed.
More important, Obama has not brought his own more progressive thoughts into
a clear focus that people can understand as meaningful. It’s not just about
“alternative energy”. It’s about how you cut the cost per mile of driving.
That means plug in hybrid electrics or something else that actually makes a car
go. Obama is not there.
I just wonder if ol’ Dr. McCain might not have a more voter-friendly policy.
Not that they both might not end up actually doing about the same things. But
elections are about perceptions, not reality, as we know so well from the last
two.
Posted below are some ideas - not exactly a blaze of light from above - from a
writer at The Huffington Post who makes a contribution by raising the question,
even if he does not answer it:
How Obama Can Regain the Initiative on Energy
Posted July 21, 2008 | 03:40 AM (EST)
While it may be hard to stomach, there is no denying that John McCain has
been leading the debate on energy policy. A number of recent polls has
established a clear
trend in favor of oil drilling and exploration and investment in nuclear
power over conservation and regulation — among both liberals and conservatives.
In addition, the latest
report from James Carville and Stan Greenberg, two campaign consultants, has
revealed that Obama has been losing ground to McCain and that he has not
effectively addressed the shift in public sentiment.
According to their results, a stunning 6 out of 10 voters now favor McCain’s
drilling proposal. More worrying, they note, is that voters are rejecting
Obama’s message of renewable fuel investment coupled with energy conservation by
relatively large margins. Though disappointing, their findings are not, in
themselves, particularly surprising: With the economy in disarray and gas prices
continuing their inexorable rise, it was inevitable that a majority of voters
would eventually opt for the solution that they perceived would bring them
short-term relief at the pump — conservation and climate change be damned. What
is more disappointing is that Obama has not been pressing McCain harder on the
details of his energy plan and that he has not been countering the outrageous
claims made about offshore drilling.
To affect prices in the short-term, Obama could advocate further use of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and force oil companies to exploit their existing
leases before opening up new areas to offshore drilling. Though it might upset a
large chunk of voters in the farm states, he could support eliminating the
tariff on Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol. It may not be the most ideal solution
(but, then again, neither is his dubious
support for corn ethanol), but it could help lower prices and provide a
cleaner, more cost-efficient fuel source.
Other no-brainers include boosting R&D support for advanced battery
technologies; providing tax credits or other financial incentives to carmakers
building plug-in hybrids and zero-emission vehicles; and increasing funding for
public transit infrastructure around the country. On the regulatory side, an
Obama administration should also push for higher fuel economy standards.
