Newswise — President Bush's call this week for Congress to end its decades-old ban on offshore oil and gas drilling has highlighted key differences in the big-oil platforms of presumptive Republican and Democratic presidential nominees Barak Obama and John McCain.
But when it comes to big-picture energy policies, Obama and McCain are similar in some ways but not others, suggests an environmental politics expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
McCain and Obama have similar bottom lines on the two hot-button energy issues of recent years — both oppose drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and support the need for addressing climate change.
"Both Obama and McCain understand the need for new energy policies for at least two reasons," says William Lowry, an associate professor of political science in Arts & Sciences and the author of several books on energy and environmental policy issues.
"The first reason is somewhat political in that the oil/gas prices have made conditions ripe for big changes in our energy policy. The other reason is more based on science. Both of them understand that global warming is serious and we have to respond."
Lowry teaches a course on how the American political system is influenced by energy and environmental issues, including the political of global warming and climate change.
"On this issue, I think McCain has shown a willingness to listen to the scientists that has been lacking from the current administration and many others in the Republican Party," suggests Lowry. "This is potentially good for those seeking a response to climate change but not necessarily good politically for Obama, since it takes away what could have been a big issue for him."
Lowry thinks both candidates would support some kind of cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, although their plans might differ in some aspects.
"I believe that Obama would charge companies for their initial permits under such a system whereas McCain would issue them with lesser or even no charges. Also, Obama is calling for more severe cuts than McCain. But these differences are less important than the overall agreement on the need for some reduction system. Besides, the details would be worked out by Congress anyway," Lowry says.
The candidates also differ somewhat in their plans for dealing with big oil. McCain rejects the elimination of a major tax subsidy for oil companies, whereas Obama would eliminate the subsidy and use the revenue to fund research on renewables, says Lowry.
With gas prices topping $4, it is becoming increasingly difficult for any politician to avoid joining the oil industry's opportunistic push for new oil exploration, both offshore and in Alaskan wilderness areas. New domestic oil exploration may be inevitable, but in terms of energy policy, it remains a far from ideal solution, Lowry argues.
"Virtually every time this country has become concerned about energy prices or shortages, the response has been to try to develop more fossil fuels. This is exactly how we've gotten into the current situation where over 85% of our energy comes from these sources.
"For decades, some of us have been saying that we need to develop renewables, but nearly all the political decisions — such as funding for research and development — have not been supportive of this alternative direction," Lowry says. "On a more positive note, I am pleased to see that both McCain and Obama understand that, so I'm confident that the future will be brighter (so to speak)."
RSS