John McCain’s plan focuses on encouraging energy production, while Barack Obama offers only limited support for boosting domestic production of oil and natural gas. Worse, Obama wants to increase taxes on energy companies, a sure path to reducing domestic energy production and raising costs. Similarly, McCain’s plan recognizes the vital importance of coal, which we use to produce half our electricity, to America’s energy future. We are frequently called the “Saudi Arabia” of coal because we have 29 percent of world coal reserves. By contrast, the Obama campaign has sent at best conflicting signals on coal. McCain also endorses increased nuclear energy production, a subject on which Obama waffles. McCain’s emphasis on providing incentives for increasing domestic production and choice of a running mate who has successfully carried through energy initiatives contrast favorably with the Obama-Biden plan’s vague promises. – Andrew P. Morriss, professor of law and business and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Barack Obama’s strategy is more sound and promises better environmental stewardship. Obama says “use it or lose it” to companies that aren’t using their drilling rights. Obama is aware of the challenges, and he has pledged to help companies overcome these obstacles. In contrast, John McCain’s plan would open more of the continental shelf to drilling than would Obama’s, but he wouldn’t pressure oil companies to work harder to explore and develop resources on already leased properties. Obama calls for investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy technologies. The heart of McCain’s plan for renewables calls for “rationalizing the current patchwork of temporary tax credits” for energy sources like solar, wind and hydro. Obama’s plan, while no panacea for an oil-addicted America, breaks more boldly with lackluster policies of recent presidents. – Matthew R. Auer, professor at Indiana University
