News-Record.com

The News & Record’s Voterspeak panel discusses which presidential or U.S. Senate candidate has the best energy plan.

The question: “With the jump in gas prices around the Triad linked to Hurricane Ike, the cost and supply of fuel is high on people’s minds. Of those running for U.S. Senate or president, whose policies do you most agree with for handling the country’s energy needs?”

And Voterspeak says:

Jeff Bartolet, 38, Republican:

Sens. McCain and Obama have provided similar energy proposals, but I like the way McCain is willing to put as many options on the table as possible — drilling more in the United States, nuclear, alternative fuels, etc. — to move us toward energy independence. He seems to understand that with more vigor. Sen. Obama just recently came on board with offshore drilling, most likely because popular opinion has shifted that direction.

Phyllis Davis, 64, Republican:

John McCain has proven in his 20-plus years that he will reach across party lines for the good of our nation! He supports offshore drilling and alternative fuel development. Barack Obama has too many preconceived ideas and not enough experience to do so. We have depleted our forest and covered our prime land with cement and asphalt to supply our wants/needs. Offshore exploration seems to be necessary to do the same. Sen. Dole, of course, supports offshore drilling and exploration of alternative sources. Kay Hagan owns oil wells inland, so why would she support offshore drilling?

Kendall Garvin, 29, unaffiliated:

There should be a balance of drilling and serious investing in research and using existing resources to decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil. Other countries are further ahead in using alternative energy.

Trevor Hamm, 25, Democrat:

Obama has the energy policy that I most agree with. He has a more consistent record of supporting renewable energy. McCain’s policy centers around oil and nuclear power, which is shortsighted. With the current state of our energy situation, any talk about oil drilling is just to make people feel good, since drilling would make little real impact. Any new policies and initiatives should be centered around reducing emissions and developing renewable energy.

Mike Kelly, 60, Republican:

Mr. McCain, with his Lexington Project, has the more comprehensive energy plan. One can find the necessary nuts and bolts to build a solid base for dealing with America’s ever-increasing fuel crunch. The Lexington Project would commit to expanding our domestic oil exploration and increase the use of our natural gas supplies (a la Pickens’ plan). McCain also offers tax credits for zero-carbon cars and hefty incentives for development of battery-powered vehicles. His plan will incorporate the private sector in developing technology and business plans.

Mr. Obama’s plan is typically Democrat in that the government will be involved in all facets short of driving your kids to school.

Marlene Costa Nielsen, 67, Democrat:

Since oil is a non-renewable resource, Barack Obama’s policy of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and developing alternative sources of energy makes the most sense.

Kate Peeples, 27, unaffiliated:

The U.S.’s dependence on gas and oil, regardless of where it comes from, was demonstrated best last weekend, as everybody and their brother high-tailed it to the nearest gas station. Meanwhile, the gas station was able to crank prices up by $1 to $1.50 per gallon higher than they had been just 24 hours before. We are living at the mercy of the oil companies and whoever is in their Washington, D.C.-sized back pockets.

There is no quick and simple solution to the energy crisis. Offshore drilling, or any other kind of drilling, isn’t going to produce a drop of good ol’ American gas the week after the restrictions are lifted. While there’s something to be said for the in-the-meantime solution view on drilling, neither Obama nor McCain are talking enough about the long-term development of alternative fuels and energy sources.

Deonna Kelli Sayed, 34, Democrat:

Obama appears to have the more detailed energy policy, taking long- term consequences into consideration, particularly with offshore drilling and nuclear technology. He has specific targets and timelines lessening dependency and developing new technology. Obama’s policy, more than McCain’s Lexington Project (nicely named), appears to understand the business end of energy. More “green-collar” jobs can be both lucrative, useful for decreasing energy consumption and beneficial for the environment.

However, all candidates more or less agree on most major talking points regarding energy: the need to invest in alternatives, decreasing consumption, more hybrid and electric vehicles, less dependency on foreign oil. One difference is their approach to offshore drilling (although Obama has softened his position), plus the little details here and there on other energy issues.

Candidates have not touched on the most important aspect in all of this: preparing Americans to change the way we live. Presidential candidates must develop school-age mandatory programs teaching future generations to be green citizens. Small things, such as implementing a charge for every plastic grocery bag used (these bags are a byproduct of oil, by the way), can make huge lifestyle differences. Oil and natural gas aren’t renewable resources. With this in mind, it is a great historic moment to engage new options and new lifestyles.

Mike Sigmon, 61, Republican:

Kay Hagan has tried to have it both ways on energy policy. She is for new sources of energy as long as they don’t include nuclear power and oil from offshore drilling. In other words, she is hoping and praying the sun shines and the wind blows. This is much like the Democratic Party’s line with which she has voted 90 percent-plus of the time she has been in office.
Elizabeth Dole has been a firm advocate of a proactive approach with solar and wind power but most importantly offshore drilling and licensing of new nuclear power plants. This is a more balanced and reasoned approach.

Sen. Obama has changed his position with the release of the latest polls. I’m not sure what his latest stance might be. Last I heard he was supporting overinflating automobile tires to achieve energy independence.

Sen. McCain has now realized that we need to drill where there is oil, offshore and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He has consistently supported new nuclear power plants in addition to solar and wind power.

I am not in favor of tax subsidies for solar and wind. This should be supported by the free market.

Ruth Mary Weston, 54, Democrat:

Well, I’m voting for Obama/Hagan. Their political philosophies align closest with mine. But campaign statements aren’t necessarily effective policy.

Here’s my slap-in-the-face challenge to you (yes, you)!

Pretend you haven’t swallowed your candidate’s “foreign oil” red herring whole. I regurgitated mine when I read FAQ #10. Have the guts to find questions:
1. Energy options
2. Markets
3. Subsidies
4. Taxation
5. Drilling leases
6. Revenue sharing
7. Infrastructure costs

Then look for your own answers!

From the moderators: Courtesy of Ruth Mary Weston, links to the candidates' energy plans:

U.S. Senate

Christopher Cole, Libertarian

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Republican and this

N.C. Sen. Kay Hagan, Democrat

President

Bob Barr, Libertarian

Sen. John McCain, Republican

Sen. Barack Obama, Democrat

From the News & Record:

A story on the U.S. Senate candidates and energy and an interactive graphic.