Issue #2: Rising energy prices
And now to my second issue for 2008.
2. Rising energy prices. Americans from the middle class on down are already struggling with paying their heating, light, and gasoline bills. In a few years, it's going to get much, much worse. Billionaires will be able to afford all the heating and cooling and light and gasoline they want. You won't. Candidates for President need to convince voters that they will appoint a competent energy czar, not a political hack. They need to put serious money behind energy research, whether it hurts the oil companies or not. And finally, they have to make sure energy companies don't gouge us.
Energy supply gets attention from most, though not all of the presidential candidates. Many of the Republicans, perhaps because of the perception by some voters that the G.O.P. is the oil party, seem to want to avoid this issue. The skyrocketing price of energy is truly addressed by only one candidate, a Democrat. And that is (drum roll) Congressman Dennis Kucinich. So let's lead off with him this time.
Dennis Kucinich: Adopting the position of the Progressive Caucus, he says that escalating energy prices "have almost no correlation" with supply and demand. Deregulated energy companies "are creating an artificial shortage and reaping tremendous profits while doing so." Kucinich and the Progressive Caucus argue for a return to cost-based rates for electricity, natural gas, and oil, with rates returned to 1999 and 2000 levels, or in other words, just prior to the Enron scandals. Customers who have been gouged by the energy companies should get refunds. Kucinich is very anti-nuclear.
Hillary Clinton: She advocates much higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, noting that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption. She would increase the mileage standard to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but give automakers $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to retool their factories. She would support early development of plug-in hybrid vehicles running mainly on electricity. Doesn't say much of anything on reviving nuclear power.
Barack Obama: He would stress energy efficiency in an effort to reduce the "energy intensity" of the U.S. economy by 50 percent by 2030. More than any other candidate, he is an advocate of developing a U.S. biofuels industry, which of course would be mainly ethanol. He says little about the impact of increased ethanol production on food prices. Wants many more flex-fuel vehicles that can burn gasoline with a higher percentage of ethanol. Obama is cautiously pro-nuclear, but says it must be done carefully and with sensitivity to public concerns.
John Edwards: He doesn't say much about energy except to advocate for meeting demand for more electricity through energy efficiency for the next decade. In other words, not by building new power plants.
And now the Republicans.
Mike Huckabee: Probably the best overall energy position paper of any candidate from either party. He is highly critical of "energy independence" efforts to date. "The truth is, we are so pathetically behind the curve right now that federal spending for energy research and development is only 40 percent of what it was in 1979. Our efforts are haphazard and often pointless: today we have six million flex-fuel vehicles built to run on biodiesel or on E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, but only 2,000 pumps for those fuels in a country with 170,000 gas stations." All very true. Nevertheless, Huckabee promises U.S. energy independence by the end of his second term.
Rudolph Giuliani: basicly the Bush-Cheney energy plan of more oil drilling, clean coal, nuclear power, and renewable energy. Like Obama, he is a big fan of ethanol and bio-diesel, saying the bio-fuels industry "can revitalize" rural America.
John McCain: He says almost nothing on energy, but does argue for building more nuclear plants more quickly.
Fred Thompson: Thompson's positions on just about any issue sound like platitudes hastily slapped together by a committee of second-rate consultants. To wit: "The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis." But he never really says what those steps ought to be.
Maybe Congresman Kucinich can be both the healthcare and energy czars in the next Democratic administration? Getting elected officials to address energy pricing issues is difficult, because it basicly is rocket science. The dilemma they face is to either address the looming crisis now, when there is still a chance to head off the big price increases, or after constituents start screaming at them and voting them out of office.