The third presidential debate yielded nothing new from Barack Obama or John McCain on climate or energy policy, but both candidates pointed to an environmental issue to demonstrate their independence from their respective parties.
When McCain challenged Obama to name a major issue on which he's differed with Democratic leaders, Obama mentioned "clean coal," among other things: "I support clean coal technology. Doesn't make me popular with environmentalists."
McCain, in trying to distinguish himself from President Bush, said, "I have disagreed with leaders of my own party," and took credit for "bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time."
At one point, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS said, "Let's talk about energy and climate control," but he then dropped the climate component and asked, "Would each of you give us a number, a specific number of how much you believe we can reduce our foreign oil imports during your first term?"
Both candidates gave plodding and at times off-topic answers.
Said McCain, "I think we can, for all intents and purposes, eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil. Canadian oil is fine." He went on to promote his nuclear power plan, arguing that only "extreme environmentalists" have concerns about nuclear safety, and said, "So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that's hurting rather badly."
McCain finally concluded that "we can easily, within seven, eight, 10 years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don't achieve our independence."
Obama said it could be done in a decade. "I think that in 10 years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic time frame. And this is the most important issue that our future economy is going to face. Obviously, we've got an immediate crisis right now. But nothing is more important than us no longer borrowing $700 billion or more from China and sending it to Saudi Arabia. It's mortgaging our children's future." He then repeated his energy talking points, saying that we need to expand domestic oil production but that we can't drill ourselves out of our energy problem, so we need to put "resources into solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal" and build efficient cars in the U.S.
It's the Economy, Stupid -- But Let's Talk about Energy
As in the two previous debates, the candidates mentioned energy concerns repeatedly as they discussed the economy -- even when energy had no logical bearing on the questions asked.
In responding to a question about balancing the budget in four years, McCain said, "We can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence." And later, in discussing how he would cut government spending: "Energy independence -- We have to have nuclear power. We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. It's wind, tide, solar, natural gas, nuclear, offshore drilling, which Sen. Obama has opposed. And the point is that we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs."
Said Obama, "We've got some long-term challenges in this economy that have to be dealt with. We've got to fix our energy policy that's giving our wealth away." And he picked up the thread later: "If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we're borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia."
Obama indicated that raising taxes on the oil industry could benefit average Americans: "ExxonMobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there."
Obama also brought up the auto industry, attempting to balance sympathy about economic woes with tough talk about the need for more efficient vehicles:
When I talked about the automakers, they are obviously getting hammered right now. They were already having a tough time because of high gas prices. And now with the financial crisis, car dealerships are closing and people can't get car loans. That's why I think it's important for us to get loan guarantees to the automakers, but we do have to hold them responsible as well to start producing the highly fuel-efficient cars of the future.
And Detroit had dragged its feet too long in terms of getting that done. It's going to be one of my highest priorities because transportation accounts for about 30 percent of our total energy consumption. If we can get that right, then we can move in a direction not only of energy independence, but we can create 5 million new jobs all across America, including in the heartland where we can retool some of these plants to make these highly fuel-efficient cars and also to make wind turbines and solar panels, the kinds of clean energy approaches that should be the driver of our economy for the next century.
Both candidates mentioned energy policy in response to a question about their running mates. Obama said Joe Biden will "make sure that we finally get serious about energy independence, something that has been languishing in Washington for 30 years." McCain said that when Sarah Palin was the head of the Alaska Gas and Oil Conservation Commission, "she saw corruption, she resigned and said, 'This can't go on.' ... She negotiated with the oil companies and faced them down, a $40 billion pipeline of natural gas that's going to relieve the energy needs of the United -- of what they call the lower 48."
In short, the final debate didn't bear much new fruit on energy, climate, or any other environmental issue. And yet, even as the country is in the midst economic turmoil, both candidates wove energy issues into many of their responses. Might this mean that -- regardless of the outcome on Nov. 4 -- energy concerns will finally get the attention they deserve in the next administration?
Denmark’s Hedegaard urges G8 to push ahead on climate talks
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Comments View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 2:14 am
16 Oct 2008
By biodiesel he meant
biofuel and by biofuel, he meant corn ethanol. They are both masters of playing politics but neither one of them really have answers to our energy or economic problems. The only hope is that wise advisers will sort it out for them once they get in office, but I'm not holding my breath. Politics does not end just because you get into office.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
steve s Posted 4:59 am
16 Oct 2008
Talking Points of No Return
With only about 3 weeks until election day, its amazing and frustrating that both McCain, Obama, and the media (including our beloved Grist) really don't have a clue on energy and oil dependency.
Understanding the "big picture" is pretty easy just by going to the U.S. Department of Energy's Webpage for Kids.
In understanding the policy issue of energy and oil dependency, one has to break this issue into two components for any meaningful discussion: (1) electricity generation; (2) transportation.
Fact 1: In electricity generation in the U.S., oil supplies about 1% of the fuel requirements (the majority of fuel used is coal).
Fact 2: Of the total oil consumed in the U.S., about 70% is used in the transportation sector (our cars and trucks).
So, even if we put a nuclear power plant (YIKES!), or a wind turbine, or a solar panel on every street corner to generate electricity this would not do much to reduce oil dependency. The U.S. just doesn't use much oil to generate electricity (Fact 1).
The only way alternatives to oil (clean coal, nuclear, solar, wind power) makes sense is if dramatic technology breakthroughs are made in electric powered vehicles - and who knows how many decades this would take to achieve under "Professor Obama's Plan".
At least T. Boone Pickens has the correct sector identified in his Plan to increase the use of domestic natural gas in the transportation sector. What is totally unclear to me in the Pickens Plan is the cost required to create a national fueling infrastructure to use natural gas for transportation.
It is also my understanding that the "prime" U.S. natural gas areas to dramatically increase supply are not in offshore waters, but in places like Austin, Texas.
Of course, there are environmental concerns with extracting natural gas on-shore as the drilling process takes a lot of water. But since Texas gave us George W. Bush, I think a fair trade would be to level Austin and make it into the world's largest natural gas field. It would be the "patriotic" thing to do. Also, it would achieve the Republican mantra (modified just a little) of "Drill, Baby, Drill for natural gas in Austin".
(To understand renewable energy options better, go to our website at: http://www.treepower.org/biomass/quickfacts.html).
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:01 am
16 Oct 2008
Steve,
Thanks! None of us here at Grist realized that the transportation sector is mostly powered by oil. We'll definitely factor that into our coverage from now on.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:31 am
16 Oct 2008
steve s --
Please for to looking here for oil use, and here concerning the completely separate electricity sector
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 5:35 am
16 Oct 2008
Hot air, but NO WIND
Shieffer's question linked energy with climate, too bad his re-statement let them dodge the Inconvenient Truth.
McCain advocates "drill" and "nuclear." Obama: "clean coal" and fuel efficiency standards.
Nukes wouldn't be built if taxpayers weren't insuring them. (Private companies don't take that much risk without government backing.) Shouldn't that tell us something about the cost and the risk of nukes? So much for McCain's "free market" ecomomics.
"Clean coal" (a.k.a. "carbon capture and sequestration") is a deadly mirage. The Department of Energy doles out huge grants to research CCS. DOE and the Fourth IPCC report project that CCS would require AT LEAST 25% of the net energy from coal and roughly 80% more capital infrastructure than current coal-fired power plants. That's if CCS works at all. (No functioning CCS system to date.)
Wind-generated electricity is NOW available for about 15% more than coal. (I buy it in DC. It's called POWER CHOICE.) Solar (both photovoltaic and direct heating) is rapidly gaining cost competitiveness with fossil fuel sources. Barely a mention of these much more cost effective and environmentally benign energy sources.
Very disappointing that neither candidate mentions conservation or transit. We waste half the fuel we burn in the US, mostly because low prices (and price volatility) discourage investment in conservation.
No matter who wins, climate and energy activists have our work cut out for us. Conservation, Wind and Solar which could stimule millions of new jobs, deserve to top the agenda. Instead, we get warmed over baloney about "energy independence."
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 7:28 am
16 Oct 2008
re: By biodiesel he meant
BioD,
Your statement is actually incorrect. When Obama talks about "biodiesel", he's talking about cellulosic ethanol. If you follow the trail of those in his inner circle and their connections to CE... and Obama's direct history with CE and statements about it at his web site...you'll quickly see that he understands the potential for CE and very much supports it. I think he fully understands that corn ethanol is a transitional fuel only and should not be further developed (and, in fact, should be phased out as CE sources come on line).
Richard
Permalink
salemguy Posted 9:24 am
16 Oct 2008
Obama and biodiesel
It seems to me Obama is smart enough to know the difference between ethanol and biodiesel, and that when he says that, that's what he means.
Ethanol is well on it's way to becoming a staple fuel, as it were, but biodiesel is way behind relative to our diesel use. Pickens' plan aims natural gas for transport at diesel trucks first, as I recall.
I don't have the exact number, but the US biodiesel industry is running at something south of 40% capacity, last I heard, primarily because of distribution and blending capacity problems.
It is odd he doesn't mention cellulosic ethanol, but when he says biodiesel I think that's what he means. Its potential is greatly under-developed.
Permalink
salemguy Posted 9:28 am
16 Oct 2008
Obama biodiesel addition...
I should have hit preview instead of post. In re-reading my post, I realize there's another reason I think O means biodiesel when he says it -- I'm pretty sure he knows the generic term "biofuels" also...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:42 am
16 Oct 2008
salemguy
Many biodiesel refiners are going bankrupt because they can't compete with food for their base stock. The food vs fuel debate is being reflected in both the price of food and biodiesel.
Biodiesel made from soy and canola use a lot more land than corn ethanol. They have turned out to be as bad or worse than corn ethanol in their own ways as they usurp carbon sinks and drive up food prices.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
salemguy Posted 2:50 pm
18 Oct 2008
biodiesel
I agree that soy and canola are not the best feedstocks for biodiesel, and recent prices have certainly hurt production.
That's probably why so much work is going on around algal biodiesel, something that surely does need to be developed, and will be, I think.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Obama is thinking when he mentions biodiesel.
Permalink