I think the site would be more helpful if it also provided information on which candidates support subsidies for coal-to-liquids, which ones are backing higher mandated levels of biofuel production or use, which ones are trying to protect grasslands, and so forth.

It should be noted that this site does not include all the relevant information about candidates. For example, it does not include recent information on Bill Richardson's climate plan.

-Jay Odenbaugh

The twin goals of an energy policy should be carbon reduction and energy independence in that order.  It boggles the mind that legislation could be introduced for a giant federal subsidy for the worst of the worst ideas for a fuel source.  Moveon.org is campaigning against this and in NH we will be trying to hold candidates' feet to the fire.  

Green NH, if you don't mind, can you explain why "energy independence" is something I should care about?  

I mean, is everything in the world supposed to trade transnationally except for energy?  The US is pretty fat with coal, fairly exhausted on oil and natural gas, and has a fair amount of uranium, though not as much as some others.  We don't have a lot of untapped hydro potential.  So most of the fuels we have in abundance have real problems.

As far as I can tell, "energy independence" either means
  (a) nothing,
  (b) very little other besides giving the biofuels crowd a club to use to extract subsidies, or
  (c) radical conservation and efficiency improvements and sharply increased energy costs in order to promote the conservation, efficiency, and  to fund the renewables.

But what does the buzzword buy us?

While we're still in the fossil fuel using business, I'd rather use oil from the Middle East than oil from the North Slope; I'd rather buy Qatar's natural gas than put a drill rig in every acre of the Rockies; and I'd rather not create a gigantic biofuels boondoggle that only creates an appearance of energy independence.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Hey, all:

As others have already said, looking only at AGW reveals severe myopia.  There is a very broad sweep of environmental issues.  Sustainability may the THE most important, since it covers so many other issues.  The candidates only respond to what the demand is.  This is not leadership.  We need to not let them get away with it.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Yeap, even the word "Renewable" isn't quite right.

I'd say that our energy needs to be:
Safe
Sustainable

Which basically means cutting petroleum usage.

The real irony is that the ethanol costs more than gasoline, so nobody uses it.

For the very few people who fill up on biofuels, it's dramatically replaced by the loophole which allows car companies to DECREASE their Fuel Economy standards if they sell Flex Fuel cars.

Which is why you have car companies making flex fuel cars, and not telling anyone about it.

_

Rather than making us less dependant, they are making us more dependant than if we had stuck with oil and increased the mileage standard.

Hey, all:

Yes, "Energy Independence" has turned into pretty much a useless term.  It seems you can't put an important concept out there without it getting usurped, distorted, appropriated or otherwise FUBAR'ed.  

Energy Independence = no Nukes?  No foreign oil?  No drilling in ANWR? No Iranian oil?  No Mid East oil?  No fossil fuels?  No oil companies?  

A really slick marketing whore could trademark "Energy Independence"!  "Yeah, that's what we want!"  

What was it that Humpty Dumpty said?  "I'll make a word mean anything I want it to?"   Welcome to Alice's world!  Courtesy of the corporate oligarchy.

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!