When we think about our energy future these days, increasingly, we're greeted with a simple choice: forwards or backwards. That is to say, do we either put our fingers in our ears, continue to be concerned with old energy like gas and oil and continue to walk blindly into this energy crisis, or alternatively, do we pluck up the much needed courage to make the necessary jump to the new technologies? Are we actually willing, as a nation, to invest the capital needed to secure our energy future, or are we still committed to the line of the past eight years of the Bush administration? No to Kyoto, no to innovation and ultimately, no to clean energy. Over the last eight years, this relatively simple decision has unsurprisingly become one of the most partisan talking points in the US Congress - but it doesn't have to be.
That isn't a liberal line, or a Democratic party sound bite. Instead, it's now a reality that both parties and all-most all politicians in Congress are coming to realize, as the real life impact of this crisis continues to be felt by the American middle class with greater force by the day. It's not enough to just call this an energy crisis anymore. Yes at the core of it lies energy needs and the things that really matter to average Americans - like heating bills and filling up at the pump. But the implications now also flow through to the wider economy and even our ability to dictate our foreign policy. Buying oil from Saudi-Arabia off credit from the National Bank of China isn't a good foreign policy for America in the 21st century and both campaigns know that. For all of these reasons and more, energy, within the wider realms of the economy, has now become perhaps the single most important issue in this Presidential election.
A recent poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp. found that 35% of Americans said 'the price of gasoline' was their highest concern in this election, closely followed by the 'availability of good jobs' at 28%. The usual suspects made up the rear. Consequently, we can be pretty clear about this: energy is an issue of great voter importance in this election cycle and the voters that pass judgement on this issue may well decide the election on their own. And we're not talking about a specific voter bloc here, but every middle class family in America. Understandably, the candidates' actual positions are a little trickier. Both campaigns talk a good game about securing our energy independence, but each candidate's respective policies will dictate their actions on this issue. In other words, ten point plans might well be dull, but in this case, at least one of them is likely to define our energy outlook for at least the next four years, and with the re persecutions of such policies potentially lasting far longer.
Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans are pretty clear about their version of our energy future: a strategy of independence from foreign oil, primarily achieved by drilling, certainly off the coast of places like Florida and around the intercontinental shelf - even possibly in ANWAR (See. Below). In an effort to maintain our steady course on the Straight Talk Express, I should also be clear to point out that Senator McCain's Energy Policy also highlights the need for investment in: nuclear power, clean-coal technologies, wind, hydro and solar power amongst other new technologies. Therefore, there should be little doubt of McCain's honorable intentions: to aggressively pursue the issue of climate change in an effort to securing America's energy independence - an objective Mr. McCain considers both crucial to the economy and the war on terror. On that count at least, he hit a home run.
However, the trouble with Mr. McCain's politics on this issue has less to do with what he's saying now, and more to do with what he has said in the past. Take for example, oil and gas drilling: when John McCain was running for President against George Bush in the Republican primaries in 2000, McCain didn't quite oppose drilling, but he certainly didn't press it as much as he is now. "Ronald Reagan believed ... that states should have enormous input into the decisions that directly concern them. This directly concerns the people of California, this decision on offshore oil drilling. Now, off of this coast of Texas, I understand Texans want offshore oil drilling. That's fine with me. Off Florida, they don't". Now it's clear that whilst you couldn't fairly call this an opposition to drilling, it is perhaps slightly different from what he's telling us today with drill, drill and drill again. Granted, McCain still to this day insists that the right to decide should ultimately remain with the states, but there is little doubt that pressure from a McCain White House would doubtless way heavy on the States that oppose, especially when McCain's own energy policy clearly states, 'John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration...When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of oil and natural gas'. Now if that isn't called ratcheting up the pressure - States rights or otherwise, I don't know what is. Add on top of that the fact that whilst Senator McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, his Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin out rightly supports it and you might be left wondering exactly what McCain's energy policies are, and if he actually knows himself.
If you're not a little confused already by this point, let me help you out here: in November of 2003, McCain told reporters: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality". Trouble is, later on that year, in a speech to a crowd in Grinnell, Iowa (where ethanol produces a lot of jobs), McCain reassured the folks "I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects". Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but all of this is making me wonder: how many John McCains actually are there on the campaign trail? The electorate can and will make the final judgment on this.
I'm not about to tell you that Senator Obama or any other politician has never flip-flopped on an issue, because they undoubtedly have. But the question we have to ask is, can we afford to flip-flip on an issue this important? Can the country afford another 8 years of the same old Bush-Cheney energy policies?
In addition to the flip-flops, perhaps even more concerning is what the McCain campaign actually defines as a forward step for our energy future. See, whilst Senator McCain 'says' he wants to invest serious capital in renewable energy projects, his voting record clearly includes tens of votes against serious attempts at investment in new technologies and the independent and non-partisan website Politifact.com supports this view, adding: 'It's true that McCain has voted against measures on the Senate floor that included provisions aimed at encouraging the development and production of alternative energy.' Perhaps even more importantly, John McCain has consistently put the idea of more drilling at the core of his energy policy. Or it is truly just a coincidence that it's the first thing he ever brings up on the issue at towns halls and rallies and the first thing that's listed in his energy policy on his website? Coincidence or otherwise, you decide.
What is clear however, is that if that is indeed McCain's main weapon against foreign oil and the energy crisis, what does that say about his view of our energy future? Look at it this way: at a time when the Obama campaign is talking about investing 150 billion in new, clean energy over the next 10 years with Kennedy, Man on the Moon style rhetoric, Senator McCain is talking about searching out the last few barrels of of the past. Isn't it fair to ask, how on earth is that a step forward? At a time when your opponent is setting out clearly defined plans to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, you're saying: well let's put our fingers in our ears and drain off the last few barrels. Add this to the fact that George Bush's own energy department predicts that any attempts to drill now, 'would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030' and you may well be struggling to see how the Senator from Arizona has an energy platform for the future at all. Quite honestly, I wouldn't blame you.