Both President Obama and Mitt Romney claim to want to expand America?s access to conventional fuels and green energy. But their energy plans have very different flavors.
Mr. Romney claims his plan can create 3 million new jobs and give the economy a $500 billion boost by cutting regulations and instituting a more aggressive policy for oil exploration. Mr. Obama has made clean energy a priority, but his proposal that at least 80 percent of the nation's electricity production come from renewable energy by 2035 includes "clean coal" and "efficient" natural gas ? a nod toward a more "all-of-the-above? strategy.
Here are some specifics on how the candidates view coal, oil and gas development, "fracking", nuclear power, wind, energy subsidies and tax breaks, and energy efficiency.
1. Coal power
For the first two years of his administration, President Obama pushed for "cap and trade" legislation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants by putting a price on them for the first time. After the US Senate failed to pass legislation, the administration allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with more conventional regulatory measures. Under Mr. Obama, the EPA issued the nation's first standards limiting mercury emissions and other toxins from coal-fired power plants. It has also taken steps to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
But the EPA's go-slow approach, and references to "clean coal" development have irked environmentalists who say Obama's positions are being shaped by election-year politics.
Obama's website cites its "10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology, and to put online several commercial demonstration projects within four years." Stimulus money funded 22 carbon capture and sequestration research projects.
Under Romney, coal production would get a boost from revision of the landmark Clean Air Act, eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions restrictions. "Rules affecting coal power plants could be streamlined to achieve the necessary environmental protection while avoiding job-killing plant closures.... This would mean ensuring that the cost of new regulation is always considered and establishing reasonable timelines for compliance."
While governor of Massachusetts, Romney struck a different tone. He supported development of a regional cap-and-trade program to limit coal power plant emissions. Standing beside a polluting coal-fired power plant in Salem, Mass., in 2003, he declared: ?I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant, that plant kills people.?
2. Oil and gas development
Obama in March 2010 unveiled plans to boost US oil production by expanding available sites for offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska. Just weeks later, in April 2010, the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 men and polluted wide areas of the Gulf, prompting him to backtrack on opening so many coastal areas to offshore drilling ? and to require a go-slow approach on deep-water drilling permits pending upgrades in emergency capabilities, equipment, safety regulations, and inspections.
But during his State of the Union message earlier this year, he announced he would now go ahead and open more than 75 percent of potential offshore oil and gas reserves to development.
With regard to the Keystone XL oil pipeline planned from Canada to Texas, the Obama administration halted the controversial plan on Jan. 18, 2012. The White House blamed a congressional deadline that it said made it impossible to adequately assess environmental and other concerns. In March, Obama approved the southern half of the pipeline.
Romney proposes cutting federal permitting hurdles and giving states major authority over energy development ? essentially allowing the states? weaker regulatory and permitting processes to hold sway on millions of acres of federal lands, excluding only National Parks and a few other now-restricted areas.
Doing so would vastly boost US oil and gas exploration both onshore and off, the plan contends. Romney's plan would permit drilling wherever it can be done safely, it says. This includes the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and the Alaska coast. Offshore leasing would "aggressively" open new zones off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas to start ? and then expand.
For the Keystone XL pipeline, Romney has said he will approve it "on Day 1" of his presidency. ?I also will partner closely with our neighbors. Canada and Mexico have extraordinary resources of their own that can provide secure, reliable supplies for our economy. This starts with my approval of the Keystone XL pipeline on Day 1.?
3. Hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'
Obama's position is that federal fracking regulations are compatible with increasing oil and gas production while preserving the environment.
"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy," Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union speech. "Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk."
So far the boom in oil and gas from the fracking process has seemed little slowed, bringing the US an unexpected surge in natural gas as well as oil production over the past four years. Oil production in the US today is at an eight-year high, while oil imports have fallen from an all-time high of 13.5 million barrels per day (65 percent of demand) in 2005 to 9.8 million barrels per day or (52 percent of demand) last year.
Romney has staked out a position that federal fracking regulations are onerous.
"While fracking requires regulation just like any other energy-extraction practice, the EPA in a Romney administration will not pursue overly aggressive interventions designed to discourage fracking altogether," Romney's 2011 "Believe in America" plan says. "States have carefully and effectively regulated the process for decades, and the recent industry agreement to disclose the composition of chemicals used in the fracking process is another welcome step in the right direction. Of critical importance: the environmental impact of fracking should not be considered in the abstract, but rather evaluated in comparison to the impact of utilizing the fuels that natural gas displaces, including coal."
4. Nuclear power
The Department of Energy under Obama has provided billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees for nuclear-power development, as well as wind and other "clean" energy sources. In February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved two new reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, the first such construction approvals in three decades. Obama regularly cites nuclear power development as part of his energy plan.
On his website, Romney says he would streamline federal oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors that are on or adjacent to approved sites, and that use approved designs, are completed within two years. He would also expand NRC capabilities for approving additional new nuclear reactor designs. Romney supports federal loan guarantees for nuclear power, a subsidy said to be critical to its development.
5. Wind power
Obama supports tax credits that help wind and solar industries. Wind energy contributed 32 percent of all new US electric-capacity additions last year, representing $14 billion in new investment, according to a new report by the Department of Energy. Total US wind power capacity grew to 47,000 megawatts by the end of 2011 and stands today at 50,000 megawatts, enough to supply 12 million homes annually ? roughly the number in California, the DOE reports.
Under Romney?s plan, wind energy would get the same fast-track permitting that other energy sources do. But Romney wants a "level playing field" for all sources of energy. The production tax credit PTC, which was created during the previous Bush administration and extended under Obama, is set to expire at the end of this year unless renewed. As president, Romney says he would allow both the PTC and another credit important to the wind and solar industries, the investment tax credit (ITC), to expire, according to a Romney campaign position statement reported by Energy & Environment Daily.
Alternative energy like wind and solar are good, Romney said at a campaign stop earlier this year, but they don't power automobiles. "You can't drive a car with a windmill on it," Romney said.
That position could hurt Romney in battleground states like Iowa and Colorado, which have significant wind-energy industries.
"The wind industry now supports 7,000 jobs here in Iowa," Obama said while stumping there in August 2011. "These are good jobs, and they're a source of pride that we need to fight for."
6. Energy subsidies and tax breaks
Obama calls for chopping $40 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies. But his administration also supports federal loan guarantees for emerging energy companies. The Department of Energy website cites $34.7 billion in loan guarantees, which unlike tax breaks do not cost taxpayers unless the loans (like Solyndra) fail to get paid back. Those guarantees, the DOE says, support development of wind and solar power, electric vehicles, nuclear power, and advanced biofuels and about 60,000 high-tech jobs.
Romney supports the existing Renewable Fuel Standard that subsidizes development of advanced biofuels. Campaigning in Iowa in May 2011, Romney was quoted by The Wall Street Journal saying "ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country." Romney has, however, railed on Solyndra, a California solar-panel manufacturing firm that went bankrupt after getting a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration. Romney has said he will seek to roll back tax credits enjoyed by the wind and solar industries. But he has been criticized for not also seeking to slash tax breaks for oil companies pegged at $40 billion over 10 years.
7. Energy efficiency
Obama has funded billions in energy conservation measures for buildings and required the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to develop new fuel standards for automobiles, including a 54.5 miles-per-gallon standard for the nation's auto fleet by 2025. In March, Obama announced $1 billion in tax credits and grants for alternative-energy cars and trucks. High-speed rail corridors are underway in a $10 billion plan to boost transportation infrastructure and efficiency.
Romney's energy plan does not mention energy conservation or efficiency, nor climate change or global warming.
Related stories
Read this story at csmonitor.com
Become a part of the Monitor community
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-vs-romney-101-7-ways-differ-energy-165630258.html
big ten acc challenge 2011 john wayne gacy amr jack del rio fired jack del rio fired made in america made in america
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন