John McCain’s Position

Historically, McCain has been hesitant to embrace ethanol.   As the economy continues to collapse under the burden of warfare, taxes, and interest rates, McCain is beginning to see some advantage to increasing ethanol production.  Chances are, he may embrace ethanol and other renewable fuel products as a means to try and stem the rising cost of fuel.  Fortunately, McCain does not sponsor the type of tax breaks and other legislation for the ethanol industry that has led to the enormous number of complaints being lodged against oil producers.  Perhaps in this case, Senator McCain shows a bit of foresight in the sense it is highly impractical to trade the chains of one industrial monster just to take on another one.

Barrack Obama’s Position

By contrast, Senator Obama has been one of the most consistent supporters of ethanol fuel production.  Among other things, Senator Obama has  helped to craft and sponsor legislations that now make it possible for gas stations to mix ethanol into gasoline.  While Obama focuses heavily on the development and production of renewable fuels, his agenda remains unsatisfactory on a number of criteria, including the specific promotion of flex fuel engines as opposed to simple hybrids.

Why Both Candidates are Confused on the Issue of Renewable Fuels

Environmentally Irresponsible

We already know there are serious issues related to the carcinogenic and toxic side effects of fertilizers and pesticides polluting our waterways.   Logically, if we decide to grow more plants for biofuels, it stands to reason that soils will degrade and erode even faster.  As a result, farmers will rely even more on fertilizer and pesticides.

Disease and Food Shortages

As I write this, millions of pounds of tomatoes are rotting in Florida warehouses because of the salmonella outbreak. Combine that situation, with the flooding in Iowa, plus the hurricane season is just about getting underway.  Not only have we got a recipe for food shortages on our hands, if we had to rely on farms for our fuel, we would be in even worse condition.

Characteristics of Ethanol

It is crucial to realize that ethanol occupies more volume than gasoline. As a result, a gallon of ethanol will produce significantly less energy than a gallon of gasoline.  This alone may have an enormous impact on prices at the pump, as well as consumer fuel usage.

http://www.cpinternet.com/~mdmagree/ethanol_2000-07-06.html

To my thinking, if we embrace ethanol, all we will do is put an undue burden on the environment, and gain little benefit from it.  At the same time, families that can barely put food on the table now will suffer even more if the land used to produce that food must also be used to produce ethanol.

Senator Obama shares a willingness to increase reliance on nuclear materials,  and is also focused on finding a better way to recycle or store nuclear fuels.  While both candidates express concern about terrorist strikes in the United States, neither candidate has addressed this specifically in the context of what would happen if we increase our reliance on nuclear power plants.

But then again, as I write this neither candidate has elaborated on the following:

- there are thousands of barrels of nuclear waste  leaking radiation at the bottom of the world’s oceans, not to mention other forms of nuclear materials.  In addition, many of the marine habitats that serve as human food resources are increasingly showing contamination from nuclear waste.

http://marinebio.org/Oceans/OceanDumping.asp

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/Lin99.htm

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/n_wst.htm

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/ilr/ona/pages/dumping2.htm

- Researchers in Germany indicate higher rates of childhood leukemia and perhaps other cancers in people that live close to nuclear power plants.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892120

- Older nuclear power plants, such as Indian Point in New York, are on the verge of being shut down becase of safety  issues.

http://www.ipsecinfo.org/what_is_ipsec.htm

If we do not take action to curb consumer need for fuel, then it falls upon big oil and other industries to provide that fuel.  At the same time, try telling people that the best policy for reducing our independence on foreign oil is one that either imposes rationing or penalizes  consumers that go over a specific amount of fuel use.  As a result, both McCain and Obama are looking exclusively to energy producers and industrial manufacturers to solve the fuel problem.  While both feel that nuclear fuels will play an increased role in reducing reliance on fossil fuel, the evidence points to a number of reasons why this is a non-viable answer when compared to the benefits of letting big oil price itself out of business, and thus regulate consumer fuel usage patterns via the natural laws of capitalism.

This Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act of 2008 proposed tax incentives for development of alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and biofuels. It also had incorporated measures for tax cuts aimed at middle class working families to promote savings. The center point of this bill was to provide a tax on “Big Oil’s” windfall profits and removing the tax breaks they currently enjoy. The substantial amount so saved (an estimated $17 billion over the next 10 years) would be invested in the Energy Independence and Security Act Trust Fund. Oil companies could have avoided this tax by investing in renewable energy. In other words, it aimed to punish those who were not going “green”. Critics of this legislation (Republicans) however said that punishing oil companies would not translate into lower gas prices, and might conversely hike up prices .Surprisingly; Republicans felt such a move would trigger a decrease in domestic oil production.

Instead of promoting renewable energy, Republicans favored putting billions of dollars to expand domestic oil production capacity in regions such as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “Republicans are determined to lower gas prices the only way we can: increasing supply.”was the common sentiment.

This reeks of political opportunism and shows a distinct favoring of the big oil companies. It is imperative to boost oil production to meet immediate energy demands. However, it is foolish to assume that it can be a long-term solution for growing energy needs. Promoting renewable energy sector by means of tax cuts is a logical method of encouraging this sector to grow. The cleantech renewable sector is in the nascent stage so tax cuts and subsidies would provide the impetus for it to progress into a strong and healthy industry. On the other hand, the oil industry has been around for an extended period, and is capable of standing on its own feet. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has developed big muscle power globally, thanks to the hefty tax breaks awarded by the US. This bill also envisaged a NOPEC policy (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels!), and would have made OPEC accountable in the US courts. Such accountability would send out a strong signal against “price gouging” and limit speculation in oil markets. Currently a court ruling from 1979 gives OPEC members immunity in U.S. courts.

This development had the renewable power sector thoroughly disappointed. “We were disappointed that despite broad support of the American people, business, and environmental groups, Congress was not able to take up and pass an important extension of the solar tax credits today. It is difficult to understand why Senators would choose to protect an income-tax loophole for billionaire hedge-fund managers instead of creating hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs in the US,” says president Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) President. A further study by Navigant Consulting, Inc in association with for the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Research and Education predicts that removal of tax credits may lead to an investment loss of $19 billion and loss of job opportunities of nearly 116,000.with California and Texas being hit the hardest.

Interestingly, while Republicans continue to favor the oil companies, the Middle East is busy using its petrodollars to promote alternative energy.  UAE based Masdar Inc has announced one of the biggest investments of $2 billion to advance thin film solar cells.  Such a bold initiative by the oil rich region demonstrates oil may be going the way of the dinosaurs.  However, US administration feels otherwise, and why, perhaps the same reason why it invaded Iraq – a flawed, foolish and a shortsighted decision policy

Big Oil Keeps Everyone Bargaining

What would our world be like today if we could not use our money to influence events in other nations?  The bottom line is we need oil.  At the same time, other countries need our money in order to play a role in the global economy.  As a result, if we so desire it, we can put forth suggestions about human rights reforms.  If other countries want our money, they have to consider these things, or face the possibility we will walk away and look for other trading partners.  While this has not been entirely successful, the potential remains.

Big Oil has Enough Money to Pay for Environmental Rehabilitation

Irregardless of how they try to hide it, the oil industry is making a huge profit on rising prices.  On the other hand, the amount of environmental destruction as a result of greenhouse warming is going to cost a lot of money to fix.  Perhaps instead of forcing big oil to pay more taxes, we should be forcing the oil industry to hire people to clean up the environment. Then, they can be putting people to work in local communities, and also for a purpose that directly addresses the harm that has come from the usage of their products.  In this way, big oil becomes a team player, not an enemy.

Big Oil Enrages Consumers

Without a question, apathy is the hardest thing to overcome when you need to instigate change.  Chances are, everyone that has to buy gas is starting to get upset with the ever rising cost.  In my opinion, anger channeled into legal and productive efforts is a good, healthy thing.  Anger will create an incentive to cut back on oil use, and it will also create an incentive to make purposeful and targeted lifestyle changes.  In addition, because this kind of anger can last for years, hopefully it will not subside for many generations.  As  a result, we will have a long lasting cure for global warming and the promotion of products that cause so much destruction.

A Look to the Future

Just a few months ago, Barrack Obama did not believe he could defeat Hillary Clinton.  She had the experience, the network, and the household name recognition status.  All Obama really had was the conviction that we need to change the status quo.   Perhaps it can be said that Obama won because America today is a nation that is tired of warfare, tired of big government,  afraid of another financial depression, and wondering what to do next.

In my opinion, t is highly questionable that Obama can provide these answers, let alone regulate the oil industry in a way that will use its best features.  On the other hand, we, as individuals can still take a good long look at the oil, and renewable fuel industries and, take steps to make sure they are used for environmental purposes.  In the process of that examination, it is likely we will find that we do not need to reinvent the wheel.  Rather, we only need to learn how to use the one we already have in a more productive way.