January 03, 2008

Candidates Energy Plans

Do you know what your candidates Engery plan is?

You don't really hear much about their energy plans except that they have one. But did you know that a lot of the candidates want to dictate what vehicle you drive by wanting outragious CAFE requirements, ones that not one automotive manufacturer will be able to meet.

Clinton - government should require an enormous hike in the fuel efficiency standard, to 55 miles per gallon by 2030. Clinton would introduce $20 billion in "green vehicle bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards. She also would set an agenda to reduce electricity consumption nationwide by 20 percent from projected levels by 2020.

Edwards - "Edwards believes that everyone should be able to drive the car, truck or SUV of their choice and still enjoy high fuel economy," BUT "American cars and trucks are less efficient than they were two decades ago (ed note - wonder where he got those statistics) and [fuel economy] standards in China, Japan, and the European Union are between 40 and 100 percent higher" (ed note - because they drive tiny cars) than in the U.S., the site says. To help turn things around, Edwards would raise CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2016, (ed note - impossible to meet)which he says would reduce oil demand by 4 million barrels per day. He would provide $1 billion a year to help American automakers develop advanced technology.

Obama - would double fuel economy standards within 18 years (ed note - impossible to meet). While he doesn’t set numerical targets, that translates as a dramatic increase to about 44 miles per gallon for light trucks and 55 miles per gallon for passenger cars by 2025.

Rudy - New York’s former mayor supports expanding nuclear power and greater investment in alternative energy sources such as bio-fuels, renewable energy and clean coal.

But while he favors entrepreneurship in advanced hybrid and fuel-cell electric vehicles, he’s against tighter CAFE rules.

Huckabee - He focuses mainly on developing nuclear power and energy from renewable resources.Huckabee urges conservation, but doesn’t mention regulating oil use through CAFE restrictions, and his campaign did not respond to a request for comment on fuel economy.

McCain - "We need to work together to increase CAFE standards to a level that is practical and achievable for all new vehicles, foreign and domestic, because improved fuel economy will help our nation achieve national energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and improve local and regional air quality

Romney - While he wants to improve the fuel economy of vehicles, Romney said he favors government working with auto industry management and labor. "We want to support and strengthen the domestic automobile manufacturing sector, not give it a chop at the knees," he said. "We're going to hit much higher mileage standards. But CAFE has been an uneven and distortive type of mechanism for doing that."

Romney said the solution is to develop renewable and sustainable energy sources, and he listed nuclear power, bio-diesel, bio-fuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, liquified coal, clean-burning coal and coal whose CO2 can be sequestered.

Thompson - His approach is to reduce demand for oil and gas, and to promote alternative and renewable fuels, advanced technologies "and other diverse energy sources." However he voted in 2002 in favor of an amendment to terminate CAFE standards under a plan that would have let Congress veto any increase in fuel economy requirements. (all emphasis and ed. notes are mine)

So to sum it up the dumocrats want to end the domestic automotive industry and make everyone ride bikes, use candles and stop breathing while the Republicans wants everyone to beable to chose which vehicle they want and look towards nuclear and renewable energy.

Guess it isn't to hard to know which party to vote for.

Posted by Quality Weenie at January 3, 2008 08:48 AM | TrackBack

Guh, I have nightmares about Hillary being elected as pres. Sadly, I fear a lot of women will be voting for her just because she's a woman and not because of what she stands for. :(

I'm still not sure who I would vote for as far as republicans go, though. Every one of them has one thing or another that I'm kind of iffy about.

Posted by: Barmy Mama at January 3, 2008 05:46 PM

Hillary is scary that's for sure.
We really need to push aside the Enviro weenies and build more nuclear power plants and drill for our own oil. In the very near future we are going to be in serious economic trouble if we continue to let them set national policy.

Posted by: Navy CPO at January 3, 2008 11:28 PM

You know, I'm not against finding alternate sources for energy. I just can't stand that people are pushing them by saying that our current methods are killing off the planet. I swear, some of these environmentalists won't be happy until the human race commits mass suicide. Obviously we are Teh Evbil!!

Seriously, if we're going to put money into research toward alternate fuel sources, let's do it for... say... the economy? Let's get a little competition back in the market and bring these goddamn prices down. Maybe put a few of those family farms back in business, neh?

Posted by: Barmy Mama at January 4, 2008 01:42 PM