2008 Woodie Awards
Obama trumps McCain in oil fix
Issue date: 6/26/08 Section: Opinions
It's no secret that America is going through a bit of an energy crisis right now. All you have to do is drive by your local Costco and you'll see an army of people waiting in line just to save 10 cents a gallon on gas. The answer to the problem isn't exactly clear because there are several options available - two of which are being brought to the forefront of media attention by the presidential candidates.
While Sen. John McCain would like to increase Alaskan drilling and also expand offshore, Sen. Barack Obama proposes funding the development of renewable energies at the cost of $15 billion a year for 10 years.
Let's compare the two propositions further and see which one really makes the most sense.
McCain's plan is to continue the country's addiction to oil by drilling in more areas, some of which may even be environmentally protected lands like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Naturally, President Bush wholeheartedly supports this plan, as he is closely associated with the oil industry himself. The problem is that experts say additional drilling will only increase oil production by about 2 percent worldwide, which would have little to no effect on the overall price of oil.
Secondly, McCain's plan still doesn't provide a solution for the future. Oil is not a sustainable form of energy, and the wells will, without a doubt, dry up at some point. Drilling for more oil only provides a short-term answer which could have far-reaching consequences if we underestimate how short short-term really is. Eventually, a renewable source of energy will have to be commissioned in order for the planet to survive. Yet, McCain does not support a large government effort to fund renewable research; instead, he wants to rely on the greenhouse gas restrictions and lower corporate taxes to stimulate private sector investment. This issue is perhaps the biggest difference between the two candidates' energy policies.
On the other hand, Obama's proposition is not exactly cheap, but it is necessary - changing the way the world operates is unlikely to be a thrifty process. His plan is to raise the taxes on oil companies and use the extra money to help low-income people who can't afford traditional utilities. Supporters of his plan are calling for even bigger expenditures that would have the government boost funding from about $4 billion a year now to $30 billion a year - every year for the next few decades.
While Sen. John McCain would like to increase Alaskan drilling and also expand offshore, Sen. Barack Obama proposes funding the development of renewable energies at the cost of $15 billion a year for 10 years.
Let's compare the two propositions further and see which one really makes the most sense.
McCain's plan is to continue the country's addiction to oil by drilling in more areas, some of which may even be environmentally protected lands like Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Naturally, President Bush wholeheartedly supports this plan, as he is closely associated with the oil industry himself. The problem is that experts say additional drilling will only increase oil production by about 2 percent worldwide, which would have little to no effect on the overall price of oil.
Secondly, McCain's plan still doesn't provide a solution for the future. Oil is not a sustainable form of energy, and the wells will, without a doubt, dry up at some point. Drilling for more oil only provides a short-term answer which could have far-reaching consequences if we underestimate how short short-term really is. Eventually, a renewable source of energy will have to be commissioned in order for the planet to survive. Yet, McCain does not support a large government effort to fund renewable research; instead, he wants to rely on the greenhouse gas restrictions and lower corporate taxes to stimulate private sector investment. This issue is perhaps the biggest difference between the two candidates' energy policies.
On the other hand, Obama's proposition is not exactly cheap, but it is necessary - changing the way the world operates is unlikely to be a thrifty process. His plan is to raise the taxes on oil companies and use the extra money to help low-income people who can't afford traditional utilities. Supporters of his plan are calling for even bigger expenditures that would have the government boost funding from about $4 billion a year now to $30 billion a year - every year for the next few decades.