One thing I hate about campaign p is the complete lack of information about candidates, from television to newspapers to radio to campaign signs. Why does every sign say nothing other than “Vote ____ “, as if it’s a product to be purchased? Would it kill them to just add a quick fact below the name that actually articulates the reason for this subliminal command should be fulfilled? Every one of those signs implicitly says that they have more respect for the effects of commercialization on the subconcious than to reveal a position that might make people vote based on concious reason. Democrats just spend more time kissing each other’s asses than talking about what makes them distinct from the others, and the Republicans keep trying to out-Regean and out-Jack Bauer their own party affiliates.
So I was glad to see that the Daily Kos put up a graph comparing some of the Democrat nominees on their energy platforms. I’d like to see something similar only compare to other nominees, including Republican nominees.
Further down on the site you can find a video of O’Reilly red-faced, screaming about how much “hate” the Daily Kos has.
http://www.dailykos.com/
| Energy policy area | Edwards | Obama | Richardson | Clinton |
| Plan detail level | Medium | Low | High | Low |
| CO2 reduction goal | 15% by 2020, 80% by 2050 | 80% by 2050 | 20% by 2020, 80% by 2040, 90% by 2050 | No policy |
| Post-Kyoto | Yes: binding greenhouse reductions in trade agreements | After we take first step; help developing countries with our technology | Mandatory world-wide limits, help finance leapfrogging in developing countries | No policy |
| CAFE | 40 mpg by 2016 | 4% annual increase | 35 mpg by 2016, 50 by 2020 | No policy |
| Renewable electric standard | 25% by 2025 | No policy | 30% by 2020, 50% by 2040 | 20% by 2020 |
| Bio-fuels | Goal of 65 billion gallons/year by 2025 (corn ethanol first, then cellulosic) | National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: reduce fossil carbon in fuels by 5% in 2015, 10% in 2020; expand E85 and biodiesel | life-cycle low carbon fuel standard – 30% lower by 2020 | Part of Strategic Energy Fund |
| Carbon tax or cap and trade? | Cap and trade | Cap and trade | Cap and trade | Cap and trade |
| “Clean coal” | freeze on new coal power until sequestration in place | No freeze; use cap and trade market to decide | by 2020 new plants have to emit 90% below today’s | Fund R&D on “clean coal” |
| Energy R&D | $13 billion/year New Energy Economy fund | No policy | Energy and Climate Investment Trust Fund – several billion dollars/year | Part of Strategic Energy Fund |
| Solar/wind production tax credit | make permanent | No policy | 10-year extension; add storage technology tax credit | No policy |
| Oil company subsidies | Repeal | No subsidies that increase global warming | Invite oil companies to become energy companies | Eliminate tax breaks, create new “Strategic energy fund” – oil companies can invest in renewable energy themselves, or pay into the fund |
| Distributed generation | $5000 tax credit, R&D, smart meters, smart grids | No policy | No policy | No policy |
| Public transportation | No policy | No policy | increase funding, tax incentives for passengers | No policy |
| Buildings | weatherizing and other efficiency | No policy | goal of 50% savings by 2030; incentives and regulations on retrofits and new buildings | No policy |
| Improving Efficiency | Goal-based; cut US govt energy use 20%, add R&D dollars | Market-based; don’t prejudge what works | Strong federal standards; efficiency resource program through utilities | Market-based; invest in R&D |
| Other ideas | GreenCorps – volunteers adding renewable/efficient infrastructure | domestic auto makers get health care assistance for efficiency investments | 100 mpg car, smart growth, bike and walking trails, more specifics | “Apollo Project-like program” for energy independence |
Nice chart. It would be cool to come up with a massive political chart that includes every issue imaginable. But that would require a pretty big research team.