Dr. Conca opines that it is highly unlikely that the issues surrounding energy will make any difference in who we choose for our next President. Other concerns, and a few character traits, drown out energy as an important issue in this election. That said, there are distinct differences among the four presidential nominees with regard to energy. Democratic Party Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy with a tilt towards non-fossil fuels, including nuclear, to address climate change. Some particulars can be summarized as: - generate 50% of U.S. energy from renewables by 2020 - launch $60 billion clean energy initiative - cut oil and gas subsidies - oppose Keystone XL pipeline - adopt stronger regulations on fracking - implement a $30 billion economic diversification initiative for coal-mining regions.
Republican Party Presidential Nominee Donald Trump supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy with a tilt heavily towards fossil fuels, with no regard to climate change. Trump wants to increase American energy production to add jobs and bring the country closer to energy independence. The Trump energy plan proposes to remove bureaucratic blocks to innovation and energy exploration. He thinks the energy marketplace should determine the best mix of domestic energy sources. As is the way of Trump, some of his ideas are interesting. Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, is aghast at the Trump plan to take Iraq oil, which he says would infuriate allies and enemies alike, reinvigorate global jihad, and make many of U.S. problems abroad infinitely worse. Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Gary Johnson, while acknowledging that climate change exists, does not believe the international community will do anything about it. He supports the free-market as the way to determine our energy mix.
The original URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/10/24/the-four-presidential-nominees-on-energy-and-science/#57d089633ec4