While each candidate agrees that the United States depends far too much on imported oil and gas, opinion varies on how to lessen the burden and how to promote research and development of other energy sources.
The Republican Party Proposes a national energy strategy that will rely on the technological prowess of American industry and science. Would not support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the competition that stimulates innovation and lower cost. Believes barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits. Proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits.
The Democratic Party Proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. Supports next generation biofuels. Proposes increasing fuel economy standards and would require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources by 2025. Would create a Global Energy Forum and re-engage with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Which Party really has the upper hand in this issue? Which one is going to work better?Is this a very important topic for the American Public?
1 comment:
I personally like the Democrat plan a bit better. Nuclear energy really isn't all that efficient or safe. It is possible to get a lot of energy and, if done carefully, won't result in any sort of nuclear explosions or meltdowns, but the waste products are kinda ridiculous. Storing all the spent nuclear rods in one concentrated spot would be alright, but they really don't lose their radiation for quite some time. Plutonium can have a half-life of 24,000 years, and that's not even when it's safe again, it's just half as radioactive. Not to mention moving the nuclear waste across other states to get it to these "host states".
Of course, the Democratic plan isn't completely ideal either, $150 billion isn't cheap, but setting caps and standards would (hopefully) force industries to take at least part of the cost. Biofuels are fine too, but I'm still in favor of electric cars ^^
Post a Comment