Energy in the Election

Every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has promised “energy independence,” and both President Obama and Governor Romney are doing their part to continue this political tradition. But while the two candidates agree that energy independence is essential to political and economic stability, they differ on how best to reach this historically unattainable goal. Perhaps not as much as you may think: both have continually voiced their support for an “all of the above” energy strategy, encouraging hydraulic oil fracking, natural gas drilling, the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal and green energy development. Moreover, while Obama has presented himself as the “green” candidate, vowing to “use energy sources of the future like wind and solar and biofuels,” his promise for “five million green jobs” has led to a mere 211,000, where the largest solar companies in America struggle to stay afloat and the wind industry shed 10,000 jobs in 2011. Obama’s green energy experiment proves that these technologies are not competitive enough to provide desperately needed jobs. But while some politicians have poised the energy debate as a choice between the energy independence, job creation and low costs provided by fossil fuels and the long-term sustainability provided by green energies, Romney and Obama are correct in advocating both. However, both candidates’ plans for energy development have fundamental flaws.

We’ve all heard the story: Obama granted a $535 million federal loan to solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, and the company quickly declared bankruptcy and defaulted. Several other failed investments by the Obama administration have led Romney to proclaim, and rightly so, that “the government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers.” Romney’s opinion is that “markets, rather than governments,” must determine which energy sources prosper, with rising gas and energy costs facilitating a natural shift towards green energy dominance. Yet while Romney has voiced his intention to let wind and solar subsidies expire if elected, he simultaneously defends fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks preventing market control. Energy subsidies give certain energy sources advantages over others regardless of supply and demand, often with disastrous results. Free markets have long been a conservative ideal, so why does Obama’s criticism that “the oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare,” put Romney on defense?

Romney’s pledge to subsidize and support coal mining would both harm energy markets and fail to sustain the dying industry. While coal made America strong, the industry is no longer profitable or competitive due to low natural gas prices. Romney’s subsidies and tax deductions for coal mining, coupled with his vow to roll back environmental regulations, will merely waste taxpayer dollars on funding ecological destruction. “Clean coal” is a political invention. American coal mining is no longer economical and our president needs to focus on creating new jobs for the 200,000 American coal miners, rather than paying them to work in an outdated industry. Last Wednesday, Romney signaled that his support of fossil fuel tax breaks and subsidies could be traded for a lower corporate tax rate, a sensible exchange that most Republicans support. Let’s hope he follows through.

Both Obama and Romney will almost definitely approve the costly Keystone XL Pipeline project with the contention that it will create jobs, lower gas prices and bring us closer to energy independence. However, according to the only independent report conducted on the pipeline, the multibillion-dollar project will only generate 2,500 to 5,000 temporary construction jobs, a comically small impact. Moreover, the majority of the oil will be exported overseas by TransCanada, rather than sold in the United States, so gasoline prices and overall supply will remain unchanged. Finally, more oil flowing into (or more accurately, through) America, more drills pumping in Texas and the Arctic and more fracking in the Rockies will not reliably lower gas prices in the increasingly globalized market, so neither candidate can honestly pledge to ensure low costs at the pump. The Keystone XL Pipeline would probably not be an environmental disaster, but it provides us with no real benefits and it’s unfortunate that neither candidate is denouncing the project.

The future of energy in this country depends on Obama’s and Romney’s willingness to let supply and demand, rather than government influence, direct support of new technologies and the abandonment of old ones. Multibillion-dollar projects, huge subsidies and firm regulations will not help us become more energy independent and could provoke a choice between environmental and economic security. Obama’s strict energy regulations create more problems than they prevent, as they hinder economic growth and have provoked some oil, gas and coal facilities to move abroad. Energy development, economic growth and environmental protection are not impossible goals, however, and Romney’s proposal for “a government that facilitates private-sector-led development of new energy technologies by focusing on funding research and removing barriers,” sounds promising.