The lead article in the September 10th Money Section of USA Today was a brief synopsis of the candidates policy positions on energy related issues entitled: To win the presidential race, it takes energy: What the candidates think about the top 6 energy issues. I am going to assume that the paper has its data correct and provide a scorecard for both candidates on the issues.  Only one candidate can win each section, although notable policies of either candidate will be mentioned in the conclusions.

Part 1-Drilling

Part 2 - Electricity

——————————————

Global Warming

Note:  Both candidates favor a cap and trade system that allows polluting industries to pollute up to a total “cap” amount set by the government and that could be lowered over time.  The industries that just pollute a little (under a predefined limit) could sell their permits to those industries that pollute a lot.  Many people believe that a cap and trade system is more efficient than command and control regulatory policies.

Obama

• Wants a cap and trade system limiting the amount of carbon dioxide to 80% below 1990’s levels by 2050.
• Obama would require polluters to pay for their permits by auctioning them off to industry.

McCain

• Wants a cap and trade system limiting the amount of carbon dioxide to 66% below 1990’s levels by 2050.
• Would give away their permits to industry to reduce the cost to consumers.

Conclusion:  This issue, as it pertains to the candidates positions presents a dilemma for me.  On the one hand, I believe that pollution does impose a cost on the public that is not borne by those involved in the private transactions that lead to the pollution.  Government can play a role in privatizing those costs.  Assuming that this is one of the key objectives of both candidates policies, then Obama’s auctioning of tradable permits makes sense.  His policies will, in fact, cost consumers more and this is appropriate if the goal is to encourage behaviors that will reduce green house emissions.

However, three things counter the economic sense of Obama’s policy positions 1) I care deeply about economic growth, 2) a huge amount of the rhetoric, and even science, surrounding global warming is so overblown and hyberbolic that we can’t possibly get at the truth which leads me nicely to my last point, 3) global warming activists claim to know the future and expect us all to agree with their assessment of the future and what needs to be done.

For example, this quote from the article:

“We need to get to at least an 80% reduction if you’re serious about avoiding the worst impacts of climate change,” says David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Really?  Are you sure about that?  Maybe it’s 79% or 81%? or 70% or 90%.   No, Mr. Friedman is sure it’s at least 80%.  As I have made clear in previous posts, I am a global warming skeptic.  I am not skeptical that it is happening.  I am skeptical that its cause is anthropogenic.  And I am deeply skeptical that dramatic policies and re-direction of resources will make a difference.  We are just as likely to get it right as get it wrong.  So if we are going to spend billions of dollars helping the world, then we should provide supplements of Vitamins A and Zinc to the worlds poor children.  McCain has economic growth on his radar.  The article states:

“It has to be a policy that can get through the Senate” without dampening economic growth, McCain senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin says.

So if we are going to do anything, the policies should be moderate and the goals should be modest and achievable without sacrificing growth too much.  (I may elaborate on this in a later post). I think that both candidates are wrong on this one.  But the fact that McCain seems to have economic growth on his radar alone leads me to score this one in favor of McCain.

Point:  McCain