Sorry, Lib and Constitutionalist fans ... I can only handle the four most popular candidates.
So, oil prices are killing the market (although not for those of us who invested in Australian oil companies) ... how will these clowns handle energy?
A primer for the happy warrior in the field:
Kerry - The main thrust is to fund new energy sources and current alternatives to petrol. AMerica, in taking the lead in more plentiful and less toxic tech, will improve its economy and break free of the petroterrorists at the same time. This is a long term goal, and will depend mightily on coal cleaning tech and natural gas in the short term. But it is a plan that looks forward, and starts stepping forward TODAY.
It will also provide incentives to those automakers who will transform their engines to new energy tech.
Bush - None stated. I ain't kiddin ya, kids. ZIPPO. So, don't give this chimp the benefit of the doubt. Has he helped energy so far? If you work for one of three companies he has. Screw the rest of ya.
Cobb - Will advocate policies to reduce energy use and like Kerry, will start us out toward clean energy sources. Unlike Kerry, however, there is a lot less leeway for coal and nuclear in the NOW. Kerry has no position on energy dereg, whereas Cobb opposes it and Bush supports it. Cobb prefers local co-ops. Tax-exempt bonds will borrow the money necessary to buy out the current non-coop energy companies. These coops will have complete disclosure, although they will need to charge rates necessary to pay off the bonds.
To get people to reduce energy use, Cobb proposes tax credits, renewable portfolio standards, research programs, loans and
grants. Policies currently funding any nuclear, hydroelectric, petrol, coal, or gas initiatives will be killed, and the money reallocated to solar and wind.
Both Cobb and Kerry support a Manhattan-project size effort to advance american energy tech. However, Kerry includes anything that doesn't require petrol.
Cobb wants to focus on wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, and very tiny hydro projects (no damming of rivers). He also wants to keep the projects to minimal environmental impact.
Under the Cobb plan, the government will help to jumpstart the solar cell market through large purchases (funded by more debt).
Kerry's plan requires the market to support the purchasing platform, but will help seed the research end.
Both men support more funding of hydrogen cells, as does Bush. However, Bush wants the hydrogen cells to be powered by petrol and gas burning.
Kerry wants to transition from gas to cleaner sources.
Cobb wants to support only those companies that store clean energy in hydrogen cells. No nuclear, no petrol, no feed stock (biomass), no coal, no gas.
In fact, the Cobb plan would begin to set up direct Federal opposition to biomass that is associated with genetically engineered crops, coal use, or water waste.
The Cobb plan is the only one to require new construction in the U.S. to achieve nearly 50% of heating energy needs from the sun.
The feds would then give subsidies to everyone else to weatherize their buildings.
Kerry would allow for drilling. Bush has been trying to drill everywhere. Cobb opposes it all. Public lands, anywhere in the Rocky Mountains, and anywhere near the Great Lakes. There is no plan for the government to buy the latter two regions.
Cobb wants to shut down the nuclear plants in his first term, as well as all non-commercial nuclear reactors (including the facilities that protein chemists use to determine protein structures with x-rays, thereby ending a whole branch of biomedicine in this country), reprocessing facilities, nuclear waste incinerators, food irradiators, and all DU stocks in the country.
There will be minimal transport of the remaining nuclear waste, and all facilities will be above ground.
Yucca Mountain will be reviewed by Kerry, greenlighted by Bush, and shut down by Cobb.
Same with the nuclear weapons dump, WIPP.
No clue how Kerry and Cobb plan to get rid of our weapons. Bush won't use it, since he's not disarming.
Nuclear fusion is supported by Kerry, opposed by Cobb, and confusing to Bush.
Kerry would review DU use in scientific studies. Bush doesn't care. Cobb would ban its further use.
Kerry and Cobb support renewed funds for pedestrian-friendly paths across the country's neighborhoods. No such luck from Bush. He supports further diversion of public transit funds to highway construction.
Kerry doesn't mention planting more trees near streets. Cobb wants to do that. Bush wants to chop down the horrible trees.
Cobb wants more auto-free zones.
Kerry wants more bike paths (a Dean idea if I ever heard one), as does Cobb.
Bush hates the horrible bike paths that make him fall down.
Cobb would even pay for community bicycles (or you would, actually). Kerry hasn't suggested that. Bush ... never mind.
Cobb and Kerry are behind more mass transit funds.
Bush wants almost NO money given to mass transit.
Cobb also wants federal subsidies for employers to buy mass transit passes, like we have in NYC. Kerry hasn't suggested that (we have to balance the budget sometime).
Bush probably thinks that's what brought down Communism, along with Reagan's hairpiece.
Cobb has an interesting idea to put light rail on the sides of highways. Again, Kerry and Bush haven't talked about that.
He also wants to put freight on mass transit lines, so as to reduce truck traffic.
Seems logical.
Kerry wants to secure freight on rail lines, because TERRORIST TARGET is written all over it.
Bush is resolutely oblivious to this issue.
Kerry would review any further highway widening. Cobb would ban it from the get-go, along with free parking in non-residential zones. Bush wants to make 16 lane highways, man.
Kerry might raise the gas tax a little. Bush will continue to raise the gas price. Cobb will substantially increase gas taxes, but provide subsidies to the lower income workers.
Kerry and Cobb want to structure the new taxes and subsidies on autos around the CAFE standards.
Bush thinks CAFE is a fancy word for java.
However, Kerry would subsidize electric and hybrid cars now. Cobb won't until polluting sources of electricity generation are eliminated.
providing power to that grid.
Mass transit should go the airport, says Cobb.
The others have no comment.
Nader - Agrees with Kerry and Cobb that we need a Manhattan Project of Energy. No more oil, nuclear, electric or coal subsidies. Subsidies for wind and solar. Unlike Cobb and Kerry, he doesn't really talk about any other alternatives.
Now, since he says he endorses Apollo Energy Plan, like Kerry and Cobb, but doesn't argue with them on biomass, I will assume that he and Kerry agree on this source, whereas Cobb opposes it and Bush has no comment on it. Has he even heard of it?
Nader doesn't agree with Apollo's Manhattan Project on tax penalties, though. Whereas Kerry and Cobb mainly agree that tax incentives are more likely to yield results, Nader wants to emphasize tax penalties more.
Nothing like penalties to make people do what you want.
He also prefers regulation to research subsidies.
Blech. Sorry for the editorial comment ... but isn't it clear that there are Progressive Progressives and Pragmatic Progressives and then there are Paleolithic Progressives and the Polluters who donate to their campaigns? Isn't THIS OBVIOUS? I might actually vote for Cobb, whereas Ralph would make a HORRENDOUS PRESIDENT.
Nader's goals are a mix of Kerry's and Cobb's, but he hasn't provided any idea as to how things are funded or specifics as to whether he opposes or supports certain things, like highway expansion or nuclear waste storage.
So, now in the coming weeks, read on and see how ... if you want a protest vote ... vote for a man with a plan. Kerry or Cobb.
