Here's the basic outline of Paulsen's plan:
I. Promoting the use of Wind, Solar and Nuclear Energy.
Wind. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that approximately 20% of America's electricity could be generated from wind. In fact, the Greater Plains area alone could produce at least one-fourth of all wind power.
Solar. Solar energy continues to provide promising breakthroughs for individuals and businesses.
Nuclear. Nuclear energy is our nation's largest source of cleaner energy. It is the only option available that provides significant production without emitting harmful greenhouse gases. No other source of energy today can provide the wholesale benefits of nuclear energy: large-scale energy with clean air benefits. Congress must eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production while at the same time ensuring the continued safety of existing and future facilities.
[Emphasis added for use later]
II. Increasing the Supply of American-made Energy.
This can be done by using the energy-rich ocean resources in a way that protects the environment, while providing an additional 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion additional cubic feet of natural gas. While this is not the only solution, it must be part of a comprehensive energy plan.
[Emphasis added for use later]
III. Making Investments in Research & Development. Congress must increase Research and Development (R & D) in alternative energy sources to enhance current technologies and discover new ones.
IV. Creating Incentives for Individuals and Businesses. Congress must provide individuals and business with tax incentives for specific behavior that encourages the use of alternative energy sources.
Paulsen's platform positions on encouragement of green energy production are inoffensive enough. However, these positions conflict with his voting record on energy issues in the State House: earlier this year, Paulsen voted against Minnesota's participation in a regional greenhouse gas reduction program. He has opposed requiring that 20 percent of the state's energy be produced from renewable sources by 2020, and also voted against requiring that renewable energy make up at least a minimum share of the electricity that utilities sell in Minnesota.
So a campaign-season conversion is a tad disingenuous, even if it is ultimately good for the public discourse on energy issues. The more candidates who admit that Democratic positions are the right positions, the better chance we have of effecting real change in our country's direction on the issue.
However, on the emphasized points above, what Paulsen doesn't say is as important as what he does.
Paulsen advocates an expansion of nuclear power production, citing its emission-free potential. While this is true, he makes zero statements about the disposal of nuclear waste, which drastically more dangerous in the short term than greenhouse emissions.
In his bullet point on increasing the supply of domestic energy, Paulsen talks about "energy-rich ocean resources." In campaign-speak, that means "off-shore drilling," which are harmful to the environment, end of story, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Later in his plan, Paulsen advocates "drawing down" the Strategic Petroleum Reserve from its current level of 700 million barrels, but when American drivers use 20 million barrels of oil every day in their cars alone, it's difficult to see how drawing down a short-term shock absorber like the SPR is a reasonable component of long-term energy policy.
Moving on to Ashwin Madia's platform (also excerpted so it's not quite as long a post:
Growth through a Green Economy
Federal legislation that requires a specific percentage of energy come from renewable sources would provide an immediate economic stimulus to states like Minnesota, with the capacity to be major producers of alternative energy. A cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions would create new market incentives for energy innovation. We can use the revenue generated by this cap and trade system to give back to consumers and keep energy prices affordable for middle class families.
We also need expanded federal incentives for businesses and individual consumers for the use of sustainable energy like wind, solar, and biofuels...We should take the billions in government handouts to oil companies and put that money into research and development of new renewable energy sources. This would help us transition to a green economy in a fiscally responsible manner.
Reducing Prices by Reducing Demand for Oil
Unaffordable gas prices have forced demand down, but they also put additional strains on family budgets that are already stretched by a difficult recession. Expanded federal incentives for fuel-efficient hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles would dramatically reduce our demand for foreign oil.
Environmentally Responsible Drilling
Oil companies should explore the lease areas already granted to them before exposing additional areas of valuable coastal property to the perils of oil spills. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore oil spills, resulting in 743,700 gallons of oil being dumped into the ocean. If there truly are ways to expand domestic supply in an environmentally responsible manner, we should grant new offshore oil leases on a case-by-case basis. We should not simply give a blank check to Big Oil to drill whenever and wherever they want. I would be proud to continue Congressman Jim Ramstad's tradition of protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling.
[Emphasis added]
A Role for Nuclear Power
Like Vice President Al Gore, I believe nuclear power should continue to play a modest role as part of the larger solution of addressing the crisis of global climate change. I would support federal policies and investments to determine environmentally safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste. The costs of such efforts should be incorporated into the price of energy sold by nuclear power plants.
I have a few personal points of contention with Madia's platform -- I don't think he goes quite far enough in saying "Green" instead of "Renewable," for example. I hear "Renewables" and that includes things like ethanol, which do help us get off foreign oil but don't provide a carbon-neutral energy resource -- not to mention the negative effects ethanol production has on the food markets. Drilling, I will only grudgingly admit, is a continued necessity until we don't need oil anymore, but at least Madia's focus is on the negative impact of increased drilling rather than its meager benefits.
By and large, Madia's platform is better than Paulsen's. His stance on nuclear power is stronger, given his focus on incorporation of safe disposal costs. His approach to drilling is a reasonable one too, with a focus on the environment and reduction of demand instead of the ridiculous Republican Party rote of "Drill Now, Drill Everywhere"
Bottom line: Madia talks frequently and passionately about reinvigorating the American manufacturing sector by building green-economy jobs -- R+D and assembly of wind and solar equipment, etc. Erik Paulsen has a voting record that stands in stark contrast to his stated positions on energy in this congressional campaign, and if elected, would be working closely with absolute loonies like Michele Bachmann on the most important issues we face.
If you're a Third district voter and gas prices and energy are your most important issues this year, Madia is the clear choice. |
