Energy policy: Contrasts on display

  • Article by: CHRISTI PARSONS and SEEMA MEHTA , Tribune Washington Bureau
  • Updated: August 14, 2012 - 9:59 PM

The candidates chose fitting backdrops as they sparred long-distance on a key issue.

  • 20
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jeddelohAug. 14, 1210:04 PM

The country is broke and we still have to subsidies wind, solar and ethnaol. What is wrong with this country? If a company can't make it without government subsidies than it needs to close. Why do we artifically create (jobs). We just cost the tax payers more money. Either stand on your own two feet or close your doors. When we neeed this type of power will be when they are self sufficientand the marketplace has a need.

2
3
redentonAug. 14, 1210:11 PM

No Obama, the wind industry does not support any jobs. TAX dollars are supporting those jobs. The wind industry is simply the excuse.

2
4
scottythrobAug. 14, 1211:09 PM

Wind power has to be supported by our tax dollars. Government will take a risk with other peoples money. This risk will fail and we will all be poorer. Leave "green energy" to people willing to risk their own money.

2
3
mcjoe1Aug. 15, 12 1:22 AM

Mr Romney says "We have 250 years of coal, why in the heck wouldn't we use it?" ----- Maybe just like oil we'll find the last half of that coal is loaded with higher concentraions of sulfur, mercury, and other emissions that are difficult to scrub. With increasing utilization, that 250 years of coal could easily become 100 years. I think the real question is why WOULD we expand our dependance on coal. What would we do in 100+ years from now when the writing is on the wall for coal? Why not shoot for efficiency increases and a greater introduction of mixed renewable energy. At least in that plan people won't look back in 100 years from now thinking how stupid we were. Imagine how much oil we'd have if cars got more like 30 MPG from 1900 - 1980.

2
2
comment229Aug. 15, 12 5:59 AM

"We have 250 years of coal, why in the heck wouldn't we use it?" If Romney doesn't know the answer to that one right now, he should not be running for president. The question should be, "do we have to use it? and if we do, can we use it safely?" The alternatives are all finite or dangerous, except for wind and solar. We need a Manhattan style project to get these two on the fast track, before the only thing we can do is buy these products with the words, "made in China" on them and I don't think anybody wants to be dependent on China or any other nation.

3
1
bizsmithAug. 15, 12 6:23 AM

"We have 250 years of coal." What then? There has to be a compromise on the alternatives. But then, compromise is a dirty word.

2
0
elind56Aug. 15, 12 6:25 AM

"The wind industry now supports 7,000 jobs here in Iowa," Obama said.-------------------------------------No Mr. President...TAXPAYERS support those 7,000 jobs. The wind industry goes belly up tomorrow without those subsidies.

1
3
tnesleyAug. 15, 12 6:41 AM

We need an all of the above policy. Wind and solar are part of the equation, but the technology is not there yet to make it a big part of our portfolio. Until then, oil, coal, and natural gas is what makes our economy roar.

1
1
LiberalOne46Aug. 15, 12 7:38 AM

Obama's strategy to "Win the Future" is trains and wind mills...that might have worked in 1890. The infrastructure required for more trains is not economical. And we would all need a family windmill. The visual pollution is not tolerable.

2
1
swmnguyAug. 15, 12 8:11 AM

There are legitimate discussions we need to be having regarding the overall makeup of energy sources we develop and use. But we're not having those conversations. All we're having is a power struggle while the long-established, existing corporate interests try to maintain their current market and tax advantages, keep their subsidies, and spend whatever it takes to control the political process to preserve their profits for the short term.

Meanwhile, we're making no meaningful investments to expand our available energy resources and safeguard the nation's energy security moving forward. Really, really stupid. Sure, you can't put a windmill on a car. You can't use solar power at night, either. But you can't put a nuclear power plant on a car, either, and cars don't burn coal. We use many sources of energy right now. The key is to use each source to it's advantage and ours.

Unfortunately, all we're doing is letting some industries use the purchased power of government to gain advantage over each other, while our nation's energy security suffers and is at the mercy of day-to-day market forces, in markets which are repeatedly shown to be manipulated. Corruption is going to take us down, and smug intellectual laziness is going to be the flaw that does us in.

3
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT