[RedStateGreen]

This is what I figured.

Thanks for the link, Graeme.

[Graeme]

Critics, like those in the Hudson Institute, are really healthy for a democracy because weaknesses in energy policy can be corrected at a later date by those with political influence. That is the purpose of this post. Anyway, thanks guys for your compliments.

[outcast]

The real problem with our political system is the lobbyists. There are thousands of lobbyists for every member of congress + the president and they all spend hundreds of millions of dollars to effectively buy them off. This has had a massive distorting effect on our political system, and is perhaps the biggest reason why we wont have a sensible energy policy.

[Graeme]

Outcast, Thanks for your response. I confess that I don't know how the American political system works, and you may have a point. However, I am thinking that if an American President is a competent leader then he shouldn't be influenced by lobby groups. I just found this article by chance further criticising McCain. Others may wish to criticise Obama or comment this article.

McCain Could Have Gone Experienced, Female, Light Green; Instead, He Chose a Dark Future

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ohn McCain has made the choice. Already a hypocrite in talking the talk when it came to Global Warming, but taking the oil walk, choosing Sarah Palin put the nails in the coffin as to any shred of a claim that John McCain represents change in the Republican Party when it comes to acknowledging anthropogenic causes for Global Warming.

Let us be clear, very clear, John McCain had a choice. He could have gone 'green' (or at least light green) when choosing a female Republican governor. He actually had multiple 'light green' options in front of him.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')utcast, Thanks for your response. I confess that I don't know how the American political system works, and you may have a point. However, I am thinking that if an American President is a competent leader then he shouldn't be influenced by lobby groups.

[Graeme]

Outcast, Thanks for your explanation. I didn't know that American politicans are puppets of big corporates. Is it really that black and white?

Anyway, here is another article about the differences between Obama's and McCain's policies. The Editor of the Washington Post states that the differences in their energy policy are minimal but both appear to have bigger differences over how they will tackle climate change:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e're happy that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama support a comprehensive approach to weaning the nation off imported oil. But what was missing from Mr. McCain's acceptance speech was straight talk about the other branch of a sensible energy policy: combating climate change. He is a vocal supporter and a one-time sponsor of legislation that would put a price on carbon. Yet he failed to explicitly mention the imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was as if his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has questioned whether human activity contributes to global warming, exercised a line-item veto on his speech. The closest Mr. McCain came to acknowledging climate change was saying, "We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet."

It's going to take a lot more than American ingenuity and chants of "drill, baby, drill!" to do all of this. It's going to take honest discussion about the true costs and sacrifices that all Americans will have to bear to achieve it. With just 59 days to go until the election, Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama must get started.

[Graeme]

Sarah Palin to be energy independence chief in John McCain's government

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r McCain, whose selection of Mrs Palin has electrified Republican supporters, wants to capitalise on her expertise in the oil and gas sector while governor of Alaska. He believes that her record of taking on oil company chiefs will help convince the public that his government would not be in the pocket of energy fat cats, a perception that has damaged George W.Bush's poll ratings.

The campaign official said: "The Democrats say that Governor Palin is inexperienced, but she has vast experience in the energy sector. She will be at the forefront of the push for energy independence. She's popular and she's very persuasive." A Republican Party official, who has discussed Mrs Palin's role with members of Mr McCain's team, added: "She can say: 'I'm from Alaska. I know all about this and I support drilling, even in ANWR."


To assuage angry green activists, the prospective vice president will also be charged with overseeing a dramatic increase in federal support for the development of clean coal and electric car technology, as well as the spread of wind and solar power.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')utcast, Thanks for your explanation. I didn't know that American politicans are puppets of big corporates. Is it really that black and white?

[oiless]

Outcast's explanation pretty much holds true of the political process anywhere, although it is exceptionally blatant in the US I believe.
Look at politicians anywhere, if you can't see them being bought you probably aren't looking hard enough.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oiless', 'O')utcast's explanation pretty much holds true of the political process anywhere, although it is exceptionally blatant in the US I believe.
Look at politicians anywhere, if you can't see them being bought you probably aren't looking hard enough.

[abbeboeuf]

It may or may not be PT Barnum but the old saying that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public" probably applies. Whatever the exact figure it probably meets or exceeds the 50% mark for Americans who... believe the earth is 4800 years old... end times are coming so what the hell [burn baby burn is just people like you and me getting whats coming not global warming].... any oil shortage is just because "we didnt drill"...feel that anyone who promises $2 gas has got real leadership skills. What we need is a leader who can somehow convey to these numbskulls that infrastructure at home, conservation not consumption, and smooth orderly transition will benefit us all. Im betting we get nothing. Lowest common denominator government works pretty well when there are no major issues. We keep telling each other we have a great democracy but objectively more like the largest banana republic in the world. Trickle down civilization.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')utcast, Thanks for your response. I confess that I don't know how the American political system works, and you may have a point. However, I am thinking that if an American President is a competent leader then he shouldn't be influenced by lobby groups.

[outcast]

What I said was somewhat oversimplified, but the idea still stands. Even though corporations themselves don't make the contributions, they can still do so through paid representatives (aka lobbyists) who act as something of a go between. For example, the energy lobby:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Energy Lobby" is the umbrella term used to name the paid representatives of large oil, gas, coal, and electric utilities corporations who attempt to influence governmental policy. So-called Big Oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total S.A., Chevron Corporation, and ConocoPhillips are amongst the largest corporations associated with the Energy Lobby. General Electric, Southern Co., First Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) are among the most influential electric utilities corporations.[1] Both electric companies and big oil and gas companies are consistently among the ten highest spending industrial lobbyists.[2]

In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies alone contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaign, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15-20 million.[3][4] From 2003-2006, the Energy Lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period. [5]