McCain, Obama on drilling, clean coal, climate change

WASHINGTON -- When it comes to energy and the environment, there's a lot for activists on both sides of the debate to like and to loathe about the proposals offered by presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.California environmental activist Alan Sanders credits both candidates with pushing to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but fears that neither is paying enough attention to protecting the Earth's natural treasures."What you hear a lot is, 'Well, we'll do this, and we'll do that, and protect the environment,' when there is really no clear thinking on how you would go about doing that," said Sanders, who is active in the Sierra Club.Stephen Smith likes the fact that Obama stresses the need to invest in fuel-efficient vehicles and biofuels such as wind and solar, but is discouraged that the Illinois senator is also pushing clean-coal technology.Clean coal "is an oxymoron," said Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which is based in Knoxville, Tenn.The record high $4-a-gallon gas prices of last summer have made energy one of the key issues in this year's presidential campaign, with the two candidates pushing plans to help the country produce more of its own power and still cope with the problem of global climate change.Much of the debate has focused on drilling for more oil and gas off the nation's coasts, with "drill baby drill" becoming the rallying cry of Republicans at the party's national political convention in September.-- Offshore drilling for oil and gas:Both Obama and McCain had opposed expansion of offshore drilling but have since changed their positions.McCain supported a federal ban on offshore drilling when he ran for president in 2000, but in June he said he favors drilling to bring down gas prices and reduce dependence on foreign oil.Obama also had opposed offshore drilling but softened his stance in August, saying he'd be willing to consider more drilling in a number of limited areas as long as it's part of a broader energy package.Smith accused Obama and McCain of "a certain amount of pandering" as a result of the pressures caused by the summer's gas prices."We are overly dependent on imported oil -- everybody recognizes that," Smith said. "The question is whether we get to the fundamentals to end that dependency or whether we focus on gimmicks that are not long-term solutions. We cannot drill our way out of this, and all of the research shows that."-- Alternative energy sources:Obama and McCain have both embraced the idea of investing in alternative energy sources, although their proposals differ in scale and scope.Obama wants to invest $150 billion over 10 years to develop biofuels and other alternative sources, such as wind, solar, hybrids and clean-coal technology. He says he would require the use of at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2030 and would invest federal resources, such as tax incentives and government contracts, into developing the most promising technologies.McCain says he will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean-coal technology and promises to encourage the market for alternative, low-carbon fuels such as wind, hydro and solar power. He has said he opposes government subsidies for ethanol.-- Nuclear power:McCain also is emphasizing the need for nuclear energy. If elected, he pledges to build 45 nuclear power plants in the United States by 2030, a proposition that some environmentalists find abhorrent."The only way one can even contemplate building more reactors is if you have completely a case of amnesia regarding what happened the last time we went fully into a nuclear enterprise," said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group.Hirsch's group has been involved in the fight to clean up contamination at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, a 2,800-acre site near Los Angeles that was used for decades to test nuclear reactors and rocket engines. One reactor at the site had a partial meltdown in 1959, and two others suffered serious accidents in the 1960s.Hirsch said the Santa Susana experience should serve as a warning."Nuclear technology is the most dangerous technology on earth," he said. "It spreads nuclear weapons, which can blow the planet up. It produces life-long waste. It can have meltdowns that can kill hundreds of thousands of people. And it is unaffordably expensive. It makes no sense whatsoever."Obama also has criticized McCain's proposal to build nuclear reactors. Obama said in June that he would not take nuclear power off the table, but would not favor building more reactors until concerns about the storage of nuclear waste and recycling have been resolved.Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a longtime proponent of nuclear energy, said McCain is right to push for more nuclear plants."I don't see any way the United States can have enough clean energy between now and 2030 unless we build at least 45 nuclear power plants," Alexander said."We hear a lot about wind, but the wind doesn't blow enough in Tennessee, so we can't produce wind power. Solar is experimental, and coal is not as clean. And natural gas is too expensive. So, for the next 10 to 20 years, conservation and nuclear power are in my view the only way to produce large amounts of clean electricity."Alexander said "every form of energy production is dangerous'' but that, if properly managed, "nuclear power can be perfectly safe."-- Climate change:Obama and McCain both have offered plans for dealing with climate change.Obama says he would push for mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. His main strategy for achieving that goal would be a "cap-and-trade" system, which would limit emissions and allow power plants and other major polluters to trade credits to emit greenhouse gases.McCain also supports a "cap-and-trade" system, but would require polluters to reduce emissions by 60 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.Obama and McCain deserve credit for acknowledging that global warming is real, said Don Barger of the National Parks Conservation Association."The principle issue in global warming now is not whether it exists or doesn't, but it's the uncertainty -- how much is human induced and what do we need to do," he said. "The important thing for both candidates to understand is that uncertainty should not be used as an excuse for inaction."(E-mail Scripps Howard News Service reporter Michael Collins at collinsm(at)shns.com.) (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)