Dems

We can argue about whether we are going to do anything, we can argue about the solution, we can argue about when it will happen, but whether we like it or not, we will run out of oil.

The United States is dependent on oil, and there will be economic consequences. Ignoring the problem not only shows a lack of vision and foresight, but a blatant irresponsibility as well.

Democrats realize that something has to done, but they also realize that it won’t happen overnight. Presidential candidate John Kerry offers some ideas on steps that we could take to impede the approaching problem. First, he suggests that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil by developing renewable energy, conserving energy, and using cleaner fuel domestically. When we do use oil, he encourages the formation of an “Energy and Conservation Trust” that will use the royalties from fossil fuel towards renewable energy.

He pushes the use of clean natural gas over other forms of fossil fuels, and looks toward the potential future use of hydrogen gas as a fuel. In order to lead by example, Kerry will cut the government’s energy bill by 20 percent by the year 2020 by requiring more energy efficient practices. Most importantly, Kerry is pushing for 20 percent of the nation’s energy to come from renewable energy by the year 2020. This energy plan looks toward the future and recognizes that we have a challenge in front of us.

Bush’s plan lacks initiative and an effort towards progress. Bush’s idea of moving away from a dependence on foreign oil is a shortsighted and ineffective approach.

For instance, he keeps pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would supply relatively little oil at an enormous ecological and social cost. This is a project that Americans continuously say no to. Even if we were to drill in Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, we wouldn’t see a drop of oil for at least a decade. Sure, there are some conservation and renewable clauses in his energy policy, but they are so slight that they would never make a dent in the problem. His other main energy policy is to ease the burden on refineries and pipelines. This energy policy doesn’t even begin to solve the problem that we will face when our supply of oil runs dry.

Bush cannot be counted on to lower the prices of oil – especially when there is a solid economic explanation for why Bush is to blame for current prices.

Bush’s massive budget deficit has put tremendous downward pressure on the U.S. dollar, causing it to fall against other currencies Additionally, over two-thirds of the world oil trade is dollar-denominated. This means that as the oil exporting countries go to convert their U.S. dollars into their domestic currencies they are getting less and less money. In order to make up for that lost money, oil producers cut production. This in turn raises gas prices. If Bush wants to get oil prices down he should take serious steps to reduce the federal deficit.

The worst part of this entire debate is how the Republicans use fear and smear campaigns against Kerry. They insinuate that Kerry will raise the gas tax by 50 cents the moment he is elected to office. This is complete nonsense. It is evident that Bush must use these techniques to mislead voters because his policies lack substance and vision. The American public has a choice: we can either choose the candidate with a proven history of failure when it comes to oil prices, or we can choose the candidate that has foresight and grip on reality – John Kerry.

GOP

The United States has much to reform in its energy policies.

Today we rely far too heavily on foreign oil, our electrical grid is outdated, and our efforts to effectively promote technological advancement in the energy sector have stagnated. In May 2001 President Bush presented his national energy policy in which he addressed all these issues.

John Kerry has spent most of his time attempting to block this forward-minded reform and instead has proposed his own “plan” which consists entirely of regulatory measures against businesses and forced restrictions upon America dictated by foreign nations. Once again, Bush shows himself to be an innovator, while Kerry further promotes the stagnation of our progress.

President Bush’s national energy policy contains 105 recommendations, many of which are specifically geared towards modernizing our transmission grid.

The grid is in dire need of updating after last year’s blackouts in the northeastern United States that caused losses stretching into the billions of dollars in lost revenues. Approximately 90 of these recommendations have already been implemented by the administration.

The rest remain in Congress, having been delayed by liberals like Kerry. Without the implementation of these necessary steps, the nation’s electrical grid remains at risk of a second severe failure. Another shutdown of our nation’s electrical system poses a huge threat to our national security and the strength of our economy. It must not happen again.

In President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, he announced $1.2 billion (now $1.7 billion) in funding for research and development of hydrogen fuel cells to be introduced to commercial vehicles, homes and businesses. The president realizes the potential of hydrogen fuel cells to spur along the commercial world. As a result of the development of these cells, the consumption of oil will drop tremendously and emissions will be cut to practically nothing.

While hydrogen fuel cells will greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the long term, we need immediate action so we are no longer totally subject to the production of the Middle East and the price gouging of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. We should take advantage of the vast resources we have at home.

In Alaska today there is a region known as the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve that contains a recently discovered oil deposit that is among the largest found in history. Environmentalists protest the drilling for oil in ANWR citing the fact that the endangered caribou that live in the protected region would be forced out of their homes.

To the contrary, evidence from governmental and independent reports show that caribou herds are flourishing especially in the areas where drilling is being conducted.

On top of this, the oil procurement facilities are only around during the winter months when the weather is too bitter for there to be any caribou roaming the plains. In the summer, the camps are broken down to almost nothing and the plains are restored.

All of the environmental reasons not to drill in Alaska have been effectively disproved by reports dating back all the way to 1992. The resources available in Alaska need to be tapped, and now is the time.

President Bush once again is the one with the vision to lead this nation forward in a time of great change. John Kerry may say he has new ideas and proposals, but take a closer look and you’ll see he just repeats the same old party line against business and innovation.

Kerry’s policies would be ineffective whereas Bush’s are already helping to move America down the path of the future.