There are some who will read this who believe Mitt Romney is no different, and certainly no better, than Barack Obama. I disagree with that, for a number of reasons, some of which I have stated before. Another reason I believe Mitt Romney would be a better President than the current resident of the White House is his energy policy. Let's look at some of the differences.
Barack Obama On Energy
What has Barack Obama done about our domestic energy since he took office. The most glaring example is how he has treated the coal industry. He openly stated his policies would necessarily make energy prices go up and could bankrupt the coal industry. We have seen evidence of that in the last three years. He seems to have an open hostility towards all sources of energy that are not considered to be green energy. The coal industry has suffered because of that hostility. President Obama has also put policies into place that limit access to publicly owned lands for energy companies to drill for oil and gas. In the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he arbitrarily placed a ban on drilling in the Gulf, even though he was ordered to lift the ban by a federal judge. Everywhere you turn, you can see the effects of his hostility towards the producers and suppliers of oil, gas, and coal. Could his policies be part of the reason gasoline and diesel prices have spiked up in the last several weeks?Contrast that with Obama's love affair with sources of green energy. It doesn't matter if those sources of energy are practical or not, he is willing to spend billions of dollars of our money to prop up wind and solar energy companies that produce nothing of real value to the American people. I've lost count of how many solar energy companies have went bankrupt, even though the Obama administration provided them with government-backed loans to help keep them afloat.
Mitt Romney On Energy
Enough about President Obama. Let's look at what Mitt Romney proposes to do.(Human Events) The Romney-Ryan campaign released a white paper on their energy proposal last week. While short on details, it describes an ambitious plan to achieve energy independence by 2020, create millions of jobs and return $1 trillion in revenue to local and federal governments. Partnering with Canada and Mexico to dramatically increase domestic energy production is listed as a “crucial component.”Let me state here that I disagree with Mitt Romney on one thing in his proposals on energy. I do not believe the ethanol mandate should be kept. Given the evidence that describes the effect it has on engines, plus the fact that it is not as efficient as gasoline, and that it costs so much to produce, I believe it should be scrapped. Other than that, I agree with Mitt Romney on what he proposes to do. Please note here that his proposals aim to reduce the role the federal government has played in the past several years in our energy production. He wants to reduce federal regulations and allow state governments to have more control over the energy production that takes place within their borders. He also wants to drop the policies that prop up sources of energy that are not practical, focusing on the ones that actually work.
The white paper says the Romney administration would rely on the private sector rather than taxpayers to fund alternative energy, revitalize nuclear power by approving new reactor designs, give states more power to approve energy development on public lands, conduct a survey of unexplored oil and gas reserves, and maintain the ethanol mandate.
Recent statements by Romney and a platform released by his campaign provide a clear preview of how a his administration would tackle the issues.
“The goal of my energy policy is straightforward: guarantee America the most affordable and reliable supply in the world,” Romney’s platform said. “In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed … as president, I will unleash American innovation and productivity to make full use of our natural resources.”
On an Aug. 14 trip to coal country in Ohio, Romney said the Obama administration is “waging a war on coal” and that bureaucratic regulations have crippled the industry. “There were some promises he kept. One promise he kept was with regard to energy. He said if he’s elected president and his policies get put in place the cost of energy would skyrocket. That’s one he’s kept,” Romney said.
The Romney-Ryan platform would modernize outdated environmental laws to reconsider the cost to ratepayers, and “stop the EPA’s practice of using imaginary benefits to justify onerous burdens. In my administration, coal will not be a four-letter word,” the platform said.
Romney has stated that the first business of his administration would be to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas, which Obama has repeatedly blocked. Romney plans on expanding domestic oil production, too.
Romney does not support cap-and-trade mandates, which he calls “feel-good policies” that “could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.”
A thoughtful approach to energy and the environment need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs, Romney said.
From where I stand, there are major differences between the two men on how they would treat our energy production and our natural resources. Barack Obama wants to force feed us new sources of energy that do not work, using our money to prop them up. Mitt Romney wants to use the natural resources we have to their fullest potential. At the same time, he would allow private enterprise to explore the possibilities of wind, solar, and any other forms green energy that may become available.
Tell me again how there is little or no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.
