Presidential Material Michael Welch These are interesting (scary) times we live in. We, the American public, are about to decide who will be elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world. Home Power readers can now make ENERGY a campaign issue. The media and the candidates already have decided that the issues in this campaign are to be abortion, family values, health care, and political change. Now, I have my opinions about all these things (just ask me), but I feel that our energy interests will be better served by leaving those other opinions alone. It will be up to us to force into open debate the energy issues which are so important to our country and this entire Earth's peace and well-being. Our candidates Our viable choices for President leave much to be desired, even though there is a world of difference between them. George Bush inherited the Presidency on the coattails of an accomplished orator who specialized in placating the masses with hollow rhetoric. Ross Perot was catapulted into viability by the media because they thought he might have enough personal finances to make it. However, he seemed to self-destruct as the going got rough... or is he trying to be tricky by waiting for the right moment to jump jump start his candidacy? The core of his political machine remains in place. Bill Clinton is a practiced and successful power broker who was able to pull together his party's big wigs, and in turn, enough party members to sew up his nomination. One thing is certain: none of these men is likely to make energy policy an issue until the public insists on it. Unless, of course, you consider further military action for Persian Gulf area oil to be energy policy. Questions asked We, at Home Power, wrote and sent a list of pertinent questions to the candidates that they then decided to ignore. The list is long but you might imagine the things we were looking for: the use of various energy sources, research and development (R & D) appropriations, energy efficiency, renewable energy business support and awareness of public sentiment about energy. We also sent them all complimentary copies of Home Power Magazine. To my knowledge, none have chosen to subscribe, unless you consider the CIA's subscription as going to George Bush. Bush answers Anyway, after countless phone calls, letters and faxes, we finally received position papers from both Bush and Clinton. Though we had specific questions, the most we could get out of the position papers were "pat" answers. The papers do provide insight into the candidates' energy positions, even if they don't help us with our questions about the home energy industry. You can probably guess how things turned out. George Bush's literature reveals that he wants to drill for oil in and near environmentally sensitive parks and preserves and to rely on a massive increase in the building of nuclear power plants to meet our future needs. He opposes increased automobile fuel efficiency and pays little more than lip service to the ideas of energy efficiency and conservation. Bush says that he wants an expansion of electric vehicle technology and an increased budget for solar and renewables R&D. But his words don't ring true when you compare his plan with both his past actions and what the last Democrat administration wanted for renewables. Bush said that his funding request "for solar and renewables is up by 67 percent" but closer scrutiny shows that his proposed 1993 budget of $247 million for renewables is only 1/3 of Jimmy Carter's 1980 budget of $718 million. Bush's funding request for nuclear programs alone is about double the amount he has requested for all renewable energy and conservation programs combined. His basic premise behind his proposed energy strategy is one that has kept solar and renewables out of the mainstream and on the back burner for many years: If it's not good for the oil and nuclear industries, then it's not good for America. In the major speech about his National Energy Strategy, Bush intoned, his National Energy Strategy ".relies on the power of the marketplace, the common sense of the American People and the responsible leadership of industry and government." A quick reality check reveals this statement to be what it truly is: baloney. In truth, the "power of the marketplace" should not have to rely on huge subsidies to give unfair advantage to oil and nuclear power. Further, polls show that "the common sense of the American people" calls for meeting increased electricity demand through energy efficiency (63%), renewable resources and conservation as top energy funding priorities (76%), and no increase in nuclear power (65%). Finally, most people are painfully aware of what the "responsible leadership of industry" really means to the well being of our planet. Clinton answers Bill Clinton, on the other hand is harder to pin down, since there is no past Presidential performance to go on. He has had some success as Arkansas Governor by forming a state Department of Energy to develop renewable energy resources, grant funds for solar energy projects and promote energy conservation. Clinton campaign literature claims that he is strongly for just about everything that an energy activist like myself could want. He is obviously aware of the direction that public sentiment has taken. My fear is that politicians say whatever they need to get elected, then water down their actions to suit the special interests that got them elected. Clinton is pushing very hard for natural gas as a replacement for oil and coal. While it's true that natural gas is cleaner burning, cheaper, and more abundant than oil or coal, it is also a non-renewable fossil fuel. Natural gas still produces carbon dioxide when it is burned. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas which contributes to climate change. Clinton needs to be educated about the value of decentralized energy sources. His push appears to be toward large scale renewable energy projects. In contrast to Bush, Clinton's literature claims he opposes increased reliance on nuclear power, opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, wants to create a civilian advanced research agency to support R & D on renewables, wants to increase fuel economies, and wants to create tax incentives for renewable energy use. While Bush holds on to the archaic belief that "the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is not yet well understood", Clinton has called for an international climate change treaty and wants to "Limit U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and accelerate the phase-out of CFCs." CloroFluroCarbons (CFCs) are greatly responsible for holes now appearing in the Earth's protective ozone layer. Perot shines us on As for Ross Perot, should he reappear, my research has not turned up anything, nor was his campaign willing to send anything. Nobody knows what this guy stands for on this and many other issues. He says that he's not for doing it like anyone else. The fear among energy and environmental activists is that his free market tendencies would turn into favoring big business at the expense of important environmental and safety regulations. Make a choice and then VOTE! The choice seems obvious to me, but my personal opinion favors voting for the acceptable candidate who at least has a chance of winning. However, many people feel disenfranchised by our two party system and its marginal choices. For some, it is difficult to compromise by voting for someone that does not represent all of their principles. For example, it is troublesome to vote for someone who on one hand offers good prospects for our energy future, yet on the other appears willing to support military action for oil. For these people, there may be other choices. Ralph Nader, the ultimate energy activist, has had his name bantered about in circles seeking a reasonable write-in candidate. Jerry Brown is still campaigning for changes in the Democratic Party. He has published a book with some right-on energy strategy called "Platform in Progress", to help "fashion a blueprint for America." A newly formed Natural Law Party is offering a ticket composed of two Ph D.s to "bring the light of science into politics." This new party claims to have fulfilled ballot access requirements in 18 states and, at least at first glance, their energy platform looks good. Then, of course, there's the Peace & Freedom candidate, Ron Daniels, who you can darn sure bet won't be starting more oil and resource wars. The main point is that we can make a difference in energy policy in the November election. We can further make a difference by insisting that the media MAKE ENERGY POLICY A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. If the media takes up this cause, then our elected officials will more likely be held to their promises and to do what the public really wants. Write a letter to the editor about energy policy. Call the major broadcasters and tell them that you will make up your mind based in part on how the candidate reacts to public energy opinion. Go out there and volunteer for your favorite candidates, being sure to tell them how important renewable energy is to you. But most important, register and VOTE. It's easy to vote, even in the sticks. You can request an absentee ballot from your local elections office, as long as you do it far enough in advance of election day. Just DO IT! Access Author: Michael Welch, c/o Redwood Alliance, PO Box 293, Arcata, CA 95521 Sources Polling and other campaign information: Safe Energy Communications Council, 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite LL215, Washington, DC 20036 Candidate questionnaire: Energy America, PO Box 114, Warner, NH 03278 "Platform in Progress": We the People (Brown for President), 801 N. Fairfax Suite 211, Alexandria, VA 22314 Clinton & Bush campaign literature.