Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 7 ways they differ on energy issues

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney claim to want to expand America’s access to conventional fuels and green energy. But their energy plans have very different flavors.

Mr. Romney claims his plan can create 3 million new jobs and give the economy a $500 billion boost by cutting regulations and instituting a more aggressive policy for oil exploration. Mr. Obama has made clean energy a priority, but his proposal that at least 80 percent of the nation's electricity production come from renewable energy by 2035 includes "clean coal" and "efficient" natural gas – a nod toward a more "all-of-the-above” strategy.

Here are some specifics on how the candidates view coal, oil and gas development, "fracking", nuclear power, wind, energy subsidies and tax breaks, and energy efficiency.

Les Stone/REUTERS/File
A natural gas well near Canton, Pa., is at ground zero for fracking the Marcellus shale in the northeastern United States.

1. Coal power

Shannon Stapleton/REUTERS/File
Republican candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the Beallsville Coal event at the American Energy Corp. in Beallsville, Ohio, Aug. 14.

For the first two years of his administration, President Obama pushed for "cap and trade" legislation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants by putting a price on them for the first time. After the US Senate failed to pass legislation, the administration allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with more conventional regulatory measures. Under Mr. Obama, the EPA issued the nation's first standards limiting mercury emissions and other toxins from coal-fired power plants. It has also taken steps to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

But the EPA's go-slow approach, and references to "clean coal" development have irked environmentalists who say Obama's positions are being shaped by election-year politics.

Obama's website cites its "10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology, and to put online several commercial demonstration projects within four years." Stimulus money funded 22 carbon capture and sequestration research projects.

Under Romney, coal production would get a boost from revision of the landmark Clean Air Act, eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions restrictions. "Rules affecting coal power plants could be streamlined to achieve the necessary environmental protection while avoiding job-killing plant closures.... This would mean ensuring that the cost of new regulation is always considered and establishing reasonable timelines for compliance."

While governor of Massachusetts, Romney struck a different tone. He supported development of a regional cap-and-trade program to limit coal power plant emissions. Standing beside a polluting coal-fired power plant in Salem, Mass., in 2003, he declared: “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people. And that plant, that plant kills people.”

1 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.