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.

4. Nuclear power

David Goldman/AP/File
US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu (r.) exits the stage with Southern Co. President and CEO Thomas Fanning at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Waynesboro, Ga., on Feb. 15. Cooling towers for units 1 and 2 are in the background, with the new unit 3 under construction at right.

The Department of Energy under Obama has provided billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees for nuclear-power development, as well as wind and other "clean" energy sources. In February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved two new reactors at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia, the first such construction approvals in three decades. Obama regularly cites nuclear power development as part of his energy plan. 

On his website, Romney says he would streamline federal oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors that are on or adjacent to approved sites, and that use approved designs, are completed within two years. He would also expand NRC capabilities for approving additional new nuclear reactor designs. Romney supports federal loan guarantees for nuclear power, a subsidy said to be critical to its development. 

4 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.