Energy Hits the U.S. Presidential Campaign Trail

Romney wants "energy independence," Obama prefers an "all of the above" approach. What's the difference? David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney pledged to achieve North American energy independence by 2020 this week. That's a presidential move because every president since Richard Nixon has pledged some version of the same thing, including Romney's opponent President Barack Obama.

Obama's version is called the all of the above strategy: more domestic oil production to reduce imports. More electricity derived from wind, sunshine and natural gas added to the U.S. grid. Even more coal, as long as it has CO2 capture and storage attached.

Romney's plan differs only in the details. That increased domestic oil production should come from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other public lands, for example, as well as off the Eastern seaboard. Both candidates love biofuels, even ethanol from corn.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The candidates share another similarity as well: an inability to discuss climate change on the campaign trail. And global warming is one of the largest environmental consequences of U.S. energy policy or, for the past half century, the lack of a coherent one. Until issues like climate change are included in the discussion, any energy plan is just a lot of hot air.

—David Biello

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe