Energy independence and energy security are goals that President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry say they share. The candidates have similar views on other parts of energy policy. Both tout the merits of "clean coal," both talk about a strong federal role in funding research to move the nation toward a hydrogen-powered economy.
In the short run, both candidates support incentives to build a natural gas pipeline to Alaska, some of which were passed in Congress this month.
But the way Bush and Kerry would pursue energy independence presents voters with a striking contrast between two candidates who rail against over-reliance on Middle East oil at a time of high prices for oil, gasoline, natural gas and coal, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.
Bush's plan, seen through his campaign agenda and the energy policy recommendations issued early in his administration, focuses on expanding the supply of petroleum in the near term, particularly through drilling in the far West and in Alaska.
Kerry, who has expressed support for limited drilling in the West, sides with Democrats and environmentalists opposed to Bush's plan to permit drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The campaign nears the finish line with oil prices hovering above $50 a barrel in recent weeks, gasoline prices above $2 a gallon, and high prices for heating oil and natural gas that could mean record heating bills this winter. Economists are watching energy issues as they assess whether the economic recovery will be halted by continued high prices.
Some economists have said that sustained high oil prices could lead to a sharp global slowdown, or even a recession, next year. Others note that, adjusted for inflation, oil and gasoline prices remain well below their all-time highs, and that energy's percentage of the Gross Domestic Product has declined since the oil shocks of the 1970s.
Despite the high prices, and the fact that the biggest power blackout in U.S. history occurred just last year, Bush and Kerry made only passing references to energy policy during their three debates in recent weeks.
Both, however, consider energy policy a priority: The energy bill that was defeated last year was among Bush's top legislative priorities, along with a Medicare bill that was approved. Kerry has made energy policy one of four prime areas of focus in his election agenda.
Perhaps the most dramatic distinction between the two sides comes from how the industries that would be regulated by the federal government view the election. Of $5 million given by energy-related companies to the two candidates, Bush has received received nine out of every 10 dollars donated, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.
And of $37 million in energy dollars given to all federal candidates in this fall's elections, the center says 75 percent has gone to Bush and the Republicans, and 92 percent of the coal-mining sector's contributions has gone to Republicans. Kerry and the Democrats lead in fund-raising from only one energy sector — alternative-energy producers.
Kerry has made the use of clean coal and greater efficiency a much bigger near-term focus, along with a pledge to dramatically expand the use of renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power. He's called for a national goal to have 20 percent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020.
Bush has been more focused on increasing the domestic supply of petroleum, but also is funding efficiency and has called for spending $1.7 billion on hydrogen technology research over the next five years.
The knock on Bush's plan: It would bring down energy prices by giving energy companies subsidies and tax breaks for domestic drilling and exploration. So energy prices could come down, but those tax breaks could result in a bigger tax burden for those that didn't get the breaks.
The knock on Kerry's plan: Renewable sources haven't yet become economical enough to make a dramatic dent in electricity supply, with wind-turbine projects still reliant on a federal tax credit that Congress extended this summer.
Kerry has said he's generally supportive of nuclear power, but has come out strongly during the campaign in his opposition to the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has moved the nation closer to actually sending nuclear waste from nuclear plants across the county — including Kewaunee and Point Beach in Wisconsin — to Nevada. Bush supports incentives that could result in the construction of a new, next-generation nuclear plant by 2010.
Just as both candidates say they back energy security and independence, both also tout the need for "clean coal."
The cleanest form of burning coal converts coal to natural gas. The technology is being used on a small scale, but hasn't been developed on the scale of a large power plant in the United States.
A complicating factor for energy policy is the political stalemate in Washington, where competing interests are always at play. Congress hasn't passed an energy bill since 1992, and the differences dividing the nation are often regional rather than partisan.
