On ethanol, “Obama supports continued subsidization of corn-based ethanol production, despite the inflation in food prices that the switch to growing fuel instead of food is causing.”

On nuclear power, “Nuclear plants are dauntingly expensive–estimates of their cost seems to double every six months–and new nuclear plants cannot compete with existing coal- and gas-fired generation.”

On wind and solar, “Neither is the favorite of many environmental groups. Wind machines spoil their views, as the Kennedys argue from their Hyannisport waterfront compound…And solar installations take up huge swathes of land–almost 20 square miles in the case of one being built to service a tiny portion of the
electricity consumed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco area.”

On electric vehicles, “McCain would offer a taxpayer-funded prize of $300 million, and the infrastructure to service them. But the Arizona senator has given no indication of the government subsidies he has in mind to fund the replacement of your once-friendly gas stations with battery-charging substitutes.”

On cap and trade, “Neither concedes that consumers will end up paying the bill, or that the system has been a fiasco when tried in Europe…”

I think that the aforementioned points (and others in the article) do indeed address the real challenges facing the development of clean (or cleaner) energy technologies. It’s certainly not all about money. Throwing $150 billion at the cleantech industry guarantees nothing. And even if the investment (from government or otherwise) exists to develop new technologies there are many political and legal issues that could prevent those technologies from being deployed.

Mike Huckabee is a former three-term Governor of Arkansas who ended his last term as Governor in January of 2007. Governor Huckabee is also the author of several books including From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 Stops to Restoring America’s Greatness. Most recently he has established himself as the front runner for the Republican nomination for President by winning the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

The Position

Governor Huckabee makes the following statements on the Energy Independence issue page on his official website.

“The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence.”

“We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.”

“We will set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels.”

“Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences.”

Our Take

Governor Huckabee makes strong statements on the subject of energy independence. Like the other Republican candidates Mr. Huckabee does not provide a detailed plan. He takes care to mention all possible alternatives, which certainly makes sense since we can’t expect that the future of clean energy will rely on one or two technologies.

At this point in the game I don’t think that any President can afford not to have a strong clean energy policy. The question we have to ask is this one. What route will each candidate take to help the U.S. get to our clean energy future. It is encouraging that Mr. Huckabee plans to share resources with the private sector allow the “free market” to sort out the technologies and fuel sources that makes the most sense. A rigid mindset that relies on the government, funded solely by tax payer dollars and punitive corporate levies, will lead to inefficient federal programs and slow clean energy innovation.

Ron Paul is a veteran Congressman and doctor from Lake Jackson, TX. Congressman Paul served in the U.S. House of Representatives in the late 1970s until he relinquished his House seat in 1984. He returned to Congress in 1997 and currently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The Position

The Environment issue page on Congressman Paul’s website states that Ron Paul is, “a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.

Other statements focus specifically on environmental issues. There is no detailed clean energy plan on the site. In general Congressman Paul’s stance favors free markets and states that, “Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.”

Our Take

Congressman Paul puts forward some interesting and attractive concepts. He is a strong advocate for free markets and obviously believes that the federal government is ill equipped to properly manage the many systems or agencies that are in charge of energy production and emissions in the United States.

This approach in general is preferable over schemes that soak companies via high taxes in order to fund big government programs. Ron Paul does suffer the same problem as other Republican candidates with his website proposing a number of interesting ideas without a detailed strategy for our clean energy future.

Barack Obama is a Democratic candidate for the 2008 Presidential Election. Mr. Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School, served for eight years in the Illinois State Senate and currently serves as a U.S. Senator from Illinois.

The Position

Senator Obama makes the following proposals via the environment issue page on his campaign website.

• Implement A 100% Auction Cap-and-Trade Program To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create American Jobs
• Invest In The Fastest, Cheapest Way To Reduce Emissions: Energy Efficiency
• Strengthen Our Oil Security And Energy Independence
• Make The U.S. A Leader In Combating Climate Change Around The World

Our Take

Senator Obama presents a very comprehensive plan that touches all aspects of the clean energy issue. His 100% Cap-And-Trade plan will set aside money for federal research on clean energy technologies. That money might be better spent by creating incentives for commercial organizations to develop and deploy systems that successfully generate clean energy.

Senator Obama is in an interesting position in that the state he represents is home to a large amount of coal fired generation. Coal fired powered plants are huge emitters of CO2 but at the same time provide a plentiful, low cost source of energy. It is good to see that he also supports the development of clean coal technologies so that we can continue to utilize the resource with a much lower impact to the environment.

Mitt Romney is one of the leading candidates for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. He is well known as successful business person and as the former Governor of the State of Massachusetts.

The Position

Governor Romney is in favor of using technology to develop clean sources of energy. In a video posted on the Mitt Romney For President website, he states “I believe we have to be developing more energy sources ourselves which would include offshore drilling, drilling in ANWAR, nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulostic ethanol. Probably liquified coal. We have enormous supplies of coal.”

The official campaign website dedicates a page to the energy issue but there is only a quote and an embedded video.

Our Take

Governor Romney’s position is very light on substance. He mentions the need for improved technologies, fuel efficiency and financial incentives for clean energy production but fails to provide details.

Interestingly enough there is no mention of wind in either Romney’s video or his quote on the web page. He may be avoiding the wind issue since it is well known that he opposed the Cape Wind project during his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts.

John McCain is a Republican Senator from Arizona. Senator McCain has served in the U.S. Senate since 1986. Prior to his career in politics Senator McCain served in the U.S. Navy as an aviator. During that service his plane was shot down over Vietnam. McCain was captured and spent five and a half years in captivity as a prisoner of war.

The Position

The McCain strategy aims to, “…limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share.”

Our Take

Where’s the beef Senator? There’s not much on Senator McCain’s website with respect to a clean energy plan. In addition, Senator McCain’s position is listed on his campaign website under the title, “Environment”. While energy and the environment are strongly related, a specific energy policy is crucial for any Presidential candidate. It would be nice to see a stronger clean energy plan from Senator McCain sooner rather than later.

John Edwards is Democrat and former one-term Senator from South Carolina. As a candidate, Edwards carries strong name recognition from his days as a Vice-Presidential candidate alongside John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election.

The Position

John Edwards believes that, “If we harness American ingenuity to reach for transformative change, we can emerge from the crisis of global warming with a new energy economy that stimulates innovation, brings the family farm back to life, and creates more than 1 million jobs in America’s farms and industries.”

The Edwards plan includes three specific initiatives:

• Development of a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions.
• Creation of a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy.
• Meeting electricity demand via increased efficiency.

According to the Edwards plan, America will see the following benefits from his position on clean energy, “…by 2025 America will import 7.5 million fewer barrels of oil a day, produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels a year, generate 25 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, and produce more than 2 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year.”

Our Take

Edwards’ plan is quite detailed and worth reading. His proposal to gain clean energy investment capital by, “ending taxpayer giveaways for big oil companies, including special tax subsidies and sweetheart terms in offshore drilling leases.” is very similar to Hillary Clinton’s revenue generating plan. We wonder if taking from the oil companies and giving to the federal government is such a good idea. Why not create clean energy targets that allow oil companies (who are also energy companies) to keep their subsidies if they invest in clean technologies?

The John Edwards plan also includes healthy support for ethanol as the alternative fuel of the future. Once considered a strong contender as a clean energy fuel source, ethanol is being from an ethical these days. Since ethanol is made from corn, its use as a fuel source reduces stocks and makes the food source more expensive. So while ethanol may be good for the environment it may not be so good for the poor countries of the world.

Mr. Edwards definitely gains points for having a detailed plan that sets aside significant dollars for investments in clean energy technology including demand side measures to increase efficiency.

Hillary Clinton is a former First Lady and a two-term Senator from New York State. Mrs. Clinton is widely recognized as the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 Presidential Election.

The Position

Hillary Clinton’s plan is described on her website as, “…a bold and comprehensive plan to address America’s energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs.” The plan includes mentions of a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, a $50 billion strategic energy fund and a mandatory fuel efficieny increase to 55-MPG by 2030.

Mrs. Clinton provides more details in a 14-page document titled Powering America’s Future. The plan includes the creation of a National Energy Council to ensure implementation of the plan.

Our Take

Hillary Clinton brings a specific plan to the table in addressing the future of clean energy in the United States. Whether this is the right plan will be the subject of intense debate. The proposed strategic energy fund is slated to be funded by oil companies. Remember that oil companies are also energy companies. They have a lot more expertise than the Federal Government in designing and developing energy technologies.

Mrs. Clinton’s point on job creation is a strong one. Future energy technologies do mean better, more secure jobs for Americans. Future energy technologies can bootstrap this country out of our current economic doldrums. The big issue in deciding for or against Hillary Clinton’s clean energy policy comes down to whether or not you’d rather see the government in charge of the development and deployment of our clean energy future.

Rudy Giuliani is a former Federal Prosecutor and two-term Mayor of New York City. He is widely considered to be the Republican front runner for the 2008 Presidential Election.

The Position

Rudy pledges, among other things, “…more aggressive investment in alternative energy sources.” He also advocates, “…a national strategy that emphasizes diversification, innovation, and conservation.”

Taking a deeper look at the points of his position I see bullet points that include mentions of wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal sources of energy. There’s a mention of utilizing carbon sequestration technology. Speaking of future technologies the campaign website states, “America must encourage entrepreneurs in future technologies such as advanced hybrid cars and hydrogen fuel cells.”

Our Take

Where’s the beef Rudy? The bullet points mention all the right things but we need more than a one page plan to tackle these issues. I noticed that the press release for these bullet points is nearly four months old. I would expect that Rudy and the rest of the front-running candidates will continue to develop their positions as the campaign moves forward.