Forget the accusations of groping, bigotry and email mismanagement. If the American voter had to choose between Republican nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton based on their energy policies alone, the presidential election would still be a remarkable drama, amounting to the biggest referendum on global climate change since the term was coined.
How the country decides on November 8 will have far-reaching implications for the price of electricity and gas at the pump, as well as the future of the US energy industry, which employs about 10m people.
"At a very basic level, it would be a climate vote," said Sarah Emerson, the head of Energy Security Analysis Inc in Boston. "Do you want fossil fuels, or renewables?"
“We have never had a more qualified and prepared candidate for president than our friend Hillary.” —@FLOTUS https://t.co/tTgeqxNqYm pic.twitter.com/uIRTK8MlQs
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 27, 2016
Make America drill again
Trump has said he wants to unleash a US “energy revolution” by streamlining environmental regulation, easing infrastructure permitting and pulling the country out of a global pact to combat climate change – moves he says would promote increased oil and gas drilling and revive the dying coal mining industry without compromising air and water quality. “Obama hasn’t shut down drilling – what has shut down drilling is price,” Texas oil billionaire T Boone Pickens, a Trump supporter, said. “I don’t know what Trump can do to help the industry.” A technology-driven drilling boom has pushed US oil and gas production up 70% since President Barack Obama took office in 2008, making US the top producer in the world, but it has also triggered a slump in prices as demand has failed to keep up.“I need you to knock on doors. I need you to make phone calls. You gotta talk to your friends, including your Republican friends.” —@POTUS pic.twitter.com/3bTUjMkSRZ— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 28, 2016
Critics have said Trump’s plan to revive natural gas drilling would finish off the very coal industry he promises to restore, because the two fuels compete. It would “seem to defy basic market laws of supply and demand,” said Jason Bordoff, a former energy adviser to Obama.
Trump’s energy plan would also force the US to make an abrupt turnabout on the environment- He wants to withdraw from the global climate change pact agreed in Paris last year.
He has called climate change a hoax and has argued the Paris deal would cost the US economy trillions of dollars and put it at a disadvantage.
Trump wants to rescind the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon output and downgrade the Environmental Protection Agency to a commission, not a cabinet level agency, and refocus it on its “core mission: clean air and clean water for all Americans, regardless of race or income.”
Trump’s campaign has drawn about $99,000 from employees of the oil and gas industry since July, when he was formally nominated, while Clinton has received about $114,000 from the industry over the same period, according to the latest federal campaign finance disclosures.
If my people said the things about me that Podesta & Hillary's people said about her, I would fire them out of self respect. "Bad instincts"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 28, 2016
Clean energy superpower
Environmental advocates argue that a failure to agree on strong measures like the Paris accord would doom the world to ever-hotter average temperatures, bringing with them deadlier storms, more frequent droughts and rising sea levels as polar ice caps melt. Clinton says she wants to address that by making US a “clean energy superpower." Her plan calls for phasing out fossil fuels, embracing clean energy sources like solar and wind, strengthening environmental protections and leading the world in curbing carbon dioxide emissions blamed for climate change. Solar development is aided by a federal tax credit worth 30% of the cost of a system. That credit was set to expire at the end of this year, but received a five-year extension from Congress in late 2015. Even so, the cost of electricity from large-scale solar installations has dropped to a level that is now comparable to natural gas-fired power, even without incentives.Crooked Hillary launched her political career by letting terrorists off the hook. #DrainTheSwamp https://t.co/fAVtr75PtK pic.twitter.com/vAsn25cdbK— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2016
Clinton has also signalled increased regulation of fracking to prevent water and air pollution, continued support for the Obama administration’s efforts to curb carbon output that would pressure fuels like coal, and a tougher approach to infrastructure permitting.
Her approach appears much more likely than Trump’s to lift consumer prices for gasoline, heating oil, and electricity, given that increased regulation typically increases costs of production, many analysts said.
Jay Faison, a North Carolina entrepreneur who calls himself a conservative advocate for clean energy, agrees with the need for more lower-carbon sources of energy, but says Trump’s plans to cut regulation could provide a more effective way to get there. They could potentially make it easier to build nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams, which produce no carbon dioxide, for example.
Environmentalists, who have helped mobilize mass protests against energy infrastructure projects during Obama's presidency, hate Trump's proposals. But they are also suspicious of Clinton. She promoted fracking technology to European allies while US’s top diplomat to help them reduce their dependence on Russia, according to leaked diplomatic cables, and was slow to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline proposal that would have piped in more oil sands from Alberta to US refineries.
I delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina yesterday. I appreciate all of the feedback & support. Lets #MAGA! https://t.co/VQ8NgyUbjD pic.twitter.com/Obj1B6ZqDP
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2016
