GOP contenders, Obama differ on energy stance

If the picture being painted by Republicans running for the White House is true, West Virginia politicians could get an important ally in the battle for coal and against the Environmental Protection Agency.

West Virginia Republicans have ?been quick to blast President Barack Obama's administration on environmental and energy policy, but West Virginia Democrats have been nearly as quick to come to the defense of coal and, recently, natural gas.

Obama and each of the presidential contenders have plans for the nation's energy mix, but what would those plans mean in West Virginia?

Obama would favor gas over coal

President Barack Obama touted renewable energy and reducing foreign oil reliance since coming into office. He often leaves coal out of energy discussions, but his "blueprint" for achieving energy independence included coal technologies.

In his state of the union speech early this year, Obama called for an "all-of-the-above-energy" policy. While he was still light on references to coal, he did speak favorably to an industry that is becoming increasingly more productive in West Virginia ? natural gas from shale gas formations.

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years," Obama said. " ? America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk."

Obama's energy blueprint basically highlights a three prong approach to energy ? developing domestic supplies, providing energy-saving choices to consumers and sparking innovation to lead toward a "clean energy" future.

While Obama has been reluctant to mention coal lately, actions of his administration may be an indicator of the environmental and energy future of West Virginia.

Since Obama took office, there has been increased scrutiny on the permitting process of mountaintop removal, stricter emissions laws and other actions that have sparked controversy in the coalfields.

Romney won't be Obama

GOP contender Mitt Romney's energy plan is essentially to do the opposite of what the Obama administration has done.

Most of his "Believe in America" plan for jobs and economic growth document is dedicated to digging at what Romney sees as Obama failures.

"Unfortunately, the first three years of the Obama administration have witnessed energy and environmental policies that have stifled the domestic energy sector," Romney's plan states. "In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the president and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs."

While the crux of Romney's plan involves offshore oil drilling and opening the Keystone XL pipeline, he also shows strong support of coal and other traditional fuels.

"The Obama administration's diversion of resources into green?energy?has occurred at a time when the traditional?energy?sector ? oil, gas, coal, and nuclear ? holds remarkable job-creating potential," Romney's plan states. "These are all labor-intensive industries that generate good-paying opportunities for workers, affordable energy for consumers, and billions of dollars of revenue for government."

Romney specifically says he intends to streamline regulations affecting coal power plants in a way that avoids plant closures, but still protects the environment. Romney said he would remove carbon dioxide from the purview of the Clean Air Act, hindering the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating its emission.

Santorum wants less regulation

Rick Santorum's energy plan, headlined "Unleashing America's Domestic Energy" would remove energy subsidies from all energy sources, allowing market forces to decide which technologies were most viable.

"This will prevent the federal government from picking winners and losers in our effort to unleash all of America's domestic energy sources," Santorum's website states.

Santorum says he also would lift onshore and offshore drilling bans, continue promoting drilling techniques for natural gas and approve of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Santorum also said he would work to repeal the EPA greenhouse gas regulations, reclassification of coal ash and the utility maximum achievable control technology rule. Both have been blamed for coal plant closures in West Virginia and elsewhere and drawn the ire of West Virginia politicians.

"We must employ a policy that makes energy more affordable, makes our nation more secure by lessening dependence on unreliable or adversarial foreign sources, and increases conservation through efficient use and diverse energy sources," Santorum's plan states.

Santorum, from Pennsylvania, also frequently praises the shale gas energy for increasing jobs and domestic energy sources. The Marcellus shale he often touts lies under West Virginia as well as Pennsylvania.

Gingrich would eliminate the EPA

Newt Gingrich has a six-point plan for energy if he takes the White House that would remove "bureaucratic and legal obstacles" to oil and gas development; finance clean energy research with oil and gas royalties; removing the ban on shale oil development and eliminating the EPA.

Gingrich said that he would replace the EPA with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives to improve the environment without impacting jobs or increasing the cost of energies.

In contrast to Santorum, Gingrich has said he supports subsidies for all energy sources, because it enables the nation to reach energy independence sooner.

"Contrary to popular belief, America has more energy than any nation on earth," Gingrich said in press materials. "All that's keeping us from becoming energy independent is a lack of political will to do so."

Gingrich was once a supporter of cap-and-trade legislation and appeared in commercials recognizing global warming as a problem. He has since changed his stance on global warming.

On his website, Gingrich also promotes use of "clean-coal" technology alongside of the nation's oil, natural gas, wind, biofuels and nuclear resources.

Paul would leave it to the market

Ron Paul says it's the free market, not the government that determine the winners and losers of America's energy pursuit.

"Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet," Paul said. "Washington's bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers."

Paul said he would also remove drilling restrictions and eliminate the EPA. He says polluters should answer to property owners in court, "not to Washington."

Paul would also "lift government roadblocks to the use of coal" and nuclear power.

"It's time for a President that recognizes the free market's power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy," Paul said.

?

Source: http://www.statejournal.com/story/17103189/gop-contenders-obama-differ-on-energy-stance

sonic youth make your mark make your mark stop loss stop loss thurston moore the island