In a confused editorial on energy policy, the Los Angeles Times incorrectly creates much equivalency between the two presidential candidates when it comes to energy and global warming policy. While not complimentary to either, this editorial clearly points to how the McCain campaign’s effortst to McBlur the differences in these arenas continues to work, despite selection of global warming denier Sarah “Energy Expert” Palin to the McCain-Pain ticket.
That’s why it’s doubly disappointing that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has a responsible energy plan. In pandering to voters in swing states, both have backed dangerous, dirty energy sources in contradiction of their own principles.
This places the two candidates and the two campaigns on an equal footing when it comes to energy policy. This is simply not the case.
A more appropriate characterization might be that:
I absolutely do not think it appropriate to say that Obama does not have a “responsible energy plan”, even if the amount of ethanol and the discussion of clean coal (for example) are bad news items within his plan.
The McCain-Pain ticket’s approach is basicially “drill, baby, drill” with some radioactivity thrown into the mix.
The LA Times attacks both candidates for their clean coal commentaries. At the VP debate, for example, it seemed that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were almost competing in their desire to endorse coal. Less Dirty / Slightly Less Lethal Coal is a real problem area, even if less with Obama-Biden.
The editorial then turns to castigating McCain for “Drill, baby, drill” as a “purely political maneuver” that won’t have impact in the coming several decades. It continues, “to his credit, Obama frequently points out that the United States sits on 3% of the world’s oil supplies but uses 25% of the world’s oil, so ending our reliance on foreign sources can be achieved only by cutting consumption and developing environmentally responsible biofuels — yet he too agreed to end a federal ban on new offshore drilling projects.” Not that “fair and balanced” seemed to require that dig against Obama without acknowledging that Obama said he was willing to accept ending the ban as a necessary evil to achieve other, greater benefits. (And, of course, that there was not enough Congressional support for keeping the ban, which was automatically lifted 1 October, in place.) And, if they needed to have criticisms, the LA Times fails to castigate Obama for unrealistic levels of ethanol/biofuel support.
Next on the agenda is nuclear power. While uncertain about the path forward on nuclear power, this is a statement that is wrong: “”safe nuclear,” a phrase as oxymoronic as “clean coal””. We know, quite clearly, the very serious and real impacts of coal on the planet and on the future prospects for humanity. While we do not face an ‘either-or’ Hobbesian choice, if forced to that choice between coal and nuclear power, the choice does seem clear.
This editorial does not address the vast gulf in record between John McCain and Barack Obama when it comes to supporting renewable energy nor the gulf between their energy proposals. It does not even have a word on “green jobs”, something that both have spoken of recently. It does not discuss their investment proposals. It does not discuss how energy and a green path forward is core to so much of Obama’s public commentary. It does not discuss McCain’s serial dishonesty and truthiness on energy issues. It does not …
Sigh … “This is the fourth editorial in a weeklong series on the issues and challenges facing the next president.” If this is the quality of product that the LA Times editorial board is offering its readership, they are doing their readers and the electorate a true disservice.