Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 7 ways they differ on energy issues

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney claim to want to expand America’s access to conventional fuels and green energy. But their energy plans have very different flavors.

6. Energy subsidies and tax breaks

Mary Altaffer/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks outside the Solyndra manufacturing facility in Fremont, Calif., on May 31.

Obama calls for chopping $40 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies. But his administration also supports federal loan guarantees for emerging energy companies. The Department of Energy website cites $34.7 billion in loan guarantees, which unlike tax breaks do not cost taxpayers unless the loans (like Solyndra) fail to get paid back. Those guarantees, the DOE says, support development of wind and solar power, electric vehicles, nuclear power, and advanced biofuels and about 60,000 high-tech jobs.

Romney supports the existing Renewable Fuel Standard that subsidizes development of advanced biofuels. Campaigning in Iowa in May 2011, Romney was quoted by The Wall Street Journal saying "ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country." Romney has, however, railed on Solyndra, a California solar-panel manufacturing firm that went bankrupt after getting a $535 million federal loan guarantee from the Obama administration. Romney has said he will seek to roll back tax credits enjoyed by the wind and solar industries. But he has been criticized for not also seeking to slash tax breaks for oil companies pegged at $40 billion over 10 years.

6 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.