We continue to face what a growing consensus of national security leaders label a strategic threat to the United States- our single-source dependence on oil to power our cars and trucks. A former U.S. Army Captain I was talking to put it best. In describing how he was trained to plan operations he said, “The military trains you to think about every possible contingency, to be ready in case anything goes wrong. But we’ve got no contingency plan if we don’t have fuel.”

In fact, the Department of Defense, as the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world, is acutely vulnerable to spikes in the price of oil. Every time the price of oil rises by $10 a barrel, the DoD is left with a $1.3 billion bill. Since DoD purchases fuel from its Operations and Maintenance budgets, these unexpected budget shortfalls are paid for by reprogramming funds from training and maintenance. In conversations with retired military leaders, I’ve heard story after story of fighter pilots having their flight hours cut to minimum readiness standards and ships left in port for training exercises, all because the respective unit’s fuel budgets were disrupted by price increases.

The military’s vulnerability to spikes in the price of oil is endemic of the U.S. economy generally. Even with U.S. oil demand leveling off over the past five years, the country still accounts for 22 percent of global demand, and oil still powers more than 95 percent of our transportation sector. Shackled to a single source of fuel, we must expend significant resources to unsure supply lines in unstable geopolitical regions like the Persian Gulf remain open. According to a RAND Corporation study, the U.S. military spends as much as $84 billion annually in operational costs to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint for oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

Contrary to what you hear from fossil fuel advocates, this isn’t a problem we can drill our way out of. Oil is traded on a global market, meaning that there’s no way to guarantee the oil we drill here will stay here. And with prices set by global demand and global supply, any increases in our production capacity will be more than offset in world where China’s demand for oil is projected to increase by 80 percent and India’s demand is projected to increase by 96 percent in the next two decades.

Fortunately, the U.S. military is taking aggressive steps to reduce its dependence on petroleum fuels. In doing so, the military is setting an example for us to follow and providing the spark for the innovations needed to secure America with clean energy. The Navy is developing advanced biofuels that can be dropped into its ships and aircraft, and because these fuels are derived from products like algae or recycled cooking oil, they don’t affect crop prices. The Army is developing a hybrid-electric drivetrain Humvee that delivers the same performance, power, and protection but with 90 percent better fuel efficiency. The Marine Corps has reduced the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed to supply forward operating bases in Afghanistan by using solar blankets and solar tents to recharge batteries.

The military’s success in developing clean, renewable energy technologies provides a blueprint for a more secure and prosperous future for all Americans. We can and must follow the military’s example by investing in the energy solutions of tomorrow instead of remaining entrenched in the partisan politics that dominate our energy debate today.

We recently published a nonpartisan voter guide on the candidates' records and statements on climate and energy issues. Based on our findings, we would expect the following.

​We would expect a President Romney to push for more production of oil and gas on federal lands, and for nuclear power, both through his executive agencies and in Congress. We would expect him to shift Department of Energy funding away from deployment of renewable energy, while retaining funding for basic research and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). And, we would expect him to support efforts in Congress to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Our crystal ball, however, gets hazier with his treatment of the already-promulgated EPA regulations. The Obama vehicle fuel efficiency standards have been broadly praised and Detroit is making major investments to comply. Romney has blasted the standards, but would he really roll them back? EPA’s 2010 requirements for new major sources of greenhouse gas emissions were modest. Would Romney go to the trouble of dismantling them? And would he risk headlines about increasing mercury pollution? Previous presidents and congressional leaders had trouble trying to roll back environmental regulations. Would a President Romney follow them down the same path?

We aren’t ready to call that one.

Now to President Obama.

Like Romney, we would expect to see a re-elected President Obama push for more oil and gas production on federal lands. Though, as under a President Romney, the United States would still be buying oil in a global market, making it vulnerable to global supply constrictions regardless of the amount produced in North America.

We would expect Obama to continue support for nuclear power, for funding for the deployment of renewable energy sources, including the wind production tax credit, and also for continued research.

In a second Obama term, we would expect continued efforts to limit climate change. Given the lack of appetite in Congress for major climate legislation, however, Obama’s approach would likely be regulatory. We anticipate that the Obama administration would continue its work on vehicle fuel efficiency standards with another round of standards for heavy-duty trucks. We’d expect the Obama EPA to move forward in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other large stationary sources, but don’t know how to handicap the ambition of the reductions. In whatever manner the standards are set, we hope an Obama EPA would allow states to use flexible market-based mechanisms to meet them – and give the next generation of climate-conscious governors room to lead.

A final hopeful word for those despairing of the bleak partisanship that blocks progress today: Remember that Senator Obama’s first major statement on climate action was his co-sponsorship of Sen. John McCain’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill. Remember that the 2008 Republican nominee for president was arguably the national climate action leader of the previous decade, and that Republican Govs. Schwarzenegger, Pataki, Huntsman, Crist, Pawlenty, and, yes, Romney, were not long ago among those leading climate action at the state level.

Furthermore, note that the Republican governors’ energy plan, released last week, mentions carbon capture and storage several times, including in this intriguing statement: “Technologies such as carbon capture, storage, and dissemination could fundamentally change the way we use coal in the future.” The Republican governors are calling for technologies that extract the energy value from coal while shrinking the greenhouse gas footprint, a very important part of our path forward.

There's a tendency to think the way things are now is the way they will always be, but the last few years have been full of surprises and the next few will be, as well. For reasons good, bad, and accidental (i.e., the vehicle standards, the economy, and the new access to shale gas), we have a shot at keeping our greenhouse gas emissions much lower over the next 10 years than previously expected. In the long run, however, that will be nowhere near enough. Let’s hope the temporary reprieve can give us time to return to the bipartisanship needed to move toward meaningful climate and energy policy.

With less than 100 days to go until the presidential election, energy policy has emerged as a key issue. That’s the good news. The bad news is that what we’re likely to hear from both candidates is posturing to constituencies rather than a serious discussion of how to best meet America’s long-term energy needs.

For example, last week Mitt Romney unveiled his proposal to increase domestic oil and gas production by leasing more federal lands, both onshore and offshore, to drilling companies. He also spoke about pushing ahead with the Keystone XL pipeline and applying a lighter hand of federal regulation and mandates in the energy sphere. In addition, he wants to reduce energy subsidies across the board but especially those currently available for wind, solar and biofuels. His ultimate objective is “North American energy independence” by 2020.

As for President Obama, to the extent he has articulated an energy platform it embraces continued subsidies for renewables and electric vehicles, getting federal agencies involved in the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, and doubling the average “fuel economy” of American cars by 2025. As for coal, Mr. Obama says he supports its continued use as long as it’s produced and burned more cleanly. (The recent court decision on the cross-state air pollution rule is a plus for the President since he doesn’t have to contend with imminent coal-fired power plant closures on the campaign trail.)

Of the two energy “platforms,” Mr. Romney’s makes more sense in terms of addressing America’s long-term energy security. But his call for energy independence, which basically echoes the mantra chanted by every American president since Jimmy Carter, is silly. The U.S. is currently the third-largest oil producing nation in the world with output growing 15% over the past five years despite the post-Macondo drop in Gulf of Mexico production. America is also the planet’s number one natural gas producer and number one coal producer. Energy independence implies hoarding these growing domestic resources when the theory of comparative advantage tells us we should be exporting some of them if our products are cost-competitive in the global marketplace.

Mr. Obama wants to “double-down” on his renewable bets and continues to brag about the 75,000 “green” jobs that have been created on his watch. (He neglects to mention the 700,000 new jobs created in the oil and gas industry over the same period). What’s more, the true-believers in his camp refuse to acknowledge that cheap natural gas has significantly diminished the likelihood that wind and solar can every stand on their own.

Here’s an alternative energy policy agenda both candidates should be discussing:

--Acknowledge that fossil fuels will remain North America’s primary energy sources for the foreseeable future

--Remove unreasonable restrictions on domestic oil and gas development, especially on the outer-continental shelf, federal lands, and Alaska

--Rein in excessive subsidies for renewables and gradually subject them to the market test

--Promote the export of domestic energy resources, especially liquefied natural gas

--Avoid tax discrimination on the oil and gas industry

--Approve and expedite construction of the Keystone XL pipeline

--Increase federal loan guarantees for new nuclear plants

Energy is one of the most politicized issues facing the country today. Once a bi-partisan issue, energy production and consumption has now become somewhat, albeit not completely, a partisan issue between Democrats and Republicans.

The Obama-Biden ticket has made it clear from that start that fossil fuels are no longer in vogue. That is not too surprising given that in 2008, Obama built a strong coalition of special interest groups opposed to traditional fuels.

President Obama’s “all the above” energy plan is not really inclusive of all energy products. Instead, it highly favors renewables at the expense of other fuels. Keep in mind that the plan originally omitted coal altogether, but was hastily resurrected after it was pointed out that swing states are some of the highest producers of coal. The fact remains, however, that traditional fuels are problematic for the president. On one hand, Obama’s green lobby and core backers despise it, yet on the other hand, many Democrats and organized labor overwhelmingly support it, and the jobs and taxable revenue they bring to America.

Opponents of the president’s plan point out that “all the above” really means none of the below. While wind, solar and other renewables are important, there is little doubt that the U.S. economy is powered by fossil fuels. Moreover, until technology and renewables can actually produce significant amounts of energy, this nation must, and will continue to depend on fossil fuels for the next fifty years, if not longer. Further complicating the president’s push for renewables is the fact that advances in technology have opened vast new resources of oil, natural gas and coal. Once thought to be running out of these fossil fuels, the United States has seen an energy renaissance unimaginable only a few short years ago. With over 250 years supply of coal, natural gas, and yes, oil, energy independence is in fact attainable. This coupled with exponential job growth in energy states, i.e., North Dakota’s negative unemployment rate, are all facts very inconvenient for the president and his backers.

Additional economic stumbles by green companies, higher oil prices due to mid-east instability and the country attaining the lowest greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years, a goal set by President Bush, have further eroded Obama’s credibility.

Republicans on the other hand have rallied behind the Romney-Ryan ticket. Seen by many as a more realistic approach, Romney’s recently unveiled energy plan backs traditional fossil fuels as well as continued development of renewables.

The path forward is clear. We need all forms of energy. Just like a toolbox in anyone’s garage, different tools are needed for different tasks. Romney’s approach more closely resembles a true “all the above” energy plan while the current president’s plan more closely resembles a “none of the below” energy plan.

Bankruptcies by green companies, higher prices at the pump and public opinion riding high of support of projects like Keystone XL pipeline will be highly utilized by the Republican ticket heading into November.

What once seemed like a political coup for the president will most likely hang around his neck like an albatross come November.

As the Republicans ponder pre-poning Mitt Romney’s roll-call and nomination speech so they can get out of Tampa before Hurricane Isaac brings the wrath of – we are assured – God, not global warming, down on the Gulf Coast, Romney released his own energy platform, drafted from all appearances by Koch Industries, and laying the framework for a major increase in the price of driving.

This, of course, was not the packaging. In releasing his energy platform yesterday, Romney claimed he was aiming for North American Energy Independence by 2020. Most analysts scoffed at the proposal on its face. What no one has yet done is calculate what Romney’s path would cost if America took it.

It turns out Romney’s plan guarantees gasoline at $5/gallon or higher – if we take it seriously. Here’s why. The price of oil is determined by the most expensive barrel that the market uses. So you can’t produce cheap oil by investing in expensive oil – and the Canadian tar sands oil that Romney is counting on to achieve “energy independence” in 2020 are some of the most expensive oil on earth. A few weeks ago, when oil was selling for $90/barrel, tar sands producers were cancelling big projects, because new supplies from that region are not sufficiently profitable even at $4/gallon.

North America might have enough oil to be energy independent. But it’s very expensive oil. Bringing it to market would require a very high world price for all oil – perhaps good for the Koch’s brothers, devastating for the American economy and American families.

Even though its very expensive to develop new tar sands reserves, Canada’s filthiest oil sells today at a discount to OPEC oil prices -- typically $20/barrel, $.45/gallon less. That’s because its only outlets are Canada and the Midwest – it can’t reach more expensive European markets because there is no pipeline. How does Romney approach this cheaper Midwestern price? Well, he just gets rid of that brake on the cost of oil by supporting the Keystone XL Export Pipeline. Keystone will let Canadian producers, like the Koch Brothers, get their oil through, not to, the US, and ship diesel and gasoline at OPEC prices to Europe and Latin America. The Koch Brothers who fund the Romney campaign apparatus are among the major beneficiaries of the pipeline, while the voter swing states of the Midwest and Rocky Mountain West are the big losers. You can tell who Romney cares about – and its not voters.

But just in case Keystone XL doesn’t raise the price enough to satisfy Koch and Romney’s other oil backers, Mitt has another high-price plank in his plan. You can’t restore cheap oil by producing more expensive oil. But you could get oil prices back down to $40-50/barrel, half of today’s level, fairly easily, by reducing demand. We found that out during the Great Recession, when a drop of demand of only 4 mbd dropped the price of oil by $50/barrel. There is enough conventional or cheap oil, mainly in the Mideast but also in Texas, North Dakota and the US Gulf, to affordably meet global demand up to 85 mbd.

How do we get demand back to 85 mbd, from its present level of 90mbd, given the growth in the economies of places like China and India? We build a transportation network that shatters oil’s transportation monopoly and then uses the resulting diversity of fuel more efficiently. Romney is strongly opposed to either. He wants to kill the federal investments in advanced biofuels that might give us genuinely competitive liquid fuels. Worse, he wants to undo the Obama fuel efficiency standards by repealing EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon pollution. He would require Congress, not the Administration, to make all future regulations on fuel economy.

The Obama fuel efficiency regulations alone will reduce global demand for oil by 2.5 million barrels a day. That 2.5 mbd is worth $25/b on the price of oil -- $.50/gallon. So Romney is proposing a double whammy on American drivers – an increase in global demand, and therefore prices, for oil, combined with a whopping jump in the monopoly power of the Canadian oil he wants us to depend on. It’s the equivalent of a $1.00/gallon gas tax – but going to Koch, and the Russian, Saudi and Venezuelan governments, not our own Treasury.

So much for cheap oil and low tax Republicans. The Koch Brothers made sure there wouldn’t be anything in the Romney platform for drivers – or the US economy – or taxpayers. I must admit – right now Mitt Romney looks like an awfully attractive candidate for Premier of Alberta, or even Governor of East Siberia. But President of the United States – I don’t think so.

I have an observation on one aspect of the Romney energy plan that is provoked by one of the earlier responses, one to the effect that the plan is evidence of the Governor's support for nuclear energy. In fact, what is striking about the Romney plan is that it essentially ignores nuclear energy. Oil is mentioned 154 times, gas 83 times, and nuclear 7 times, and then only in the (obligatory) context of the slowness of regulatory decisions. One of the six pillars of the Romney Agenda is, "Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies." This is consistent with free market principles but is anathema to nuclear development, which requires heavy governmental guidance and support. Contrast this with the Bush administration's 2001 National Energy Plan, which devoted a chapter to nuclear energy and called for its expanded use. If this fall off in political support for nuclear energy is the trend among Republicans, who have been its strongest advocates, what does it say about the future of nuclear energy in the country? The Romney plan may in fact be signaling its high water mark.

(These comments were submitted by Heather Taylor, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Action Fund.)

Mitt Romney released his energy plan in New Mexico on Thursday, and while it appears short on detail, it follows a familiar pattern: more fossil fuels, less clean energy development. It's the same approach America relied on for a century. President Obama recognizes it is time for something new.

Obama has presided over the largest increase in clean energy this nation has ever seen. Thanks to a combination of government policies and private sector gumption, roughly 35 percent of all new power built in the United States in the last four years came from wind. The solar industry is 10 times the size it was just a few years ago and employs more than 100,000 Americans.

Obama has made history by raising fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. By pushing cars to go farther on a tank of gas, these standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump. Automakers are already hiring workers to get these cars on the road. Labor unions and automakers estimate the new standards will generate 570,000 jobs across the economy<http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/news/publications/gearing-up>.

And because the standards cut our oil imports by one-third, they represent the biggest step America has taken to confront climate change. The administration also set the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new power plants-a move that will help America create a cleaner, 21st century power fleet and reduce the threat of global warming.

These breakthroughs secure our nation's leadership of the 21st century global energy market. And they confirm the value of forward-looking innovation.

Romney prefers to look to the past. He would dish out subsidies to mature oil and gas companies-some of the richest in the world-but starve clean energy innovators. Romney said he would kill the Production Tax Credit, the most effective incentive for wind energy and one that enjoys broad bipartisan support. The Ryan budget, meanwhile, would hand over $40 billion in taxpayer dollars to oil companies at the same time it cuts clean energy investments 90 percent, down to just $1 billion.

Romney also ignores the threat of climate change these days, having backtracked from his earlier efforts to fight this looming threat. Even more troubling is his disdain for environmental safeguards. If he wins, he aims to rollback not just the new limits on mercury, arsenic, lead, and carbon pollution President Obama has delivered, but also many of the bedrock protections we have counted on since President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and President Bush made it stronger in 1990.

Mitt Romney and President Obama have dramatically different ideas about our nation’s energy policy. It’s a clear choice that comes down to whether we want to move forward to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future, or go backward and let Big Oil decide our energy priorities.

A Romney administration would return us to the failed energy policies of the past, which means bigger paydays for Big Oil. But it’s not surprising that Romney embraces old dirty energy sources over new clean energy technologies – his top energy advisor, Harold Hamm, is a billionaire oil baron. In fact, Romney would continue giving Big Oil billions in taxpayer-funded handouts, despite the fact that oil companies are some of the most profitable companies on the planet. And Romney’s corporate tax plan would lead to even bigger tax breaks for the oil industry.

Under a Romney administration, Big Oil’s gain would be clean energy’s loss. Already, Romney has said he opposes extending crucial tax incentives for wind energy, which could lead to 37,000 layoffs nationwide. And the devastation for the renewable energy sector – one of the fastest growing parts of our economy – wouldn’t end there. Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, has proposed a budget plan that is so extreme that it would cut $3 billion in energy programs in 2013, with clean energy initiatives likely targeted for the biggest cuts, and would spend just $150 million on energy programs from 2013 to 2017. That’s barely 20 percent of what the Obama Administration invested in 2012 alone.

President Obama believes in a different course, and is putting America in charge of our own energy future while creating homegrown clean energy jobs that even Romney wouldn’t be able to outsource. The President has made the largest investment in clean energy our nation has ever seen, and he’s doubled the country’s use of wind and solar power.

He’s proposed the first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution and has implemented the first-ever national standards to limit mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants – moves that safeguard public health and protect our environment while sparking innovation in clean technologies. President Obama is also putting in place historic new fuel efficiency standards so our cars can go further on a gallon of gas. And he’s fighting to end Big Oil’s tax breaks. These are the kind of priorities he would bring to a second term.

Elections are about choices, and when it comes to America’s energy future, the choice this November couldn’t be more clear. President Obama understands that investing in clean energy means investing in America’s economy, while Mitt Romney is in the tank for Big Oil.

Different emphasis and tone, but without a crisis and with Congress deadlocked, it will be more or less the same result for consumers whether it’s Obama or Romney. Don’t expect a dramatic shift or a major improvement in certainty for industry. The impact of their policies won’t be felt for years if not decades.

A Romney win would mean emphasis on coal, oil and natural gas production, streamlined permitting, rolled back EPA regulations and reducing energy tax credits. But how much more we produce depends on demand and prices, not policy. The global economy is soft, which will tamp down demand. If a Romney administration opens more offshore tracts for drilling, it would take years before that production comes online. Streamlining permitting? Progress has been made on this since the Bush administration and it’s doubtful federal agencies can move much faster than their current timeline. Question for Romney: how do you propose to make the U.S. more competitive on next-generation energy technology? We may know more tomorrow when he discusses his energy plan.

The Obama administration as we know has focused on clean energy – particularly solar, wind and electric cars/advanced batteries. It secured an agreement on fuel economy while disappointing supporters on climate change. It proposed to expand offshore drilling, including in the Atlantic, before backing off after the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf. EPA has issued new emissions regulations and while action will resume with re-election, major rules will be mired in litigation for years. Obama has expressed an admirable long-term view of energy security and sustainability. But unless prices spike and/or he opts to make another run at climate legislation, we will see a continuation of what we’ve seen over the past 3½ years. It’s hard to imagine continuing the rate of clean energy investment.

Both parties have shown strong support for natural gas and the jobs the industry is creating. While industry might prefer Romney on fracking regulations, I believe either administration will ensure gas producers can continue to add jobs, create supply and create opportunities for manufacturing, LNG exports, domestic use in the transportation sector and reducing power-sector emissions.

One big question post-Solyndra is how much the next administration will invest in energy technology. Obama has invested heavily in clean energy with the aim to improve U.S. competitiveness, create jobs and diversify our supply. Romney has said his administration would invest in basic research only, reprising the policy of the Gingrich-led House in the mid-1990s, and use ARPA-E to make investments. Obama won’t be able to continue the rate of clean energy investment given the economy, deficit and Republican opposition, and Romney has boxed himself by scoffing at green energy and jobs. This is one place where the administration can have an impact by setting priorities, though change will take time. It’s easy to beat up the idea of picking winners and losers. But taking a market-based, technology-agnostic approach that spreads money around to various sources is not a winning strategy. It’s hardly the concerted effort we need to develop next-generation technologies for economic growth and energy security.

One game changer to this scenario would be if Congress decided that it wanted to pass a climate bill to raise revenues to cut the deficit. That is far from expected but there has been growing discussion about the role of carbon tax in fiscal reform, with accompanying footnotes on all the challenges such a debate would bring.

Energy policy has already emerged as one of the key issues in the 2012 presidential debate. Yet, while the Obama and Romney campaigns would have us believe they are promoting different visions of the U.S. energy landscape over the next four years, there is less to choose between them than meets the eye, with both campaigns endorsing an “all of the above” energy policy – a concept that is as vague as it is politically expedient.

Beyond the predictable rhetorical fault lines, there is some substantive daylight between the two candidates. Mr Obama’s support of lower-carbon energy sources remains intact, albeit tempered by the high-profile collapse of Solyndra, the failed solar-power equipment company that was a recipient of millions of stimulus-plan dollars, as well as a handful of other notable busts that received government funding. As demonstrated by his recent campaign stop in (windy) Iowa, the president still sees renewable energy as a vital part of the future U.S. economy, although – unlike four years ago – there is very little mention of the role of such energy sources to address the challenge of climate change. Like the oil majors and the wildcatters that preceded them, the president has discovered U.S. natural gas, touting the potential job-creation benefits of the shale-gas revolution, and suggesting that natural-gas powered trucks might be a way to back out more imported oil than is already being displaced through higher efficiency standards and new sources of domestic crude. On the latter, the president has been more than happy to take the credit for an increase in US oil production, despite not having had much to do with it apart from not intervening to stop the process of hydraulic fracturing on environmental grounds. His decision to intervene on exactly such grounds on the Keystone XL pipeline project that would have brought oil from Canada’s oil sands down to refineries in the Gulf Coast was his signature energy policy decision of the last year, and one that will no doubt play into the Republican narrative of the president’s enmity to all kinds of “below-ground” energy sources (his enthusiasm for natural gas notwithstanding).

Mr Romney’s “all the above” position is characterized by an opposite problem: his energy platform to date has comprised a road-show for carbon-based energy, and a repudiation of what he calls “ballyhooed forms of alternative fuel” such as wind and solar, including a refreshingly direct call for the repeal of production tax credits for the wind industry that are due to expire at the end of this year. Less refreshing is his rallying cry for “energy independence”, a chimerical concept that has been promised in vain by Republicans and Democrats (including Mr Obama) alike since the days of Richard Nixon. Mr Romney’s recent vocal support for coal has won him friends in (coal-rich) Midwestern swing states, although, as with many other issues, the spin and counterspin of the campaigns makes it very difficult to gauge who is for and against what. While Mr Romney derides the president’s “war on coal”, citing comments that Mr Obama made in 2008 about the prospects of bankruptcy for anyone looking to build a new coal-fired power station, the Administration is running ads including clips of Mr Romney as Massachusetts governor talking about a coal plant in his former state that he said “kills people” – a reference to the plant’s non-compliance with environmental regulations and the premature deaths associated with it.

Not surprisingly, both sides are happily making the most of the opposition’s sound bites: Mr Obama’s comments were made when he thought that there was a realistic prospect of some kind of emissions trading legislation in the United States, a view shared by others; and a policy goal shared at one time by Mr Romney who developed a plan for an “emissions banking and trading market in Massachusetts” while he was governor of the state in 2004. For its part, the Obama campaign’s portrayal of Mr Romney’s comments as pertaining to coal in general is disingenuous as he was clearly referring to a single plant. Mr Obama’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the coal community by touting “clean coal” technology are equally questionable, given that large-scale commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) is about as likely as energy independence in the foreseeable future (although passage of Mr Obama’s cap and trade policies would have improved the chances through creating an incentive for investments in the technology).

And while Mr Romney’s position on production tax credits – a stance that has elicited criticism from the Administration and howls of bipartisan protest from Congressional representatives from windy states on the grounds of job destruction – it is not clear if there is a broader lesson to be drawn from it. Mr Romney has said that his opposition to the wind tax credits is rooted in the age-old principle of “a level playing field for all sources of energy”. However, the governor’s position on federal support for other energy sources has been less clear. While his call for streamlined licensing of nuclear power plants is an explicit part of his energy policy platform, it is not apparent where he stands on federal support for new such plants in the form of loan guarantees. In advance of the (corn-rich) Iowa caucus earlier this year, Mr Romney admitted that he had “supported the subsidy of ethanol to help get the industry on its feet”. Although the governor’s position on existing tax incentives to the oil and gas industry is still undeclared, the now-famous budget of Paul Ryan, his vice-presidential running mate, left them untouched.

If its stance on government support of the energy industry is still ambiguous, the Romney campaign is crystal clear in its message on government obstruction to the industry through its attacks on regulation. “Believe in America”, Mr Romney’s policy manifesto, places “significant regulatory reform” at the top of its list of priorities for the energy sector. It rails against regulatory frameworks that “sharply curtail our domestic energy industry”, and suggests mechanisms for streamlining approvals in both the oil and gas and the nuclear sectors. While large parts of this regulatory overhaul are undefined, an important detail involves the amendment of the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon regulation from the EPA’s purview. The Romney regulatory regime would also permit oil and gas drilling in new offshore and onshore areas, including the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. In all cases, Mr Romney calls for a “full accounting” of the costs of new regulation. By his own reckoning, his streamlined energy regulations could create over a million jobs, while Mr Obama’s energy policies could result in over 8 million jobs lost.

While the regulatory arena is one where there is probably the most distinction between the two campaigns, the problems that Mr Romney is claiming to solve deserve some further inspection. Far from being curtailed by current regulations, domestic gas production is at record levels and oil production is increasing to levels not seen for a decade and is rising fast. According to the Department of the Interior, industry has explored or drilled less than 30 percent of the federal acreage for which it currently has leases. Even with more streamlined evaluations of license applications, it is not clear if the nuclear industry can compete (on a level playing field) against cheap and abundant natural gas. A platform that calls for a rigorous evaluation of the costs of regulation while rowing back on the only federal policy that attempts to account for the externalized cost of carbon emissions uses a curious accounting system. And the claimed figures of lost or created jobs as a result of any given energy policy, by either campaign, are the result of calculations bounded only by the imaginations of their unaccountable number crunchers, or those from interested industries.

If the energy debate has been characterized by exaggeration, obfuscation, misrepresentation, and political expediency, at least it is consistent with the rest of the campaign. But there are some real issues in the energy sector that the next president will have to address. The most important of these is that of carbon pricing. While neither candidate is touching the subject of emissions at the moment (the only references to carbon in Mr Romney’s manifesto are to attack Mr Obama’s policies and the intention to amend the Clean Air Act; Mr Obama’s campaign materials highlight land and water conservation, but not carbon emissions), it is one that the U.S. leadership will have to face – not just to address an urgent, existential global problem or to retain any standing in the international community, but to provide the certainty to attract investment from businesses that recognize the inevitable necessity of internalizing the costs of greenhouse gasses. Implementing a transparent pricing regime for carbon emissions would address many of the issues behind the platitudes on “level playing fields” “backdoor regulations” “loopholes” and “government venture capitalism”, by providing clear incentives for market-based energy competition. If such a regime comes as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the tax system, so much the better.

Other important issues on which it would be useful to have clear policy positions from the candidates include the extent of federal environmental regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which has become the foundation for the shale gas boom; the exportation of fossil fuels (given its newfound bounty of unconventional gas, the U.S. is already looking at the prospects of becoming an exporter of liquefied natural gas; the same may be true of oil during the next administration); and the upgrading and protection of the country’s increasingly outdated and vulnerable power grid.

The energy and environment challenges facing the next president are complex, nuanced, and multi-layered. Unfortunately, they are all the things the campaign debate is not.

Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road - take it." This election will bring us to a fork in the road on many policy issues, including energy. If we don’t take another road, we will be faced with higher priced energy, possible scarcity, and wasted resources, all in pursuit of “green energy” that is not commercially viable.

The differences between the two presidential candidates come down to a belief in industrial policy and economic management from the center, and a belief in market forces and the recognition of the importance of abundant, affordable energy to our economic well-being.

The Obama Administration has shown hostility toward fossil energy, even though the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that fossil energy will remain our dominant source of energy for decades to come. While the President uses the “all of the above” sound bite, the actions of his Administration say just the opposite. Come November, the country will be faced with a choice between abundant, economic energy and high priced and uncertain energy. We will also be faced with a choice between energy policy set by the Secretary of Energy and policy set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, as is now the case.

President Obama is preoccupied with so called green energy almost to the point of excluding other energy sources that could drive economic growth. Even the Administration’s own agency, the EIA, doesn’t foresee renewables being a major source of energy by 2035. The claim that green energy is a job creator is pure nonsense. Studies here and abroad clearly document that the push for green energy and the subsidies it receives are job destroyers because resources are shifted from more productive uses to fund them. The programs only exist because of large subsidies and mandates. In addition, job claims from such initiatives are often inflated by stretching the definition of what constitutes a green job.

In this Administration, the EPA has been the instrument for advancing the Administration’s anti-fossil agenda. It has imposed burdens on the fossil-fuel industry that go beyond justified environmental improvements. This translates into less energy and higher costs. Since energy is the economy’s oxygen, excessive regulation hampers growth.

Just last week it was reported that imports from the Persian Gulf were increasing because of declining imports from Venezuela and Mexico. If the Department of Interior had not been slow walking Gulf of Mexico permitting, it is estimated that about 700,000 additional barrels of oil would be produced this year. And, if the Administration had not drawn out the Keystone XL approval for over three years, we would be getting more oil from Canada. We could control our own destiny if ideology didn’t interfere.

If the President is elected to a second term, there is every reason to expect more of the same. Ideology will trump policies that could lead to affordable and abundant energy. This administration seems to be blind to the fact that reliable, inexpensive energy is essential for robust economic growth. So, an Obama victory would mean further economic stagnation, more likely than not.

While observations about a Romney Administration are nothing more than educated guesses, there is every reason to expect an energy policy based on economic and technological realities that would reflect the importance of energy to long-term growth. That policy should include a more realistic Five Year leasing program, including offshore leasing on the Atlantic Coast. It is a virtual certainty that there would be an expedited process for completing the approval of Keystone XL as well as an economic climate that will encourage more domestic investment.

Both candidates support strong energy R&D programs. However, the President wants to manage it to support his vision of the energy system of the future, which is another attempt at industrial policy that ends up rewarding crony capitalism.

Based on the past 40 years, the regulatory climate at the EPA will have a large impact on energy availability and cost. Rational regulation based on scientific and economic facts and greater reliance on cost-benefit analysis along with risk versus risk analysis should replace the current regulatory philosophy which is driven by and a history where regulation drives policy.

The impact that an administration has on policy, energy and environmental, depends on appointees, priorities, relationships with Congress, and ability to get the bureaucracy to support its agenda. As a start, a strong and realistic energy policy will require a high priority on the President’s agenda and a strong Secretary of Energy to help shape and advocate it. It also requires an EPA Administrator who pursues balanced regulations and an understanding of unintended consequences.

Energy is an issue of vital importance to our country and I am pleased to see that it is increasingly coming up on the campaign trail. Energy policy affects more than just how we generate electricity; it directly affects important topics like jobs, our national and local economies, and the environment. With electricity demands projected to rise 22 percent by 2035, it is certainly a topic that requires thoughtful consideration.

Debate rages on about types of energy production. Gov. Romney supports an “all-in” approach, with President Obama supporting an “all of the above” approach. Notably, both support nuclear energy as part of a sustainable clean energy future. Regardless of November’s outcome, this country needs a national energy policy that is sustainable economically and environmentally, and nuclear energy is the only provider of emission-free power that is available 24/7; and it is a job creator. The nuclear energy industry will need to hire approximately 25,000 new workers next four years to maintain the current workforce, and the average nuclear energy facility generates approximately $470 million a year in total economic output for the local community.

Moving forward, we need to look to policies that encourages a comprehensive approach to energy and allows us to take control of our energy security, ensuring financing for clean energy projects, investing in clean energy jobs and addressing the issue of used nuclear fuel disposal. The next administration will have the opportunity to lead the effort, providing leadership to spur on Congress to move forward with a national energy policy. The time for this discussion is now.

If there is one issue that has emerged as a focal point in this election, it’s energy. From coal to oil to natural gas, voters are paying attention to energy.

This is appropriate, as the next president will have the single biggest impact on the coal industry’s future. Whether it’s President Obama or Governor Romney, they will have to decide what path to take on energy. The choice is a new path towards energy independence where we use all our resources or stay on the current path where an out-of-control EPA is trying to end the coal industry as we know it with heavy handed regulations.

The EPA’s approach over the past few years has been short-sighted and dangerous. America is trying to recover from the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, and that cannot happen without reliable and affordable energy. Yet, for the past few years, this EPA has sought to remove coal from our nation’s energy mix. Since 2008, the EPA has released an onslaught of regulations on the coal industry – from Utility MACT to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule -- that will result in increased energy prices, lost jobs and less reliable electricity for millions of American families and businesses.

The next president needs to have an EPA that isn’t an activist group driving a political and ideological agenda, but restore the right balance between moving forward on improving the environment and keeping our economy growing with affordable energy .

The next President must call off the war on coal and protect the hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly supported by the coal industry. The next administrations EPA must also be a champion for clean coal to put America back on a path to true energy independence.

Coal is essential to the American way of life, by affordably and reliably powering our businesses and families. The typical American family has seen their energy costs double in just the past ten years, and global demand for energy will continue to grow. That is why leadership is needed for the 'all in' approach to energy that includes coal now and in our nation’s future.

The Romney energy strategy is to distance himself 180 degrees from anything supported by Obama. And as a result has been quoted as saying green energy is "fantasy" and that he would not at this time support the extension of the wind production tax credit until there is comprehensive tax reform. He has had his recent campaign pictures taken with coal miners. But as Massachusetts Governor, according to a June 13th LA Times story, "During his first 18 months as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney spent considerable time hammering out a sweeping climate change plan to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions." Now, he denies climate change is of concern. The LA Times article states further, "Romney's top energy donors are from fossil fuel companies. Oil, coal and natural gas interests are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into defeating Obama. And the Republican base is not shy about speaking out on global warming or oil drilling." But Romney, Ryan and Boehner, claim that ending the 23 federal subsidies for fossil fuels totaling upwards of $50 billion+ per year is a tax increase, while subsidies for renewables add to the deficit. While Obama has supported green energy enthusiastically, he has also been supportive of oil drilling based on new leases on federal land. In 2001 Bush issued 3,289 new leases, 2,384 in 2002, and 2,022, in 2003 and finally 2,699 in 2004. Obama’s actions, in 2009 there were 2,072 new leases, in 2010 there were 1,308, and in 2011 there were 2,188. If Romney becomes the next President, I expect he would mimic Reagan who intensely disliked Carter's energy policies and took the solar panels off The White House within the first six months in office and cut energy funding by 70% for energy efficiency and renewable energy. If Obama is re-elected, drilling leases will be sustained at the same levels over the last few Administrations, efficiency and renewable energy will be supported enthusiastically, and even with the clean air mercury rule for coal, all forms of energy will grow.