Elections have consequences, and the upcoming one promises to have dramatic impacts for our energy-driven economic future.

Consider what each major contender has said regarding these key issues, with the incumbent promoting an “all of the above, but not too much fossil fuel” policy, and the major challenger promoting more of an “all of the best” energy policy.

Oil and Gas

The energy industry begins from the ground. The two candidates’ drilling policies are markedly different.

Obama: Last May, President Obama seemed to be expressing a drilling epiphany when he said: “we should increase safe and responsible oil production here at home.” There was his oil moment in Cushing, Oklahoma. Yet nearly two-thirds of federal lands are currently off-limits to drilling and mining, and leasing has slowed in recent years.

Oil production has been declining on federal lands, while booming on private and state lands.…

“[T]he climate effect of greenhouse gas emissions from the production from fossil fuels appears to be less than it is being projected by the world’s best climate models. Yet all climate models agree that U.S. actions alone in reducing greenhouse gas impacts will not have practical impact on the climate. Ipso facto, arguments about energy policy should not be grounded in terms of real-world climate change, present or future.”

With the first presidential debate this Wednesday, and since both candidates have made recent high profile references to climate change and its impacts, perhaps this is a good time to review some basic climate change talking points that each candidates should have at his disposal.

Climate During the Obama Administration

• Over the course of the Obama presidency the rate of global warming has declined.…

“The following overview on these issues, and my concluding remarks, should leave little doubt as to the worthlessness and serious consequences of pursuing policies of supporting and implementing wind plants in particular. Will the other side respond in the interest of more informed public policy?”

As shown in Part I (Introduction & Summary), Part II (Analysis Approach & Implementation Costs), Part III (Total Costs), and Part IV  (Subsidies & Emissions), wind fails on the major considerations of cost and emissions. Yet unbelievably, it still enjoys general popularity and significant government support and subsidization. The answer must be in my response to question 1 in Part I: Wind is seen as a silver bullet – environmentally and politically.

On top of this, there are many other problems with wind that can cause serious, and needless, damage to society.…

Seven score and nine years ago, President Lincoln spoke about government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Yet, today, our lives are determined not so much by We the People, as by a distant central government, particularly increasingly powerful, unelected and unaccountable executive-branch agencies.

Consider the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguably the most intrusive administrative agency of all. Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, we have, at best, government of, by, and for some people. Or in the words of one public-choice economist, a government “of the Busy (political activists), by the Bossy (government managers), for the Bully (lobbying activists).” [1]

Secretary Jackson seeks not merely to regulate, but to legislate; not merely to protect our health and environment against every conceivable risk, but to control every facet of our economy, livelihoods and lives.…