Traditionally
democrats and Republicans have had substantial differences in policy
approaches to energy and taxation during Presidential election
cycles since the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973. President carter's
synthetic fuel plant at Parachute Colorado never went to far. The
Federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve did however, and even now that
oil in salt domes seems quaint. Fracking has crashed the value of oil
per barrel and the price may stay low the next 20 years or longer if
foreign nations commence large scale fracking too.
It
is a paradox that U.S. energy companies may look toward the rival
solar and wind power producers, that they have already begun to buy
in to, as a way to help keep oil from dropping too far in sales
price. If solar power becomes ubiquitous as building coatings,
automobile finishes; even highway repaving material and roofing
material, and if foreign oil developers begin large scale fracking,
the motivation to increase American fracking may decrease and oil
supplies may thus be slower to increase in volume available overall.
If
demand for U.S. oil decreases while solar and wind power dramatically
increase a careful maintenance of the value of oil may follow because
of the decrease domestically for it. Large U.S, multinational oil
corporations have vast quantities of foreign oil as well they can
import in a few days with supertankers to moderate price. Because
restricting supply increases demand and sales price generally if
there is an existing demand for a product, just as restricting labor
supply increases the value of labor if there is an existing demand
for labor, limiting the increase of demand for oil and increasing the
availability of solar and wind power that oil corporations invest in
may make the best price moderation criterion for the multinationals
and consumers alike.
Fundamentally
there is little real difference in U.S. energy policy from Democrats
or Republicans in 2016. No one likes coal of course except for the
honest, honorable workers employed in that difficult industry.
Demagogic appeals from either side have different values of course,
yet retraining workers and capping the dirty business is the best
realistic plan.
Energy
policy of either party isn't too different, yet neither is tax
policy. Democrats in the majority with a Democrat President made tax
cuts for the rich permanent. Yet rhetorically the President gave
crocodile tears about wishing to increase taxes on the rich-nearly
and impossibility without a Democrat majority, and of course it was
the Democrats to passed the tax bill in the first place, so that
issue is as much bunk as the President Obama dropping into Hiroshima
to make a legacy speech about getting rid of all nuclear weapons.
Seven years into his administration is too late to muse about that.
Informed people are aware that arms nuclear arms reduction requires
serious and substantive talks and require several elements to be
aligned.
A
certain trust must be established among nations. President Obama has
increased distrust of Russian leadership and President Putin has
little reason to trust the U.S.A. after its Ukraine and Syria
policies. President Obama led sanctions against not only Syria, but
Russia too and has done much economic harm.
The
President hasn't exactly made India and Pakistan more trusting of
each other, and neither North Korea. It is also hard to imagine China
getting rid of its nuclear arsenal. If anything they are likely to
increase it.
It
the President's tax are nuclear disarmament policies are a sham, so
are the differences between the Republican and Democrat parties on
energy and taxation. Environmental policy is important however
neither party has the slightest ecospheric economic foundation too
its economic approach. Each have non-renewable economic value
principles are from my perspective are primitive. Democrats say much
about supporting good environmental policy and actually make a very
slight difference, while Republicans honestly say they don 't give
rats ass about keeping wilderness or restoring it and stopping mass
extinction. The bottom line is that the environment loses 99 to 0
with Republicans and 89 to 0 with Democrats in the game of human life
on Earth