Campaigns find some common turf on energy

This presidential campaign marks the end of a long and contentious national debate over global warming.

Both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama believe in it and believe human behavior contributes to it.

Their positions on it are so similar that it’s almost impossible to discern a difference on an issue that was a bright line dividing the two political parties as recently as the last presidential election four years ago.

The rivals for the White House are both calling for a cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions, a push for more efficient vehicles and significant investments in renewable fuel technology.

But a closer inspection of the nitty-gritty details of their proposals suggests major differences in the way each hopes to save the planet and free America from its dependence on foreign oil.

In general, McCain takes a more measured approach to reform that accommodates some concerns of businesses from the outset.

Obama takes a more aggressive stance that could create a bigger fight but give him more negotiating room.

Take the cap-and-trade proposal, which essentially imposes limits on how much pollution a company can emit and allows those that operate under their limits to trade the excess to bigger polluters.

McCain calls for a 60 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 and initially gives away carbon credits to polluters. Obama calls for an 80 percent reduction by 2050, with all carbon credits auctioned to businesses.

Renewable energy is another area in which apparent agreement between the candidates dissolves under closer inspection.

McCain’s plan seeks to even the playing field for budding renewable energies by awarding a flat tax credit, allowing market forces to largely dictate the winners and losers.

Obama’s plan also calls for a $150 billion investment in clean energy over 10 years — a price tag that could give some lawmakers sticker shock after passing the Wall Street bailout. His plan, though, doesn’t distinguish how much money specific technologies such as solar, wind and clean coal would receive through the government.

McCain would supplement the alternative fuel initiative with increased offshore drilling, and he’d commit $2 billion to clean coal development.

The Arizona senator’s plan also calls for the construction of 45 nuclear plants by 2030, with an ultimate goal of building 100. With a price tag that could reach $8 billion per plant, the plan could cost as much as $800 billion, more than the Wall Street bailout.

Obama hasn’t closed the door to an expansion of nuclear energy, either. In last week’s presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., he said he supports nuclear power. But his embrace of the industry is not nearly as robust as McCain’s. And his calls for developing clean coal technology also run more tepid than his competitor’s.

With Democrats looking to gain seats in Congress this fall, Obama’s plans undoubtedly would be delivered to friendlier turf on Capitol Hill. But no matter who’s elected, all the proposals could fall victim to economic realities.

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.) is an Obama supporter who believes energy reform is critical to economic recovery.

Still, he says, “with the current financial crisis that the nation is experiencing — and with new developments occurring on a weekly, if not daily, basis — it is difficult to say how Congress will fund any new programs or policies that either candidate advocates.”

Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, agrees.

“As we learned during this summer’s [energy] debate, the appetite of the American people to unlock America’s affordable energy resources is very strong,” Inhofe said.

But “the current financial crisis will only reinforce the public’s concerns about any climate bill that attempts to increase the costs of energy and jeopardizes jobs in the near term,” he added. “Financial realities will make it much more difficult for the new administration or Congress to put forth a very aggressive, economywide climate bill.”

Those forces may mean that whoever wins would have to scale back his proposals. But that comes with inherent risks, too.

“Anytime you start a negotiation, you have to figure out where you want to start and where you want to end up,” said Phyllis Cuttino, Pew Environment Group’s global warming director. “There will be a political calculation to get a [cap-and-trade] bill through Congress.”

McCain’s embrace of global warming can be traced back to his unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, when he held more than 100 town hall meetings across New Hampshire, host of the nation’s first primary.

Residents there spoke extensively about global warming, and it caught McCain’s ear, aides say. “This is one thing he picked up on and got right,” said McCain’s top domestic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Still, during this Congress, McCain has received mounting criticism from the green lobby for missing every major environmental vote and actively pushing for drilling in the outer continental shelf.

During Obama’s time in the Illinois Legislature, his record on environmental issues was also mixed.

He voted for legislation that hampered the state’s ability to reduce greenhouse gases and condemned the Kyoto global warming treaty. And he backed several pieces of legislation that benefited his state’s coal industry — a nemesis of many greens.

But he also supported legislation that would require a growing percentage of the state’s energy to come from renewable fuel.

Since Obama’s election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, however, environmentalists have found him a consistent ally.

“He came to D.C. with an immediate sense of priority,” said Obama campaign energy adviser Jason Grumet. “He had decided that global warming was the place he wanted to put in real effort and make an immediate stamp.”

Grumet first met Obama when, as executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, he visited the Illinois senator’s office to discuss options for reducing oil dependence. Obama liked the suggested approach to raising fuel economy standards on cars, but he also wanted to find out if anyone disagreed with the idea.

And Grumet was floored when Obama asked him to stage a debate over dinner with opposing interest groups. Among the guests: Democrats, Republicans, national security experts, labor leaders and environmental advocates. The dinner was relaxed but focused, said Grumet, with Obama firing out questions.

“I’ve been doing this stuff for a while,” Grumet said, “and never before had a member of Congress asked me to pull together a group of people who disagreed with each other.”