Candidates and Climate

Windfall Profits Tax
Mike Bettes, On-Camera Meteorologist
October 23, 2008

By definition, "windfall" means an unexpected, unearned, or sudden gain or advantage. A windfall profits tax on oil companies is a higher tax on the money they've earned. According to the April Report from the Congressional Research Service, the 5 major integrated oil companies had collective profits of $116 billion in 2007.

John McCain does not support a windfall profits tax on oil companies. On his website he states that "A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration."

Barack Obama supports a windfall profits tax on oil companies. On his website he states that "Obama and Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills."

I'll make a few comments here just to get the conversation started. If we institute a tax on oil companies, should it be based on the dollar amount they're making or on the profit margins? Another thought, we all need oil, so should we punish the companies that provide it to us? Is it our own fault, not the oil companies, for being so dependent on oil? If we are so angry with the oil companies, shouldn't we as consumers simply reduce our use? Logically, prices would fall and oil companies' profits would decline, right?

Let us know what you think about this topic with an email and vote in our online opinion poll on the Candidates & Climate. We'll read your opinions on this topic Thursday night (10/30).

WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER, WEATHERIZING OR GRID IMPROVEMENT?
Stephanie Abrams, On-Camera Meteorologist
October 22, 2008

In an earlier blog I highlighted a couple plans by Barack Obama and John McCain to give tax breaks for more fuel efficient cars or zero-emission cars. This time, let's move it to homes and buildings.

John McCain's website says that if he is elected president he will "move the United States toward electricity grid and metering improvements to save energy." One of his idea's is to "deploy SmartMeter technologies." This will allow a "more precise picture" when it comes to "energy consumption, and over time will encourage a more cost-efficient use of power."

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will make a national commitment to weatherize at least one million low income homes each year for the next decade." On barackobama.com it explains how upgrading appliances, insulating and sealing "can cut energy bills by 20-40 percent" in both the summer and winter. This can both "reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all."

Blog us your thoughts or let us know what you think by email.

IS CLEAN COAL AN OXYMORON?
Mike Bettes, On-Camera Meteorologist
October 21, 2008

No doubt you've heard the candidates talk about clean coal technology and how it should be part of the energy plan to rid the U.S. of foreign oil. Last I looked, we didn't run our cars on coal, so how can coal replace oil? Yes, oil is used to produce electricity, heat homes, make plastic, and a variety of other things that we need everyday, but according to the Department of Energy, 68% of a 42 gallon barrel of oil is used to make gasoline and diesel. Transportation has become our Achilles heal. We are a driving society plain and simple. We have a huge roadway system in this country and we like our freedom to drive anywhere at anytime. Clean coal will not rid us of that 68% so we need to come up with a focused plan to reduce or even eliminate transportation fuels by converting to electric, hydrogen, and compressed air vehicles. These vehicles produce zero emissions by the way. We are getting closer and auto companies are racing like mad to be the first to produce a viable alternative fuel car, but it is still be a few years away.

Anyway, you're probably saying "OK how do we fill the huge demand for electricity with all of those new electric cars?" Good question. Coal is the major fuel used to produce electricity in the U.S. so converting to solar, hydro, and wind has to happen, but expecting it to happen quickly is unrealistic. Clean coal could be a viable stop-gap until we convert our electricity grid to renewable sources, which could be decades. Clean coal works basically the same as regular coal but instead of the greenhouse emissions from the burning of coal going up a smokestack, it would be captured and then in most cases buried underground. It can work, and I like it short-term, but long-term I believe power companies need to spend their money on non-emitting forms of electricity. All in good time my friends.

Both candidates support clean coal. Barack Obama wants to invest in public/private ventures that will lead to 5 commercial scale clean coal power plants. John McCain has proposed $2 billion dollars annually for clean coal technology and production. Neither gives specific details, but they do at least recognize the possibilities.

Let us know what you think about the Candidates & Climate by sending us an email and voting in our poll. We'll read your opinions on this topic Friday night (10/31).

THIS CAR WAS MADE FOR ME AND YOU
Stephanie Abrams, On-Camera Meteorologist
October 20, 2008

Both Barack Obama and John McCain are offering tax breaks when it comes to fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles. You can read the details about both plans online.
According to Barack Obama's website "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits." Or how about the plan to convert the "entire White House fleet....to plug-ins as security permits; and half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012?"

On John McCain's website "For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car." What are you thoughts on Senator McCain's idea of a "$300 Million Prize to Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development of Plug-In Hybrid And Full Electric Automobiles?"

I am curious to know what your opinions are on the subject. Do you like these plans and tax breaks? Does anyone think it is a bad idea? Send us an email with your thoughts. Don't forget to vote at the polls as well as our online opinion poll on the Candidates & Climate. We'll read your opinions on this topic Tuesday night (10/28).

Blog us back and you might see your response on Abrams and Bettes Beyond the Forecast from 7-8pm Eastern, or Evening Edition from 8-9pm Eastern.

DRILL BABY DRILL THE WEATHER CONSEQUENCES
Mike Bettes, On-Camera Meteorologist
October 13, 2008

So in the run-up to the election I've been paying close attention to the candidates' energy policies. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Drill Baby Drill" at some point on the campaign trail. At first I was completely opposed to the thought. In this age of technology, using fossil fuels seems so antiquated to me. Plus, in my heart of hearts I feel we need to rid ourselves of not just foreign oil but domestic oil too. Of course since so much of our society is based on petroleum, it will take a while to alter the infrastructure to support renewable energy like solar and wind. So I've opened my closed mind just a little to the idea of offshore drilling. I want to look at it solely from a weather perspective though. If the federal ban on offshore drilling is lifted, the entire west coast would be available for drilling as well as the entire gulf coast, and the east coast from Cape Canaveral, Florida to the Canadian border. That is some serious real estate when you consider that the only offshore drilling allowed right now is from Alabama to Texas.

The huge problem I see with drilling off the Gulf side of Florida and the east coast of Florida up through the Carolinas is the high risk of hurricanes. Look at how much oil prices fluctuate when a hurricane moves in to the Gulf of Mexico. Then when it hits, production is shut down, sending gas prices through the roof. Look at what happened after Hurricane Ike. The Southeast was in a gas shortage for weeks. Gas was $4.00 a gallon, if you could even find it! Now increase the area for drilling and you put more and more platforms in harms way.

Let's say for example we start drilling off the west coast of Florida and increase domestic production by 10% as a result. Great! That means we can reduce foreign imports by 10%. Now say a major hurricane slams right into the middle of newly built platforms and makes landfall in Tampa. Not only does a major metropolitan suffer substantial infrastructure and insurance losses but now we're right back at square one with oil. Less production, higher prices, and all of us paying more at the pump. Then imagine the outrage if there is a spill that blackens the beaches of tourist dependant Florida. How long will it be before it's cleaned up and the tourists return? Florida, and the U.S. for that matter, cannot afford that kind of natural, environmental, and economic disaster. I know I'm basing my argument here off of assumption but it could happen. I wouldn't have a problem with offshore drilling if you could guarantee they wouldn't be hit, but we all know that there are no guarantees in weather.

Let me remind you, I am not endorsing any candidate in this election, and both support offshore drilling. Here are links to both McCain's and Obama's stands on these issues. Send us an email with your thoughts. Don't forget to vote at the polls as well as our online opinion poll on the Candidates & Climate. We'll read your opinions on this topic Monday night (10/27).