Who really has the better energy plan?

Reduce consumption. Invest and facilitate for alternatives. Tax gas.

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

They're assuming all the red tape will be inforce. So what they're saying is that the government will hamper production as long as possible, so production won't be significant for a long time.

"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

Did the writer even bother to look at the markets recently? Some field that produces 400 KBPD goes offline and the price jumps up $3-4. You don't think 2.4 MBPD won't make more then $0.06 impact? Someone from the DoE should know better then that and it makes me question the writer's honesty.

As for the conservation, the fuel efficiency increase isn't lowering the cost of gas. The gas costs the same. You're pointing to an equivalent savings by increasing the MPG metric and therefore, the MPD metric. While that's good for people to do, they'll do it on their own. Obama's only going to inflate and tune-up on one vehicle, his own. As for the SPR release, that's very scary. The idea that any presidential candidate would consider releasing an emergency reserve to temporarily lower gas prices (and BTW, increasing them after a short while) to win votes is screaming to me, "Don't vote for me"!

Having said all that, this isn't either's plan. Both have actual energy plans that are far more comprehensive then what you've shown here. Moreover, you've presented it in such a way as to make Obama's plan (which ironically isn't a plan), which tells me you are trying to take a shot at McCain without knowing the facts.

Jimmy Carter did back in 1977, too bad Reagan threw it out.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

you are a young idiot ! any time we have more of ANYTHING ,prices go down. the libs have been lying for 30 years dumbo,they can have oil on line off the coast of california in 13 months.get an education kiddo !the free world runs on oil and it will not change for a very,very,very,very long time.the USA HAS OVER 500 YEARS OF OIL RESERVES ! hey dude,I would love to see your new wheels powered by a wind mill or electricty.you may get to your favorite watering hole,however ,you will have to walk back ! http://americansolutions.com/drillnow

I've got some news.

Neither of them has a plan. Those aren't plans. McCain's is wishful thinking, and Obama's - well, he didn't even claim that was a plan. That was his advice to the American consumer to try to stretch gas as much as possible; it's being totally blown out of proportion by the right wingers (big shock there).

Obama's plan is more comprehensive, but both candidates advocate alternative energy research. It is truly our best opportunity to help the economy, jobs, our trade deficit, plus the environment, to pursue alternatives and emphasize conservation.

Neither. Politics renders most "plans" worthless after Congress gets through larding them up with pork and useless red tape.

a) "keeping your car in shape" borders on telling people to take personal responsibility....we all know how far that goes...

b) the strategic oil reserve was intended for national emergencies...remember when your mom told you not to touch your savings account even though you really really really really wanted that awesome skateboard...?

that would be tantamount to borrowing from social security to get some short term gains today....you'd have to be an idiot to do something like that....wouldn't you?

Obama has no real plan so I will go with McCain. Anyone who considers the advice Obama gave as an energy plan deserves what they get if he is elected..

The strategic oil reserves are there and for true emergencies not political stunts that will do nothing long term and will eventually cost us money..

McCain has no energy plan. Republicans consider govt. plans to be socialism and unwelcome interference.

Obama will invest in alternative energy development. McCain will advocate alternatives, meaning lip service and nothing more.