Whose has the best policies for dealing with Peak Oil? Bush or Kerry?

The article below suggest there would be a real difference in how things would be handled. For those unfamiliar with the Peak Oil issue, here's a good place to start:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05308277.htm

White House race pits oil drilling vs conserving

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) - U.S. voters hit with soaring gasoline prices can choose between two presidential candidates with contrary ways to escape the energy morass -- a Democrat pushing conservation and a Republican who wants to drill his way out.

Painting the energy policies of Republican President George W. Bush and his Democrat opponent John Kerry as supply-side versus demand-side risks oversimplification.

But in large part, Bush's energy policy seeks to expand supplies of domestic oil and natural gas, while Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, focuses on developing alternative fuels and renewable sources to reduce U.S. demand for oil.

With retail gasoline prices at a near-record $1.72 per gallon and set to go higher, energy policy could figure prominently in the presidential campaign as voters spend more to fill up their cars.

more...

sources? n/t

will acknowledge it, though.

It might undercut their self-glorification posts.

;)

In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that none of the candidates do.

Kerry comes out significantly ahead of Bush:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageFive.html

What are some steps we can take as a society to deal with Peak Oil? What are some public policies that, if implemented, will help us manage this crash instead of just running into it?

Peak Oil is going to happen. People are going to die. We have waited way too long to have any chance at stopping it altogether.

We may be able to minimize the amount of suffering while maximizing the chances of building a successful post-oil civilization if we implement appropriate public policies such as:

A. Civilized Measures to Support Population Reduction

The primary cause of the looming energy crisis is the fact that the world has more people than can be supported in a steady state renewable energy environment. The obvious solution is to reduce the world's population in the most civilized way possible.

According to Dale Alan Pfeifer:

…conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

In other words, if we do not reduce our population in an intelligent way, Mother Nature will do the job for us. We can do it ourselves if we take measures to:

1. Empower women to control the reproductive capacity of their bodies.

2. Inform people of the true nature and scope of the crisis. Many will voluntarily refrain from having children if they are aware of our situation.

3. Find practical, humane, and just solutions to immigration. In the US, the overwhelming majority of our population growth is projected to come from immigration. While this may have benefits from either economic or humanitarian perspectives, it will be disastrous from an ecological standpoint.

B. Measures to Promote Conservation

Conservation may not be popular, but without it, we have no hope of effectively coping with the coming oil shortages. Conservation measures should include measures to:

1. Eliminate tax reductions for SUV's

2. Pass legislation mandating higher fuel-efficiency standards

3. Finance a national program to promote the use of carpools, public transportation and bicycle riding.

4. Reduce subsidies for agribusiness while simultaneously supporting local , community based agriculture programs

5. Support the troops by informing people that our troops are dying primarily to support our oil based, consumer lifestyle. Slogans such "Save our troops by riding your bikes" or "Ride alone and you ride with Osama" could make it patriotic to conserve.

5. Replace ineffective drug war programs like "DARE" with programs that promote conservation and sustainable living.

C. Measures to Support Alternative & Renewable Energy

If we do not take immediate, massive and sustained action to switch to renewable energy then civilization faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in recent history.

There are a number of ways to do this:

1. Finance a "Manhattan" or "Apollo" style project to accelerate the development of renewable energy.

2. Give tax breaks to homeowners who install solar panels, wind mills, or similar systems.

3. Finance public transportation to a far greater degree than it currently is financed.

sorry to say I don't think it makes a lot of difference.

With the exception of immigration, I agree with all the things you mention. However, the scope and extent and rapidity, the radical and systemic changes that would be required in order for those strategies to have a significant impact, is not realistic even if Kerry were a leftist radical and not an American politician running for an office in which he will be severely limited in just how much he could do.

As someone wisely pointed out in a thread last night, even if Dennis Kucinich were elected, despite being somewhat less right-wing on some issues than Kerry, he would not be able to deliver even a fraction of what he proposes, hamstrung by Congress and blocked at every pass by the oilngun thugs in the Pentagon.

The reasons I disagree about immigration are many, but for the purposes of this issue, I think there is a better chance of population control in the Americas if MORE people come to the US than not, simply because women who come to the US are more likely to have access to, and to practice contraception, as well as terminate unwanted pregnancies.

DucttapeFatwa gives a cite to a website to support his claim that Kerry and Bush are the sme on this issue, and when it turns out that his cite says that Kerry is better, DF says "If it were a century or so away, I might agree with you"

Now, pet this kitten.

but only slightly because he's not addressing the problem and it should be addressed NOW.

linking environmental concerns and energy independence to national security and economic security.

People would know that if they took the time to study his positions.

and alternative energy sources, but he does not mention peak oil directly, and people SHOULD know about this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Kerry... he's definitely better, but the reason why alternative energy sources are urgent is peak oil and he hasn't addressed it directly. This should be one of humanity's biggest concerns right now, but sadly it isn't.

He hasn't used those exact words, but the problem he outlines *IS* the problem of peak oil.

taking over oil producing countries is end-game.

do they know something we dont?