Concise "compare/contrast" portrait of Obama and McCain's energy policies and their views toward subsidies, mandates, and incentives. Focuses more on energy sources than the huge energy windfall that could result from efficiencies. Would have liked to have seen a more critical look at McCain's stance on subsidies. The article fails to mention how the oil industry is currently subsidized and what McCain's position would be on that. Also not discussed is how the "true" cost of carbon ... More »

The lead paragraph implies the candidates are similar, then points out many key differences. The article highlights McCain's hands off approach espousal, which seems in line with the WSJ bias in favor of right wing republican philosophy, but does note later that McCain completely reverses himself in backing government subsidies for nuclear power built by big corporations with generous political contributions. It implies Obama flip-flopped on ethanol and nukes, rather than the ... More »

In a factual article the reporter compares John McCain and Barak Obama's plans for a new Energy Policy. The Republican view is to not use the governments power to legislate or command industry to do anything. Even though he professes that change is needed little is done to cause that change. Obama's plan would use the government to control more of the Energy scene. Nuclear energy, energy credits, ethanol tax incentives, coal transference to liquid form. All of these are discussed ... More »

The article discusses the differences between Obama and McCain on Energy Policy but fails to mention one of the crucial differences: McCain does not have a written energy policy! He has made a speech on it and has a voting record indicating his intent but no written energy policy. Check out McCain's website where he has a little on cap-and-trade but no energy plan. I am surprised that the article did not mention this minor point. The lack of an energy plan especially for a candidate ... More »

It's puzzling why the debate about Obama and McCain's policies on the environment is being framed in the context of the size and role of government. This is at least the second recent article that has done so. Here the view is conservative and the slant is that policies that favour a smaller government role are preferable. However, the size and role of government in environmental policy is not a fixed variable in increasing taxes, which is what the article seeks to imply. Government ... More »

The graphic really puts Chine energy growth in perspective. Very good and fair analysis. Viewpoints other than McCain and Obama not well presented.

Why did this writer quote Sen. Obama as follows: "That's not-that's not leadership?" No one quotes speech guffaws no matter how slight unless they have an agenda, and that quote distortion spoke volumes for me. When the writer also took exception to the proposed coal-into-fuel production as added pollution, he neglected to state that the bill already contained emissions restraints--thus making it appear that Sen. Obama doesn't know what he is talking about. Having registered voters ... More »

The article explains the positions of both candidates on a number of issues related to energy policy, and the reader can clearly see a difference. It's one of the fairest pieces of writing I've seen in a long time.

Factual story on the differences between the candidates on Energy policy.

This article is reasonably fair, but does tend to focus more on questions about Obama's energy policy than on McCain's. I don't particularly trust the WSJ, especially since being bought by NewsCorp. I also am wary of trusting financial publications because they can get away with publishing a quote like this: "When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended." -John McCain, without following that with a qualification that there ... More »