Not a quarter’s worth of difference

Inch deep

Examination of the candidates’ positions reveals that none appears to have a deep understanding of technical energy dynamics and economics. Prone to pieties and pandering, the candidates don’t appear to take the subject seriously; instead, they parrot conventional wisdom. It isn’t clear what they actually understand, or if they believe what they are talking about. They don’t seem to have examined the technical issues independently of the politics; they simply regurgitate the views of their staffs, which are based on political calculations.

Nor do the backgrounds of the candidates’ advisors on energy issues inspire much confidence in the rigor of the candidates’ views. For the record, all three candidates rely on economists and lawyers (mostly lawyers) for their views on energy and the environment. None appears to have any engineering or scientific advice in tow. They would be more believable if their views were fact-based.

The three major candidates for president in the two major political parties embrace meaningless and misleading notions such as “energy independence” and espouse a technological optimism (on renewables, for example) that has little grounding in reality.