September 4, 2012 | The Ritz Carlton Charlotte
How will the outcome of the 2012 election affect energy policy and the future of domestic energy security? Washington Post Live convened energy leaders from industry, advocacy, government, and academia at the Democratic National Convention for a breakfast discussion forum to discuss what's next for U.S. energy. An audience of policy stakeholders heard expert analysis and their approach to energy policy, its relationship to the economy, and the path to an energy-secure future.
Video highlights
Rep. Markey: Talking to Romney on climate science would be like talking to an empty chair
At a Washington Post Live event on Tuesday in Charlotte, N.C., Mass. Rep. Ed Markey (D) said that Mitt Romney’s current energy plan doesn’t match the policies he backed as governor of Massachusetts.
Michael Levi on natural gas
Levi, of the Council on Foreign Relations, discusses the opportunities and challenges of the natural gas boom.
Bledsoe on energy subsidies
Paul Bledsoe, a senior advisor at the Bipartisan Policy Center, says “every form of energy has enjoyed subsidies at some point.”
Rep. Ben Ray Lujan: Romney energy plan ‘will hurt soldiers’
At a Washington Post Live breakfast, New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujan went after Mitt Romney’s energy plan, which the Congressman says will hurt the development of alternative energy sources and ultimately have a negative impact on soldiers and the Department of Defense.
Excerpts from the forum
“You have a whole lot of rhetoric coming from the Republicans. The rhetoric is always saying: We need to drill more, we need less regulation, get government out of our way. . . . We get results and they say that’s not good enough.”
“There is a proven correlation between the improvement of the environment and the creation of jobs . . . which of course the Republicans refuse to admit because of their commitment to the fossil fuel industry.”
“People said when Obama got elected, when I got elected in ’08, that the Arctic, that new potential was going to be basically off limits. It’s not going to happen.”
“There’s a reason why natural gas [production] is at an all-time high and why we’re seeing decreasing amounts of our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Isn’t that something that Democrats and Republicans should be agreeing with?”
“The evidence so far suggests that the government is not very good at picking actual investments to go forward commercially.”
“When you look out at the energy landscape today, it really is striking how different it is from the last election.”
“It’s still too early to get the final results [of President Obama’s energy vision], but it has actually proven more successful than some headlines would have you believe.”
“Every form of energy has enjoyed subsidies at some point, especially in its early development phase.”
Daniel M. Rubenstien Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Council on Foreign Relations
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation
Representative, D - New Mexico
Vice President, Clean Energy Program, Third Way
Representative, D - Massachusetts
Senior Advisor, Bipartisan Policy Center
Editor, Washington Post Live
Related Stories
The rivals’ energy platforms have similarities — both favor expanded oil and gas drilling, for starters — but they part ways in many important respects.
As each presidential campaign attempts to use energy as a wedge issue, it’s worth noting that both candidates and parties rely on an “all of the above” approach to energy policy.
