Washington (Platts)--22Feb2008

With apologies to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who as of
Friday is vowing to stay in the race for his party's nomination, the next US
president will likely come from the Senate: John McCain, Republican-Arizona;
or Hillary Clinton, Democrat-New York; or Barack Obama, Democrat-Illinois.

Among the three, there is a surprising convergence of views on many key
environmental and energy issues, as is seen from a review of their positions,
drawn largely from policy statements from the campaigns, speeches by the
candidates and their Senate voting records.

The three say they will chart a course on global warming that is, in all
cases, dramatically different from current administration policies.

McCain has co-sponsored legislation mandating greenhouse gas emission
reductions of 65% by 2050 and establishing a cap-and-trade system. Those bills
were rejected twice by the Senate.

Climate change "isn't a Hollywood invention nor is doing something about
it a vanity of Cassandra-like hysterics," McCain said in a speech posted on
his campaign web site. "It is a serious and urgent economic, environmental and
national security challenge."

McCain believes cap-and-trade is the best way to manage costs and
maximize the benefits of reducing emissions, but that other market-based
mechanism should be considered.

Obama and Clinton each support mandatory emission reductions of 80% below
1990 levels by 2050, a cap-and-trade system, and 100% auction of pollution
permits. A 100% auction "ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of
emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal
and oil companies," according to an Obama campaign statement.

"I believe [climate change is] one of the greatest moral challenges of
our generation," Obama said in a speech in Iowa last October. "The burning of
oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of
greenhouse gasses in the earth's atmosphere, altering our climate."

According to her campaign, Clinton will achieve "this aggressive
reduction by maximizing our energy efficiency; creating market mechanisms to
efficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and promoting renewable,
carbon-free energy sources." Clinton would act to "restore US leadership in
the global warming arena by playing an active role in developing the
post-Kyoto treaty."

Obama said he would "re-engage with the diplomatic effort [under the
United Nations]," and exert "maximum pressure on China and India to do their
part and make real commitments."

CANDIDATES WANT MORE OUT OF OIL COMPANIES

Clinton believes oil companies "must help develop a thriving alternative
energy industry in America by investing more in alternative energy or by
funding such investments though a windfall profits fee." To that end, she
proposes a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid in part by oil companies.
The fund "would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil
companies pay their fair share of royalties when drilling on public lands."

Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, "we should end every single tax
break the industry currently receives and demand that 1% of the revenues from
the oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward
financing alternative energy research and infrastructure," Obama wrote in his
book, "The Audacity of Hope." He calls for investments of $150 billion over 10
years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure,
promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, low-emissions coal
plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.

--Gerald Karey, gerry_karey@platts.com

This is an excerpt. For more news, request a free trial to
Platts Inside Energy at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story
or subscribe now at
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=23_33&products_id=61