Each has a plan, but narrow focuson coal misses much of the picture
October 1, 2016
Photo: Kin Man Hui, Staff
Energy is intertwined with the issues of climate change and manufacturing, but energy policy warrants its own designation. It should not be subordinated in the presidential candidates' agendas.
The irony for Texas - a state that hasn't had a Democratic governor or senator since 1995 and that has made a competitive sport out of suing President Barack Obama - is that Hillary Clinton's energy platform is better for the Lone Star State than Donald Trump's.
Why? Because her policies, as flawed as they are, show greater respect for free-market principles and the future of natural gas. Trump, in contrast, wants to push the country back with policies protecting coal. His approach would be bad for the future of jobs, investments and fortunes in Texas.
Energy is vital to the Texas economy. Trillions of investment dollars will be in play during the next two decades, creating jobs and sustaining companies in oil and gas production, decarbonization, infrastructure upkeep, integration of renewable energy, and electricity grid upgrades. Perhaps more than any other state, Texans should pay attention to the candidates' energy policy positions.
Thus far, the campaigns of both candidates have focused mainly on a single energy issue: coal, and whether it should be allowed to continue its inevitable decline (Clinton's stance) or protected from market competition (Trump's stance). But coal is just one piece of the larger energy picture. There is so much more to consider.