State of Michigan Archives: on Energy & Oil


Rick Wade: $8B for new nuclear plants; plus offshore oil & gas drilling

The president recently said, "For decades we've talked about how our dependence on foreign oil threatens our economy--yet our will to act rises and falls with the price of a barrel of oil." And so, we are getting serious about energy security.

For the first time in three decades, we've greenlighted the construction of new nuclear power plants. A few weeks ago, the president announced $8 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear reactors in Georgia. There will be more to come.

We have opened up areas off the Atlantic seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico for responsible exploration for oil and gas.

And we continue to push for comprehensive energy legislation that will put a price on carbon and send a signal to every entrepreneur in this country that clean energy can be the profitable kind of energy over the long-term.

Source: Remarks at US Regional Business Tour, Battle Creek, Michigan Apr 6, 2010

Rick Wade: Too many clean energy investors sit on the sidelines

We continue to push for comprehensive energy legislation that will put a price on carbon and send a signal to every entrepreneur in this country that clean energy can be the profitable kind of energy over the long-term. Today, we have too many clean energy investors sitting on the sidelines because there's no certainty in the marketplace. Because on the one hand everyone is talking up the potential of clean energy, but all the incentives--from our tax code to our regulations--favor the status quo: the exploration and production of fossil fuels that harm our environment, our economy and our security.
Source: Remarks at US Regional Business Tour, Battle Creek, Michigan Apr 6, 2010

Jack Hoogendyk: Expand oil production and expand nuclear energy

Source: 2008 Senate campaign website, jackformichigan.org, “Issues” May 2, 2008

Fred Thompson: Get ethanol market up, then let free market take over

Q: Should the government determine whether ethanol makes sense or should the free market make that determination?

A: Ultimately it will be the free market. But I think that we’re in a situation now where we’ve got to use everything that’s available to us. I think renewables and alternatives are a part of that picture. I don’t look for it to last forever. When the industry gets up and running and on its feet again, I don’t see the need for what we’re doing now.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

John McCain: Climate change is real; nuclear power is solution

[We need to] stop the contamination of our atmosphere. Climate change is real & is taking place. We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that. And it’s also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation’s national security.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

John McCain: Public pressure on oil industry to invest in alternatives

Q: Should the oil industry be required to use some of their profits to help solve our energy problems?

A: I would hope that they would use those profits to further the cause of alternate energy, nuclear power, a lot of other ways that we have to employ in order to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Q: Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: I wouldn’t drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to. And I wouldn’t drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to, and I wouldn’t drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.

Q: But you wouldn’t require the oil industry to use its profits to help pursue alternative energy?

A: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Mike Huckabee: Ethanol & biofuels are part of future energy

Q: The federal government has spent years and billions of dollars promoting ethanol, but the result has been a glut of ethanol and gas prices that are still at record level. Wouldn’t it be better to just let the free market determine whether ethanol makes economic sense or not?

A: I think ethanol and all biofuels are going to be an important part of the future energy needs of the country, but the accelerated pace at which we get there is critical for national security as well as for our own economic interest. We’ve got to come to the place where everything is on the table--nuclear, biofuels, ethanol, wind, solar--any and everything this country can produce. We once had a president who said, “Let’s go to the moon in 10 years,” and we were there in eight. And we did that when we started with a technology of bottle rockets when we got the thing launched. And we all saw that we can do it.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Mitt Romney: Develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal

We face serious competitive challenges globally unless we become serious with getting prices of energy down. It’s a great opportunity for America to develop technology to lead the world in energy efficiency as well as energy production. And whether it’s nuclear or liquefied coal, where we sequester the CO2, far more fuel-efficient automobiles. These are some of the incentives that have to be behind our policies with regards to our investments in new technologies like ethanol.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Rudy Giuliani: Don’t draw the line anywhere--advance all technologies

Q: How will this country become oil independent?

A: I think Iran would be a lot more of a paper tiger if we were more energy independent. You could go on into a lot of examples like that. This is a matter of national security. You’ve got to support all the alternatives. There’s no magic bullet here--biofuels, nuclear power. We haven’t licensed a nuclear power plant in 30 years. We haven’t had a new refinery in 30 years. We’re on hold. Hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power, conservation-- we have to support all of these things. The president has to treat this like putting a man on the moon.

Q: But where do you draw the line? Do you support drilling off the coast of Florida, California?

A: You don’t draw the line anywhere. What you do is you work with people to try to advance all of these technologies. Long-term damage to our environment would be a mistake, that would be an overreaction. You have to make sound judgments, and you have to advance these new technologies.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Sam Brownback: Energy security: drill every place you can find resources

Q: Where do you draw the line? Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: I think you go in every place that you can to find resources. I put forward a proposal for us to be energy-secure--not independent, energy-secure--in 15 years. I don’t think it’s realistic for us to say we can be independent of every country around the world on oil supplies or on energy supplies in the near future, given our dependence and given the nature of what the global economy is like.

Q: On the issue of exploration, you said yes to the coast of Florida, and you say yes to ANWR?

A: I voted yes for ANWR, and I would support those in other places, environmentally sound. We have to do it in environmentally sound fashion.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Tom Tancredo: Drill off the coasts of Florida and California

Q: Where do you draw the line? Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: You bet. I would agree to exploration off the coasts. How fair is it today that Louisiana is producing all the oil that California is consuming, and they refuse to allow the exploration of oil of their coasts? I’d say if you won’t allow it, you can’t use it--the stuff that we’re getting from Louisiana.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Debbie Stabenow: Global Warming is real and I’m focused on solving it

Q: Do you believe in global warming from human sources, and should it drive our policies?

BOUCHARD: Yes, there’s conflicting reports. We could be in a position to lead away from fossil fuels. She filibustered the comprehensive energy package in Congress. We need someone who will lead on that - she hasn’t. She has only one bill authored -- to rename a federal building. I wrote legislation to close incinerators while in the S state Senate.

STABENOW: Global Warming is real and I’m focused on solving it. I cite nineteen provisions which I authored, many bi-partisan. Global Warming is too important for partisan politics. I supported the energy bill from two years ago -- it created real energy boom in Michigan. We have strong agriculture, and ability to tell world to buy fuel here in Michigan instead of Middle East.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids, x-ref Bouchard Oct 15, 2006

Mike Bouchard: Conflicted on whether global warming is from human sources

Q: Do you believe in global warming from human sources, and should it drive our policies?

BOUCHARD: Yes, there’s conflicting reports. We could be in a position to lead away from fossil fuels. She filibustered the comprehensive energy package in Congress. We need someone who will lead on that - she hasn’t. She has only one bill authored -- to rename a federal building. I wrote legislation to close incinerators while in the S state Senate.

STABENOW: Global Warming is real and I’m focused on solving it. I cite nineteen provisions which I authored, many bi-partisan. Global Warming is too important for partisan politics. I supported the energy bill from two years ago -- it created real energy boom in Michigan. We have strong agriculture, and ability to tell world to buy fuel here in Michigan instead of Middle East.

Source: 2006 Michigan Senate Debate in Grand Rapids Oct 15, 2006

Mike Bouchard: Kyoto agreement is restrictive & extraordinarily expensive

Regulations can impose extraordinary burdens on businesses that outweigh any good they do if they aren’t well thought through. I support using common sense tools, like risk analysis, that evaluate the tradeoffs of regulations to ensure that we understand their costs and are able to make an informed decision.

A good example is the imposition of restrictions on greenhouse gasses in conformity with the Kyoto agreement. Complying with these restrictions would be extraordinarily expensive, costing thousands of jobs. Because many of our competitors are not going to comply, we’d become even less competitive than we are now. Finally, the amount of carbon dioxide that would be released into the atmosphere will be almost the same over the next century, regardles of whether Kyoto is implemented.

In short, the costs would be tremendous, while the benefits would be negligible! Michigan’s Sen. Carl Levin voted against imposing these regulations on US companies. Sen. Stabenow, however, voted in favor of them.

Source: Campaign booklet, “Renewing Michigan’s Economy” Sep 14, 2006

Mike Bouchard: Supports atomic energy & new nuclear plant construction

One alternative that is becoming more feasible is atomic energy. Many European countries rely heavily on nuclear power, even though they are very pro-environment, because nuclear power presents one very sound approach to the need for more energy coupled with environmental protections. One persistent problem, however, remains: what to do with the spent nuclear rods that fuel these plants? For years, Michigan & other energy ratepayers from around the US have paid into a fund to create a long-term storage facility deep within the earth at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Once again, Senator Stabenow and her liberal allies have blocked the completion of this project. The result is that this waste sits around Michigan plant sites, which have not been constructed to serve as long-term storage sites, and pose the risk that eventually they could contaminate our environment. Senator Stabenow has also voted against other legislation that would fund construction for nuclear power plants.
Source: Campaign booklet, “Renewing Michigan’s Economy” Sep 14, 2006

  • The above quotations are from State of Michigan Politicians: Archives.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
2016 Presidential contenders on Energy & Oil:
  Democrats:
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
Gov.Andrew Cuomo(NY)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel(IL)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)

Republicans:
Amb.John Bolton(MD)
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Jon Huntsman(UT)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Rep.Peter King(NY)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Secy.Condi Rice(CA)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Rep.Paul Ryan(WI)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
2016 Third Party Candidates:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg(I-NYC)
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Jesse Ventura(I-MN)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 29, 2014