At the risk of belaboring politics talk in this blog (it is an election year), I saw this recent Reuter's article comparing the plans of Bush to Kerry with regard to energy policy. The basics show a "producer vs. consumer" contrast, with Bush looking to increase supply via E&P and Kerry looking to conserve via energy efficiency and CAFE standards. Interesting to note that both support an Alaskan NG pipeline, clean coal research and technology, and a move towards hydrogen for transportation.
Not discussed in the article nor in our previous discussion of Kerry's technology and policy viewpoints are whether he would bring the US back to the table in some global agreement on climate change, whether it is Kyoto or not. At the international level, I bet people are wondering about it. I am curious how America in general would react to such a difference in candidates. I have not seen public opinion polls concerning US cooperation with other nations on global climate change and can really see it going either way (i.e. winning Kerry lots of support or costing Kerry lots of support). I am, however, pretty sure where Nader stands.