America is blessed with abundant energy resources. Thanks to new technology and innovation, we are poised to become the world’s energy superpower even as our emissions have been declining. If we harness our energy potential in the right way, and let innovation flourish, we will ensure that energy is affordable for consumers and families, help businesses grow and create jobs, protect our environment, strengthen our national security, and increase America’s influence around the world. – Marco Rubio

There is lot of promise in that short paragraph. Can Rubio deliver? You can read his energy plan here.

On the heels of President Obama’s announcement of his “Clean Power Plan,” Senator Marco Rubio has responded with his own proposals for “a secure energy future for our nation.” The Senator calls for innovation rather than regulation and rejection of decades old energy policies. Among Senator Rubio’s proposals are an end to the ban on crude oil exports and overturning the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (which relies on presidential executive orders for its authority.) The Senator also addresses Presidential Powers as provided by the Constitution. You can read more specifics about Senator Rubio’s energy plan here.


In vetoing the bill by Congress approving the Keystone Pipeline project, President Obama claimed “… because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.”

The Keystone Pipeline project was proposed in 2008. Since then, it has gone through four extensive studies reviewed by the Department of State ; these found NO significant risk to the environment and minimal effect on greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, a recent study showed that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil and gas. Virtually no one denies the positive economic impact of the project for the US and Canadian economies.

After six years and multiple, extensive studies, I don’t think this act of Congress is cutting anything short. We know that the project is safe. We know it will create jobs. We know it decreases our reliance on foreign oil. We know it will strengthen our trade relationship with Canada. President Obama no doubt has his reasons for vetoing this bill, but it isn’t because of “our security, safety and environment.”

According to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, 30 years of strict “green” building codes have not significantly reduced residential energy use or pollution. But they have added thousands of dollars of cost to each home. More details here.

Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping in Beijing on Wednesday announced a plan for curbing “greenhouse gas” pollution. The US agreed to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. China pledged to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions and increase the share of non-fossil fuels of the country’s energy production by 2030. The two countries are the top two emitters of carbon gasses.

However, China did not set specific emmissions targets; it merely agreed to “cap” them at an unspecified rate in the future. Also, it is questionable whether this agreement can be ratified in the US Senate. Multiple US leaders have noted that under the agreement, US action is required now, while China has only offered action in the future, without consequences for failing to do so. Given the “lame duck” status of the President, this may be similar to President Clinton’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol in the late 90s – an important symbolic act, but neither ratifiable nor practical to enforce. In other words, like much of President Obama’s policy “successes,” this is more political than actual.