Much at stake in energy policy

Re “Dueling energy agendas,” Oct. 27

Both John McCain and Barack Obama view the migration to next-generation energy alternatives as an opportunity to stimulate economic growth. Both want to reduce carbon emissions’ effects on our environment.

On a third, and perhaps most important, component of the energy platform, The Times did not address differences between the candidates: national security.

The U.S. imports 60% to 70% of its oil, and some of that money, unfortunately, ends up in the hands of those who would do this country harm. That is obviously unacceptable. McCain’s energy platform more rigorously addresses this national security component of energy policy. The U.S. must do all that is necessary to reduce and ultimately eliminate our petroleum dependence on our present or future adversaries.

It is clear that McCain is much more experienced and prepared than Obama to handle these critical national security aspects of overall energy policy.

Steve Cardona

San Clemente

The writer is a member of the McCain Energy Advisory Coalition.

::

Building McCain’s 45 new nuclear power plants would cost taxpayers an estimated $280 billion while doing little to solve America’s dependence on oil. Clean energy technologies can deliver greater environmental results and meet more of our energy needs much sooner than building new nuclear power plants, all while creating more jobs at a lower cost to taxpayers.

When it comes to energy, clean sources of energy need to be our top priority -- not the dirty, dangerous and expensive technologies of the last century.

Bernadette Del Chiaro

Sacramento

The writer is a clean-energy advocate for Environment California.