Clinton and Trump lack broad-based energy policies

Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have wasted little time in addressing energy policy this election.

In one of his first major policy speeches, Trump outlined a plan to expand traditional fuels, including an increase in the exploration of oil and gas.

Clinton, meanwhile, released a set of proposals for boosting renewable energy production while drastically restricting the exploration and development of fossil fuels.

Such positions may win the nominees political points with their respective bases. But if this presidential campaign has proved anything so far, it’s that large segments of the American public feel they’ve been economically ignored.

A more broad-based energy policy — one that embraces the benefits of fossil fuels and renewables — would deliver abundant, affordable energy while creating thousands of jobs.

Within a few short years, America has become the world’s leading producer of both oil and natural gas.

Oil imports have dropped below 50 percent, gasoline prices have plummeted, and affordable natural gas has allowed manufacturers to compete in new world markets.

This increase in production has also spurred job growth.

Fracking alone now supports more than 2 million jobs around the country. While the industry has recently cut jobs due to the current global glut of oil, there’s hope for the future.

Pro-energy policies could create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030, according to energy industry consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

By 2025, the average household could see its income rise by $3,500, thanks to such energy development.

Instead of recognizing the benefits of this growing industry, Clinton has so far sided firmly with the extreme environmental community.

She promised to ban drilling off the Atlantic coast, even though such projects would create 200,000 jobs by 2035.

She has also proposed an increase in the royalties paid by oil and gas companies who drill on public land.

Such a policy would extract more money from a job-creating industry that not only already pays more than its fair share in taxes, but also contributes the highest amount of funds to the federal treasury next to personal income taxes.

In 2015, oil and gas companies paid an average income tax rate of 37 percent. By comparison, the average industrial firm paid less than 26 percent of their earnings in income taxes.

For his part, Trump may be too quick to disregard the potential benefits of renewable energy sources.

Global energy consumption is expected to grow by nearly half by 2040. And while fossil fuels are still expected to be the energy mainstay, meeting this demand will require the development of multiple sources of energy, including renewables such as offshore wind.

Modern America needs an energy policy that prizes both renewables and fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, inefficient federal policies are blocking energy progress.

The permitting process for offshore oil and gas exploration and production, including seismic and drilling activities, can take months or years.

States process similar permits for onshore projects much more quickly while still maintaining high environmental and safety standards.

There’s no reason the federal government can’t do the same offshore.

This comprehensive approach would also do away with the misconception that policymakers must choose between conservation and energy development in offshore areas.

This story was originally published August 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM with the headline "Clinton and Trump lack broad-based energy policies."