A closer look at the candidate’s plans to grow the US green economy reveals some stark differences, but also, an amazing amount of similarities (especially when you consider the historical positions of the two political parties on energy and the environment).  Both candidates would build more nuclear power plants, drill offshore, and invest in renewable energy and energy efficient technology, Obama’s plan is more aggressive in cutting green house gas emissions and funding renewable technology development, but will it create enough jobs?  McCain’s plan is far more aggressive in pursuing mass electricity generation and energy production, but does it create enough green jobs?  Furthermore, will either candidate’s plan have a “jump-starting” effect on the US economy, and if so, what will that look like?

To start with, both candidates will force fossil fuel-based energy producers to reduce their workforce because the cap-and-trade system which both candidates favor will cut into profits and when profits go down, people get laid off.  Because Obama favors an  80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to McCain’s 66% reduction, more jobs in that part of the energy sector would be lost under the Obama plan.  Furthermore, McCain’s large-scale nuclear energy initiative will create more jobs in the short-term because his plan calls for more nuclear energy production than Obama’s, and unlike jobs created from renewable research and development, nuclear energy infrastructure can be built right now and come on-line quicker.

McCain would be more aggressive with offshore drilling than Obama, so the edge would go to McCain on the creation jobs in the areas of natural gas and oil extraction.  The problem is that most of these jobs are short-term jobs and extractive industries are limited in their potential for growth (especially as environmental considerations become more important).  Simply put, these are not “green” jobs and you could argue that the “drill baby drill” mantra only serves to weaken the new green economy by shifting precious resources and manpower to fossil fuel development and stunting growth of renewable energy technology by lessening the market impacts derived from less fossil fuel supply.

Speaking long-term, it appears that Obama’s plan would have the most positive effect on the US green economy because he goes much further with his incentives to develop renewable technology than McCain.  Over time, these breakthroughs could spawn a whole host of businesses that would employ millions of people, and unlike many of the jobs McCain’s plan would create, these jobs would be permanent.  Furthermore, the benefits derived from selling new green technological breakthroughs to other countries represent an extraordinary opportunity for making the green US energy industry a respectable part of our GDP.

In the short-term, McCain’s plans should create more regular jobs, but in the long-term Obama’s plan should create more of the types of green jobs we need to grow the US green economy.  McCain’s plan would also slow the pace at which the green economy would grow by focusing more on non-renewable energy production.  If either plan can have a “jumpstarting” effect on the US economy, it would probably be McCain’s however, that positive effect could be short-lived due to the temporary nature of the extractive jobs.  Both candidates support revamping our electricity grid to be more efficient, and that would create lots of new jobs immediately.  In short, both candidate’s plans could help jumpstart the overall US economy, and while McCain’s plan would do this much faster, Obama’s plan helps to better grow the green economy of the US and secure its competitiveness long-term.

Read on for a step-by-step comparison on their energy policy.