Commentary: Trump, Clinton offer starkly different energy futures

By David J. Murphy

Nations around the world are transitioning to renewable energy for two reasons. The first is to switch to an unlimited and - in the cases of wind, hydro, and solar - free fuel source. The second is to avert, or at least mitigate, the worst effects of climate change.

Most developed nations - including China, after the Paris Agreement - have agreed that the second reason alone justifies the pursuit of renewable energy. A Donald Trump presidency would bring the United States infamy by making us the only high-income nation in the world with a climate change denier as head of state and the only one pursuing a transition back to fossil fuels.

Like many of their proposed policies, Trump and Hillary Clinton's visions for U.S. energy development diverge widely from one another. In short, Trump's calls for more fossil fuels while Clinton's confidence lies in renewable energy. Let's look at Trump's plan first because there is much, much less detail.

Trump's energy plan contains 22 bullet points. Of those, half are rebuttals to the Clinton energy plan and four are "key issues" that are cherry-picked statistics in support of the fossil-fuel industry. Of the seven remaining points, the only concrete energy plan is to "make America energy independent." To accomplish this, Trump would open onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and eliminate the moratorium on coal leasing. By doing so, he claims the United States will become energy independent, alleviating future energy concerns.

It will shock no one that the Trump energy plan is chock-full of bravado and devoid of data. The Annual Energy Outlook published by the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that the United States will be producing only half the oil it consumes in 2020. Other independent analyses indicate that becoming oil independent would actually leave the U.S. economy more vulnerable to future domestic shortages.

Even if we did have the energy today, those supplies would be exhausted in the not-too-distant future. And as extraction of fossil fuels continues, the economic, social, and environmental costs of that extraction increase. Just ask the residents of Oklahoma, which has experience a dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes due to operations associated with hydraulic fracturing.

Clinton's energy plan - really her climate plan - is the polar opposite of Trump's, focusing on renewable energy and goals to install more than 500 million solar panels by the end of her first term, and generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home within 10 years. Both of these goals are ambitious but achievable.

Two years ago, the United States had only 8.42 gigawatts of installed photovoltaic capacity, which could power nearly 1.5 million homes. Now, we have roughly 31.6 gigawatts. If the industry was able to grow by 400 percent between 2014 and 2016, a committed Clinton administration should be able to achieve 500 million solar panels in four more years. And according to data at the U.S. Energy Information Agency, renewable electricity production in the nation already equals about one-third of residential consumption, so we are well on our way to that goal as well.

The economic value in transitioning to renewable energy - at least for wind, solar, and hydro - is that the fuel is free and unlimited. Over the past 30 years, costs for wind and solar have decreased dramatically, and are reaching cost competitiveness with traditional sources of power generation. These trends explain why investments in renewables are outpacing gas and coal two to one. In fact, when considering the downward costs trends in renewable energy coupled with the currently high cost of producing oil and gas, it is baffling that anyone - let alone a someone whose presidential candidacy is founded on his supposed business acumen - would want to invest in fossil fuels.

While every industrialized nation is pursuing energy independence, they are sensibly doing so by transitioning to renewable energy. A Trump presidency would put us in the unenviable role of being the only economically developed nation to pursue energy independence via reinvestment in fossil fuels.

The United States desperately needs to continue to embrace our energy renaissance - to grow our economy and jobs, to maintain our credibility as a global leader, and to repair and reverse the damage of climate change for the next generation. Thus, for our energy future, Trump is a Dark Ages candidate.

David J. Murphy is an assistant professor of environmental studies at St. Lawrence University. Dmurphy@stlawu.edu