I am not sure it will boil down to this issue in the general election.

But on the drilling issue, McCain has flip-flopped.  And I would be surprised if drilling off the coast of Florida is popular with Floridians.  How popular would it be to see drilling platforms dot the horizon of otherwise pristine beaches or beach-front property?  If you want that, Texas is the place to be.

On nuclear power, we still don't have a place to store nuclear waste.  Yucca mountain has not gone anywhere and will continue to go nowhere as long as Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader.  Nuclear waste now is just stored at the plants themselves.  Many utilities have sued the federal government to get something done.  So, doubling capacity is just going to create more radioactive waste with no place to go.

And to your point.  Obama is right.  We are the change we have been looking for.  If we want to change our energy infrastructure, we need to do that at the local level.  From counties to cities to states, that is where it has to happen.  If Virginians cared about this issue (or Floridians for that matter), we could reform our land use, our urban planning, our energy efficiency, and the sources of our energy.  We shouldn't be looking to a president to provide something here.  The president has limited authority to do much on this due to the separation of powers and federalism.

"And I would be surprised if drilling off the coast of Florida is popular with Floridians. "

$2.00 a gallon ago, it wasn't popular.  I think that now, given the price of gas, we would be OK with a rig far enough offshore that it isn't visible onshore.  I'm not sure how many miles that is - depends on the heigth of the rig.  

"On nuclear power, we still don't have a place to store nuclear waste.  Yucca mountain has not gone anywhere and will continue to go nowhere as long as Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader.  "

I grew up in Alaska.  I would find a remote mountain and store it there, assuming the earthquake risk is/can be mitigated. Alaska is 1/5th the size of the continental US - plenty of space there.  Would you rather old fashioned power plants that put more Co2 into the air?  

Most of these plants operate on coal or oil.  Nuclear energy is the cleanest, photovoltaic aside (which is really nuclear, given that the energy comes from the sun).  Even hydroelectric damns have a large impact on the environment - you must flood vast areas to create a damn.

"If we want to change our energy infrastructure, we need to do that at the local level.  From counties to cities to states, that is where it has to happen. "

I agree that we should be acting locally, but this is also a national issue.  I would hate to see the "it's a local issue" argument used to do nothing.

"we could reform our land use, our urban planning, our energy efficiency, and the sources of our energy.  We shouldn't be looking to a president to provide something here."

I agree we need to be smarter about this, that's why I vote Democratic.  But the President should use his powers to make it happen.  Good presidents CAN make it happen - all it takes is good leadership.

This is going to be an election issue.  I don't know if it will be up there with the war, healthcare, trade, labor, and other issues.  But at $4.00+ a gallon gas, it's definately an issue.

Upon a little investigation, they only want to open up 50 miles out.  In which case, you couldn't see it on the horizon from the coast.  They are already allowed to explore 250 miles out from the coast.  It is an open question as to what reserves are present off Florida's coast.  Per the Minerals Management Service, they estimate that most of reserves would be natural gas, not oil.  Regardless of that, we use 20 million barrels a day of petroleum.  If you look at crude oil alone, we import two-thirds of what we use.  World crude oil production is 82 million barrels per day (EIA 2007 projection).  In order to make a significant impact, we would need to expand our domestic production beyond any estimate of unrecovered oil off our coasts or on any federal lands.

I am not against nuclear power.  It has issues though.  McCain can say he wants to double generation all he wants.  But one, in a market economy, the president doesn't determine the allocation of capital, the market does.  And whether there is enough interest to fund all these plant construction is very dependent on the rate of return these plants can provide in comparison to other things.  Second, you have the NIMBY issue as a major barrier.  And until the feds can address waste disposal, you are not going to be able to ameliorate these concerns.

I don't disagree this will be an election issue.  But voters need to be educated about the issue.  First nuclear power has nothing to do with the price of gas.  And drilling offshore is a longer term solution and may have absolutely no impact on price depending upon actual reserves, production and global demand growth.  The fact that voters need to grasp is that oil prices are going to be high for the long term, period.  We are not going back to dollar a gallon gasoline (unless the economies of India and China collapse).

As far as leadership, my point is that change comes from the people.  As long as people have only a superficial interest in public policy, nothing dramatic is going to change.  If people really want something, they have to work for it and not rely on a single individual to handle this all for them.

"But voters need to be educated about the issue.  First nuclear power has nothing to do with the price of gas."

I agree with your other points, but this is an issue.  Many power plants use oil - so if they became nuclear powered plants those plants would no longer use oil, reducing the demand.  I'm not sure what percent of plants run on petroleum based products and how much they use - but that would be good to know.

"As far as leadership, my point is that change comes from the people.  As long as people have only a superficial interest in public policy, nothing dramatic is going to change.  If people really want something, they have to work for it and not rely on a single individual to handle this all for them."

I agree 100% - everyone needs to have a stake in this.

Petroleum accounts for only 1.5% of electricity generation in the U.S.  Consumption of petroleum for electricity generation is only 316 thousand barrels a day, which incidentally is a little over 1% of total consumption of petroleum.  That would be a drop in the bucket and not substantially reduce crude oil prices.

I just want to reiterate my point about demand and supply.  With about 1/20th of the world's population, we consume 1/4th of the world's petroleum production.  McCain's sad energy plan is that we can continue to do things exactly the same.  When you do things exactly the same and expect different results, that is called stupidity.  We need to reduce our demand.  Only a program that effectively addresses demand is worth anything.  Continuing to feed ravenous, wasteful consumption is the same old, same old.

My wife and kids are in Japan with family right now - I'll be joining them in a couple of weeks.

Every time I visit Japan I realize what is so different about our cultures is how we live.  Japanese live and work in the same area - often within walking distance.  Often, in the same building (top floor is the home, bottom floor is the business).  In the US, we have everthing separated and far apart.  You wouldn't get permission from most local governments to locate a business in a residential area.

It has become a necessity for Americans to drive gas guzzling automobiles everywhere, where Japanese people are able to utilize public transportation much more.  And even more importantly, they can usually survive with a short walk to a smaller grocery store.

The big box stores in the United States have become an unhealthy part of our culture.  I would encourage anyone really interested in this issue to explore other cultures and to see how they live.  We need to fight sprawl, but unfortunately most people don't understand what sprawl is and how other people live.  It's tough to explain unless you experience the way other people live for yourself.

Where I grew up, in a city in Mexico, I had access to everything I needed within a few small blocks. I never needed a car, so I never used one. If I ever wanted to go farther away, I could always use the public transport system.

I can't do any of these things here. Modern zoning has made it impossible to have stores at walking distances in suburbs. And even if they were allowed, the population density is so low that they wouldn't be able to be supported in any case.

The problem is that we cannot change the whole infrastructure of the U.S. at will. We must live with the sprawl that we have until we come up with a solution.

This is a local solution.  Has anyone seen a push to relax these laws in their communities for the purpose of reducing sprawl?

Downtown Lakeland (where I live in Florida) has made efforts to do this, which is a great start, but the vast majority of us live in the suburbs or in apartments.

The closest thing we have to groceries within walking distance is what they sell at the gas station.  Not what I had in mind ;-)

In Mexico could you get milk, produce, and healthy eating options within walking distance?

Across the street where I lived there was a small grocery store. Another one was down the street. These stores get daily deliveries of milk and freshly baked French bread that was baked 4 blocks away. Three blocks away was a butcher and a chicken/eggs shop. The fresh produce shop was there was well. The pharmacy was one block away. There was a tortilla shop/factory near the butcher as well.

And we are talking very small distances. The butcher was about 200 to 300 meters away.