Gregg Easterbrook has an article supposedly contrasting Kerry and Bush's positions on energy, and starts out by saying that energy policy alone is reason enough to vote for Kerry.

But it's not until deep into the article that he finally outlines Kerry's supposedly superior plan:

Kerry's energy proposals are dramatically different. Most important, Kerry advocates substantial improvement in the fuel efficiency of vehicles, including SUVs and pickups. Kerry would ban anwr drilling but build a pipeline to Alaska's North Slope natural gas fields (which Bush also says he supports, but hasn't done much about), cancel the Yucca Mountain facility for atomic-reactor wastes (though he is not necessarily anti-nuclear power), mandate that 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2020, and invest billions more than Bush in cleancoal technology.

Easterbrook then goes on to point out that Kerry voted against the Kyoto treaty, which is a little weird, because he said this in the last debate:

They pulled out of the global warming, declared it dead, didn't even accept the science.

Kerry, on the other hand, what...? Accepted the science and pulled out of it? If you don't think it's a good treaty, fine. But don't criticize the President for rejecting it when you voted against it.

As for all the points of Kerry's plan, Easterbrook goes on to point out serious problems with nearly all of them. He opposes Yucca mountain, but where else are we gonna put all that radioactive waste? The idea to consolidate it and make it easier to control and safeguard is an inherently good one, and no state is gonna want it in their back yard. So what's Kerry's plan?

On renewable energy, Easterbrook points out:

Kerry defines renewable power as "wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass," but, together, these sources account for only about 1 percent of electric generation. Even a successful effort to develop them might only double that number to 2 percent.

Great.

And on clean-burning coal, he points out that the Bush Administration has already spent billions on such a program, and even has a pilot plant being built right now.

So..."Kerry's energy proposals are dramatically different"? Huh?

The only policy that is reasonably sound, then, is gas mileage, and Easterbrook spends the last half of the article laying out the basic arguments in favor of higher mileage standards.

Hey, you don't have to convince me that higher MPG standards are a good thing. But I'm not a big fan of paternalism. This is a case where some people basically want the government to make us do what's good for us. It's like a law making you eat your vegetables.

I'd rather the government provide subsidies to auto manufacturers to help speed up the mainstreaming of hybrid technology, and provided even bigger tax incentives to people who buy them.

I don't think enforced MPG standards alone are a sound reason to vote for Kerry. And the other parts of his energy plan are either unsound, unrealistic, or already in place.