The bloodlines of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton both run deep in the American political scene. Both have a history, directly and indirectly, in the Oval Office – the same office a slew of candidates are vying for in 2016.
The similarities end there, however, as both Clinton and Bush are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. That includes their viewpoints on energy, which has become a lightning rod in discussions as the federal government debates key regulatory issues like the crude oil export ban and a proposed increase in drilling regulations.
The Marwood Group, a firm specializing in the analysis of regulatory factors and their related impacts, has been very active on political comparisons for the upcoming election. The firm released energy policy breakdowns on the political candidates in recent publications, and some notable contrasts are below.
BUSH |
CLINTON |
| Strongly supportive of oil and gas | Neutral position on oil and gas that would essentially be an extension of Obama’s plan |
| Approves Keystone XL and crude oil exports | Opposes Keystone XL and crude oil exports |
| Believes “overregulation” needs to be trimmed, and criticizes the BLM’s new regulations | Supports creation of the National Infrastructure Bank, which includes government spending as a direct policy mechanism |
| Believes loosening restrictions would enable annual economic growth rate of 4% | Emphasizes expanding consumer choice with more renewable and gas-fired power |
| Believes in free market enterprise and limited federal intervention | Believes in public-private partnerships and regulations to spur efficiency while reducing emissions |
| Winner if elected: oil and gas industry and associated heavy industries | Winner if elected: high tech firms focused on efficiencies and clean power |
Additional Oil & Gas 360® coverage of the candidates’ stances on energy may be seen here.
