On the surface, opines Stafford "Doc" Williamson, Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack (shown) has the right idea about energy. He's purchasing carbon credits to offset the campaign's travel. Vilsack also has formed a detailed energy policy that emphasizes renewable energy.

But Williamson feels the plan is filled with "weak, half-steps" and "such low goals" that no one will notice. He points to the 50 percent improvement in fuel economy by 2030. That boils down to 2 percent a year for the next 23 years. The plan also addresses overall carbon emissions, but Williamson says the "wimpy proposal" has a "spineless provision" regarding the timeframe for implementation.

Williamson says he doesn't want to attack someone "whose policies see on the right track." But he doesn't believe it's a good idea to start with such low goals before opposing forces start chopping them down.

"Tossing around the terms biodiesel, biobutanol, cellulosic ethanol and others is not enough. As the saying goes, shoot for the moon, and at least if you miss you'll end up among the stars," writes Williamson in the American Chronicle.

Sorry to disagree. It's the unreasonable request that gets dismissed easily. End up in the stars and no one takes you seriously. On the flip side, the candidate who doesn't even acknowledge global warming--in effect, someone who doesn't shoot at all--will also get dismissed. The auto companies have fought off CAFE increases for more than 20 years of both Democrat and Republican administrations. End up in the stars and these guys don't change. A winning politician will propose reasonable increases; and then an honest politician will not back down to even the slightest bit of pressure and make sure those goals are met.

[Source: Stafford "doc" Williamson / American Chronicle]