This is the second in a series discussing the two presidential candidates' stances on issues directly or indirectly affecting college students and university campuses.

The Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards campaigns both advocate that America will be "more secure and prosperous" when the country is less dependent on foreign sources of energy, but the two offer different strategies.

The Bush-Cheney administration is pushing a more direct and approachable strategy to energy policy, such as increased supply and expanding the development of more energy efficient goods, according to Dr. Richard Shaten of the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

In 2002, Bush introduced FreedomCar, a collaborative effort between the federal government and private business to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Bush has already proposed $1.7 billion over the next five years to bring hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles to the market.

In reaction to the wars in the Middle East, Bush advocates American oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Northeast Alaska, claiming that oil would help keep America more domestically independent for energy.

"But Bush's energy policy isn't just about increasing supply," said Mike Catanzaro, spokesperson for the Bush-Cheney campaign. "If you look at Bush's National Energy Policy, Bush made over 100 recommendations to promote conservation and energy."

Drilling for oil was just one of those suggestions, Catanzaro said. Bush also strongly supports standards that increase fuel economy and efficiency for SUVs, he said.

"Whereas Kerry's 20/20 policy is a more 'one size fits all' quota that he is pursuing on a national level, Bush goes after individual states," Catanzaro said. "Take Texas, for example, Bush has helped the state of Texas develop windmills allowing Texas to become one of the leaders in generating wind electricity."

Like Bush, Kerry also sees the future of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as vital to America's future. But the Kerry campaign has dedicated itself to a specific national benchmark in the production of renewable energy. Kerry's proposed 20/20 policy illuminates the ideal that by the year 2020, America will produce 20 percent of its electricity with renewable energy.

While Kerry's approach salutes him as the ultimate environmentalist, his strategy may not be realistic, Shaten said.

"Although I think that Kerry is more sympathetic to issues of conservation and renewable energy, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to uphold his 20/20 policy. It took thirty years in huge subsidies for nuclear power to produce 20 percent of America's electricity," he said.

Shaten said Kerry's energy plan could be attained but would require two policies.

First, huge government subsidies for wind and solar would be needed in the neighborhood of $40 billion annually, Shaten said. Second, environmental taxes on fossil and nuclear fuels would increase their market prices to levels that closely reflect their true economic costs to society.

Americans are unlikely to support this, Shaten said.

Kerry also says that instead of spending money on the war on terrorism, he could spend it on the enhanced production of renewable energy.

Although the price of oil is currently increasing, traditional sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power are cheaper to consumers. Whereas Bush has suggested an answer to increase oil supply, Kerry has not mentioned expanding energy from traditional sources, Shaten said.

"Kerry could use tax money to invest in renewable energy. In the end, it probably would be cheaper to invest money for windmills and solar energy, but not everyone looks at it that way. When you have the option of paying extra for wind energy or paying less for coal, most people opt for the cheaper coal," he said.

George Twigg, the Wisconsin Kerry campaign spokesman, holds a more optimistic outlook on Kerry's 20/20 policy.

"Kerry has already proposed $20 billion for his 20/20 policy and has invested $10 billion in cleaner coal. Kerry's strategy is much different from Bush's in that the Bush-Cheney administration has never dedicated itself to a national benchmark on renewable energy."