WASHINGTON — If Barack Obama and John McCain agree on nothing else, they agree that one of the nation's most urgent challenges is curbing its dependence on foreign oil and addressing the energy-related problem of global warming.
Indeed, when it comes to energy, the two major-party presidential candidates are embracing so many of the same points that it can be hard to tell whether there's any real difference between them.
From offshore oil drilling and nuclear power to windmills and electric cars, there's hardly a serious idea to which both haven't given at least a qualified nod.
Yet beneath the talking points and sound bites, there are significant differences in how Obama and McCain would be likely to approach a problem that's haunted the nation for more than three decades -- differences that boil down to priorities.
Although both say they are open to almost the entire spectrum of energy options, no chief executive has enough time or political capital to do everything. What the next president chooses to push first and hardest will probably define what's eventually achieved. Other energy options will almost certainly move to the back burner.
Viewed through this prism, the differences between McCain and Obama begin to come into focus.
What the Republican standard-bearer has talked about most and would presumably make his top priorities are drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and moving to bring 45 more nuclear power plants online by 2030.
Moreover, to achieve both goals, McCain would rely heavily on the private sector and on technologies that already exist -- not on things that still must be invented or undergo extensive development.
As McCain says of nuclear plants, "If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?"
Offshore oil-drilling techniques are also well advanced.
For Democratic rival Obama, the primary emphasis is on leapfrogging ahead to a dramatically reshaped economy that uses energy more efficiently, relies more on renewable power sources such as wind, and goes all-out to develop clean coal and plug-in cars.
To achieve those goals, the government should play a leading role, Obama says, spending $150 billion in federal funds over the next 10 years "to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future," as his energy plan puts it.
That would include billions of dollars for a public-private partnership to help Detroit reinvent itself as the clean-car capital of the world. That way, the Illinois senator says, "the new fuel-efficient cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas."
In addition to relying on government action, the core of Obama's energy strategy depends on achieving technological breakthroughs and developing major new energy systems on a large scale.
For example, technology is far from fully developed for generating electricity from coal without the greenhouse gases and other environmental pollution of present-day coal-fired power plants that supply 50% of the country's electricity.
Much the same is true for the know-how and infrastructure required to convert today's petroleum-dependent transportation system to such things as plug-in cars.
Regardless of who wins the White House, the next president will make little headway toward energy independence unless large numbers of Americans decide to change long-held beliefs and accept radical, even costly, changes that many have resisted for most of the last 40 years.
For example, moving away from fossil fuels would require the development of vast new systems for generating and distributing alternative forms of power, and potentially play havoc with such basic industries as coal mining, railroads and oil refining -- along with the jobs, financial networks and other systems dependent on the old energy forms.
The decline in world oil prices may have drained some urgency from the issue, but the process of moving beyond fossil fuels must begin somewhere. Now may be the time.
If so, what would the pursuit of McCain's or Obama's top priorities mean for the country 10 years or so down the road?
The Arizona senator is calling for an almost 50% increase in the number of U.S. nuclear power plants. Half of the nation's electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, which are a major source of environmentally damaging carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions, so a major increase in nuclear power could help in the fight against global warming.
McCain's 45 new nuclear plants could eliminate an estimated 420 million metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. Coal plants now emit about 1.9 billion tons of CO2.
Most oil goes into the transportation system, which makes relatively little use of electricity.
France, which McCain cites as a model, generates about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, yet its oil imports have risen steadily.
