Energy policy is an area of disagreement between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

One of the biggest differences is in the consideration of the environment. Obama supports clean air regulations generated by the Environmental Protection Agency, especially those that would protect health and save lives, while Romney does not.

Coal-fired power plants are an excellent example. Obama supports the EPA regulation to limit mercury emissions from coal plants. This would have some economic impact on coal plants and probably close some of the older, less efficient coal plants.

Romney disregards climate change and the role coal plays in CO2 emissions and discounts the health impact of emissions that are regulated by the EPA.

Obama has promoted an “everything” electricity strategy, including “clean” coal, wind, solar and nuclear power, which is currently the only reliable source of low-emission electricity except hydropower.

Romney opposes wind and solar because they still require subsidies to be competitive. But he does support subsidies to oil companies despite the huge profits they make. Because removal of CO2 from coal to make it “clean” is still in the research and development stage with poor economic prospects, the coal industry has strongly opposed the Obama approach and has supported Romney.

So voters have to decide if they want the advantages of clean air and reduced climate-change impact, or the cheapest power possible in spite of the negative consequences.

I’m voting for Obama because I want clean air and reduced carbon emissions.

Edward Klevans State College