The energy plans of the two major parties’ candidates will shock no one: Donald Trump aims to open every square inch of land in the United States for fossil-fuel extraction, while Hillary Clinton wants to invest in renewable energy and energy conservation programs. What is most interesting about these two plans? Clinton’s plan should be — by far — the more appealing to Republicans.

Pursuing fossil fuels will continue, and most likely increase, U.S. dependence on foreign nations, a trajectory that should be deeply distressing for Republicans who embrace protectionism and individual liberty.

Donald Trump’s assertion that the United States will eventually become oil independent is simply wrong for two reasons.

First, we just do not have the oil. The Energy Information Administration predicts that U.S. consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels will be roughly 6.8 billion barrels of oil per year by 2020, yet domestic production will only meet about half of that, at 3.6 billion barrels of oil per year. Some might wonder: Well, what about fracking and all that new oil? Bad news: it is included in that 3.6 billion barrels of production.

Putin Supports OPEC Deal at Energy Summit

Second, even if we were to discover massive new oil resources, oil producers will have to sell the oil into a global market, where it will fetch global prices. The U.S. economy would continue to be vulnerable to global price volatility. That exposure cannot be underestimated; oil price spikes have been found, time and time again, to instigate recessions. Some argue that low oil prices might also be causing recessions.

What is perhaps most unnerving about the fossil-fueled Republican energy agenda is the complete lack of energy-conservation policy. One would think that the party that prides itself on fiscal conservatism would fully embrace energy conservatism; thus far, the party has failed to see this alignment.

Energy-conservation measures aim to solve energy problems by reducing demand rather than increasing supply. In other words, an increase in demand for energy (usually due to economic growth) can be met in one of two ways: an increase in either the supply of energy to meet that demand or the efficiency with which we use energy.

Both offer paths forward for the United States, but efficiency is far cheaper — something that should resonate with Republicans. A recent report by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the cost of energy-efficiency programs is typically half the cost of traditional power sources like coal.

In addition to favorable economics, the potential energy savings from these programs is simply staggering. The National Academy of Sciences reported that energy-conservation programs could reduce energy consumption in the U.S. by 30%, which would completely negate the need to build any new electricity generation facilities: that means no new coal, natural gas or nuclear plants. And the efficiency reductions in the transportation sector would also make the U.S. less reliant on foreign oil, a significant bonus.

The cheapest barrel of oil is the one we do not have to buy, so it makes more sense to invest in conservation measures that save oil than to spend billions of dollars producing expensive shale oil.

Beyond energy conservation measures, the United States will still need to produce an enormous amount of energy, and here, too, renewable energy is very much in agreement with Republican values. What better expression of individual liberty could there be than generating one’s own power from a rooftop solar photovoltaic system, or a wind turbine out in the back forty?

Households adopting rooftop solar are changing the landscape of both the energy grid and the utility industry, by transforming homeowners from consumers to “prosumers” who generate some of their own power and participate in two-way transactions with their utilities. In addition to increasing self-reliance and resiliency, this transformation helps to keep more money in the local community, rather than going to fossil-fuel producers and despots in other states and countries.

Republicans who are concerned about jobs should consider this report: there are now more solar jobs in the U.S. than there are jobs in oil and gas extraction and significantly more jobs than in coal mining. And though there are still more jobs in the entire fossil-fuel sector than in solar, the gap is narrowing quickly as the solar industry grew 12 times faster than the overall economy in 2015.

There’s no doubt that Republicans receive help from big donors, such as the Koch brothers, who have a vested interest in fossil-fuel energy projects. And, perhaps part of the answer why Republicans are reticent to embrace renewable energy has to do with campaign financing.

Whatever the reason, it is time for Republican voters to realize that renewable energy is fully aligned with Republican values.

In time — and with appropriate energy-conservation measures — renewable energy in the United States can meet all of our energy demands. No more importing oil from unstable areas of the world, no more exposing our economy to price volatility. To borrow a phrase from Donald Trump, it’s a “beautiful, beautiful thing.”