Destructive Assumptions

            What is striking about both Romney and Obama’s energy plans is not necessary what is included in the plans but what is excluded: a thorough discussion of environmental sustainability. While both campaigns discuss the environment in their energy platforms, neither give us a clear picture of what they believe the environment is or what they relationship between the state and the environment should be.

This is most evident in Romney’s plan, which is merely titled “Energy.” The environment is mentioned several times in the platform when Romney, mostly in the context of the “environmental” laws or regulations that Romney fears tend to stifle industry. At one point Romney states that he will “make every effort to safeguard the environment” but quickly throws in the caveat that “he be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers.” It is unclear both what he means by being “safeguarded” and how he intends to strike the balance between protecting jobs and the environment.

In general it appears that Romney conceives the environment as a function of the economy. It is a resource for the American people to use. The country was blessed enough to have a “cornucopia” of carbon-based energy reserves and Barrack Obama is being both unpatriotic and a job-destroyer by not allowing them to be fully exploited. Most importantly, he makes no reference to the degradation of the natural environment, global warming, or the finite nature of carbon-based resources. These inconveniences are entirely written out of the narrative to allow for the construction of his cornucopia of resources narrative.  

Obama’s plan includes more reference to the environment and environmental protection then Romney’s but is still dominated by an economic perspective. Obama discusses how he has increased regulation of environmental hazards such as mercury and how he expanded conservation efforts but declines to discuss any other environmental concerns such as global warming, extinction, or environmentally sustainable agriculture. Further, Obama justifies his alternative energy initiatives not by toting their environmental benefit but by arguing that they will create more jobs and free us from foreign oil. Although Obama declines to give us a clear picture of what he views the relationship between government, the economy, and government, he appears to believe that environmental problems are really regulatory problems. Our current system can be tweaked with regulations to prevent environmental destruction; no systemic changes are necessary.

Both candidates hold on dearly to the idea that in order for our country to progress, its economy must constantly expand. This idea is the focal point of both campaigns energy platforms. For Romney the goal is to do what’s best for the economy irrespective of the environment, while for Obama the goal is to what’s best for the economy while correcting for environmental damage using regulations. These two assumptions, that progress necessarily means GDP growth and that environmental problems are fundamentally economic problems, are detrimental to the extent that they exclude any robust discussion about sustainability and the  between relationship humans and the natural environment.

 If we can move beyond these assumptions we might eventually be able to hold serious political discussions about sustainability, growth, species die off, carbon emission and other important environmental issues, but at this point it seems unlikely. However, it is important to note that political discourse and assumptions are mutable; they can be challenged and altered. Perhaps this is role of environmental activism, to challenge and subvert these dominant assumptions to create a space for productive discussion.