Walking around American University's campus, you would think you were on your way to "Green" heaven. From recycle bins, to the composting of paper towels from the bathrooms, and the local food initiatives, we're definitely on our way to decreasing our ecological footprint. Yet, living in the bubble that is privileged academia, it is easy to forget about the rest of the country, let alone the rest of the world and the environmental degradation all around us.
As November 6th nears and all the "Election Wonks" at AU pine over the latest Gallup Poll results, the question of environmental policies of the two candidates is inevitably going to be raised. Now that the RNC and DNC have come and go, a comparison of the environment policies of President Obama and Governor Romney are well over due.
To begin, both of the candidates platforms on energy and the environment (which can be easily accessed on their websites) are heavy on pro-job and pro-economy messaging. The economy and its rate of failure or success, depending on which news pundit you ask, is a pivotal point upon which many undecided voters will be swayed. Thus, both candidates have jumped on the JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! wagon, both claiming that their plans for the next four years will increase jobs for Americans living in the United States.
Once you get past the similar "job" rhetoric, the platforms become rather stark in contrast. Governor Romney proposes keeping oil production domestic and increasing domestic use of coal and oil as energy sources. Simultaneously, he supports the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline that would have built a massive pipeline from Canada and into the US, destroying much wildlife and putting the American public's health at risk, that President Obama opposes. Romney also supports the deregulation of carbon dioxide levels, that are currently controlled by the Clean Air Act. This policy move would allow for his expansive plan for the burning of coal and other carbon rich natural resources. In addition, Romney is a great supporter of the exploration of nuclear energy, and supports the deregulation of nuclear reactor research and designs. Romney's platform supports "conservative values" and hopes to push the economy forward through these diverse, albeit environmentally destructive policies. In fact, Romney has no "environment" platform, but an "energy" platform that supports the expansion of the exploitation of the environment.
On the other hand, President Obama's platform supports an "All of the Above" energy strategy that would utilize solar energy, oil, natural gas, bio fuels, fuel efficiency, nuclear energy, and wind power, to decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Part of his energy strategy includes forcing car manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient vehicles, as well as the development of wind farms that have the potential to power hundreds of thousands of homes. Obama has, slowly but surely, begun to oppose offshore drilling and stood against the Keystone XL Pipeline.
While Obama's platform does give the US more hope for an environmentally sound future, or at least one that is not as terrifying as it could be, neither Obama nor Romney have really stepped up to the plate and acknowledged that the living standards of the entire country would need to adjust to become more environmentally friendly. Both want to create jobs and increase US energy independence, but neither will admit that the US is living beyond its means. But, then again that probably would not be a good platform to run on for President...
One area that both candidates fail to engage in is the ever imminent threat of access to clean water. While the US has not had to face this issue recently, access to clean water will be one of the biggest issues that the country will have to face in the coming decades. Granted, both candidates have slated their platforms around the "jobs" issue and bettering the economy, but still neither are living up to the standards of other developed nations in Europe or elsewhere.
Perhaps prospects in 2016 will be even better... or maybe both parties will openly address climate change. Till then, get out your clipboards and keep passing around the Green Peace petitions.
To begin, both of the candidates platforms on energy and the environment (which can be easily accessed on their websites) are heavy on pro-job and pro-economy messaging. The economy and its rate of failure or success, depending on which news pundit you ask, is a pivotal point upon which many undecided voters will be swayed. Thus, both candidates have jumped on the JOBS! JOBS! JOBS! wagon, both claiming that their plans for the next four years will increase jobs for Americans living in the United States.
Once you get past the similar "job" rhetoric, the platforms become rather stark in contrast. Governor Romney proposes keeping oil production domestic and increasing domestic use of coal and oil as energy sources. Simultaneously, he supports the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline that would have built a massive pipeline from Canada and into the US, destroying much wildlife and putting the American public's health at risk, that President Obama opposes. Romney also supports the deregulation of carbon dioxide levels, that are currently controlled by the Clean Air Act. This policy move would allow for his expansive plan for the burning of coal and other carbon rich natural resources. In addition, Romney is a great supporter of the exploration of nuclear energy, and supports the deregulation of nuclear reactor research and designs. Romney's platform supports "conservative values" and hopes to push the economy forward through these diverse, albeit environmentally destructive policies. In fact, Romney has no "environment" platform, but an "energy" platform that supports the expansion of the exploitation of the environment.
On the other hand, President Obama's platform supports an "All of the Above" energy strategy that would utilize solar energy, oil, natural gas, bio fuels, fuel efficiency, nuclear energy, and wind power, to decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Part of his energy strategy includes forcing car manufacturers to develop more fuel efficient vehicles, as well as the development of wind farms that have the potential to power hundreds of thousands of homes. Obama has, slowly but surely, begun to oppose offshore drilling and stood against the Keystone XL Pipeline.
While Obama's platform does give the US more hope for an environmentally sound future, or at least one that is not as terrifying as it could be, neither Obama nor Romney have really stepped up to the plate and acknowledged that the living standards of the entire country would need to adjust to become more environmentally friendly. Both want to create jobs and increase US energy independence, but neither will admit that the US is living beyond its means. But, then again that probably would not be a good platform to run on for President...
One area that both candidates fail to engage in is the ever imminent threat of access to clean water. While the US has not had to face this issue recently, access to clean water will be one of the biggest issues that the country will have to face in the coming decades. Granted, both candidates have slated their platforms around the "jobs" issue and bettering the economy, but still neither are living up to the standards of other developed nations in Europe or elsewhere.
Perhaps prospects in 2016 will be even better... or maybe both parties will openly address climate change. Till then, get out your clipboards and keep passing around the Green Peace petitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment