It is September of 2012, and we are less than two months from the November 6th Presidential Elections. The battle for Captain America rages on between the Romney and Obama camps as the nation watches - but is either candidate looking out for the largest non-voting enabler and provider of their campaigns; the earth herself?
President Barack Obama
On his campaign page, one of the eight issues the Obama/Biden camp lists is titled Energy and the Environment.
The web design of this page is certainly inviting, with myriad charts, diagrams and videos all pointing to the great work President Obama has done over the past four years to make our world cleaner. Inevitably, all of the charts for Oil, Natural Gas, Bio-fuels, Wind Energy, and Solar energy show improvement under President Obama.
These charts, and the words that accompany them are aimed at showing how these new energies are providing jobs and bring America closer to energy independence, though, and are void of any reference to the broader environmental effects. The tagline for Obama's "all of the above" strategy is "to develop every available source of American energy while making sure we never have to choose between protecting our environment and strengthening our economy" (Source: www.barackobama.com).
Under the Fuel Economy section of the Obama campaign's Energy and Environment, there is mention that:
"The Obama administration’s groundbreaking standards for cars and light trucks will save families roughly $8,200 at the pump per vehicle by 2025. The standards will also cut in half vehicles’ greenhouse gas pollution, reducing a major cause of climate change."
So at least our President incumbent mentions the environmental buzzwords "greenhouse gas" and "climate change". There is also mention in investments in clean coal and "carbon capture and sequestration research", but no further data beyond initiatives implemented and long term goals set.
In sum, the President's energy and environment platform looks pretty and is directed towards the grievances of the simple american voters: high gas prices, high energy prices, unemployment, and direct health effects (such as heart attacks and asthma) rather than global environmental dangers and proposed solutions. This platform is not designed to educate, inform or even vaguely alert voters to the global environmental challenges we face in the future, but is instead intended to be a message of progress, pointing to the brighter, cleaner path President Obama has set the American public on for the future. And of course this make complete sense. Voters don't want to be told that we are approaching - or have passed - the carrying capacity of our planet. They don't want to be told about the thousands of species that have become extinct, they don't want to see pictures of forests mowed down or rivers turned toxic by pollutants. President Barack Obama won the 2008 election on a message of hope - he surely hopes to do the same in 2012.
Mitt Romney
Romney's equivalent to President Obama's Environment and Energy platform is titled, simply, Energy.
The tagline for Romney's page is "Energy: Pro-Jobs, Pro-Market, Pro-American" and his platform focuses on the economic and industrial side of the energy issue. The headers of Romney's energy platform are simply, "Obama's Failure" and "Mitt's Plan".
According to the Romney camp, "the first three years of the Obama administration have witnessed energy and environmental policies that have stifled the domestic energy sector. In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the President and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance curtail growth, and kill jobs" (Source: mittromney.com).
The Romney spin on the investments made into alternative energy is that "the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, [and] it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touring its creation of "green" jobs...the "green" technologies are typically far too expensive to compete in the marketplace".
Once finished the obligatory bashing of the other side, "Mitt's Plan" boils down to bulleted points under bolded goals of "Significant Regulatory Reform", "Increasing Production", and "Research and Development".
After reading his plan, Romney seems to be in the Cornucopian camp of environmentalists, and seems to have no thought that our planet is a finite resource. If Obama's platform wanted to keep voters feeling warm and fuzzy about the American environmental future, Romney would rather his voters not even consider that we might have environmental issues. He makes no mention of greenhouse gases, or climate change - barely even uses the word environment outside of his attack on Obama and in regard to ensuring environmental laws account for cost.
The Verdict
In truth, it would be hard for environmentalists in most camps to support either energy platform. Neither candidate puts emphasis on the environmental challenges we face as a nation or global community, and neither candidate recognizes the stark immediacy of the degradation threat.
If Obama's platform is disappointing in its references to our actual environmental state, Romney's cornucopian, market liberalist platform is terrifying. Under his "Significant Regulatory Reform" heading, he is planning to "Amend the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview".
Carbon emissions are, as I am coming to understand it, one of the most significant and alarming factors contributing to climate change. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million that currently sits at 387ppm is warming that planet, and it is rising (Source: A Safe Operating Space for Humanity, 2009, Johan Rockstrom). So far it seems that the "safe" proposed boundary to draw back down to is around 350ppm, though the pre-industrial number is 280ppm; that is, before humans were around, 280ppm was the planet's natural balance.
The planet is already above the proposed "safe" boundary, and Romney's planned removal of carbon dioxide from the Clean Air Act is certainly not going to slow down carbon dioxide emissions.
On November 6th, the American public will decide who leads them for the next four years. If the planet earth were given a vote, I don't think she would pick either candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment