Wednesday, July 18, 2012

My Vision for the Next 100 Years on Earth


This article will discuss future woes that will inevitably become a reality in our society. The supporting evidence that I will use in this article will be strong and respectable scientific evidence.  Believe me when I tell you that I am not alone about the thoughts that I will bring forth. As they say, history tends to repeat itself. Scholars and I believe that what you are about to read, may very well happen. It is not a matter of if, but rather a matter of when.

The world is changing, there is no doubt about it. The United States, the most influential nation in the world, is once again at the forefront of the current changes and will be leading (along with other powerhouse nations such as China and Russia) the future changes. Over the last 200 years, the human race has gone from what some would call prehistoric, due to the unimaginable lack of technology, to an "advanced race".  We travelled to the moon, planes practically fly themselves, technology is advancing each day, and there are 7 billion people and counting. But everything hasn't always been so peachy sounding, nor will it in the future. Those alive today, along with future generations, face a dark and dismal future filled with war, famine, disease and a potential economic collapse due to corruption and globalization of monopolistic corporations.

One of the worst dilemmas that the world faces today is the energy need of the future.  Scientists at Oxford speculate that we will deplete global oil supplies in about 40 years (2052), give or take, at our current rate of extraction and consumption (OPEC).  In addition to that statistic, Oxford also estimates that oil demand will exceed oil supply, globally, in 2015.  It is sad to see that Governor Romney and his billionaire oil-tycoon energy advisor, Harold Hamm, are pushing for increased use and production of U.S. Made oil.  This action, if pursued by Romney, given he wins the presidential election in November, will put the United States and the world in a position that may increase global consumption and production of oil bringing the 2052 point much sooner.  It is time to start deviating from the tradition methods of creating energy for the world; with our backs up against the wall, and only 3 years or so until demand exceeds supply, we have no time to waste…we must start heavily investing in alternative energy sources. 

Getting back on track, after 2050, when all oil deposits are depleted of their resources, I speculate that the United States, and most of the world, will only start to begin the process of mass producing alternative energy sources to supply our nation and world with energy.  As we have seen in the past, society tends to wait until it is too late to act on whatever the problem is; in this case it is energy.  With information such as that presented by Oxford, we have yet to see a major push for alternative energy in the Untied States, or the world, that would indicate a societal and governmental change in the way that we view obtaining energy. 

As we have seen in the last two decades, whether some want to believe it or not, there have been global wars for natural resources, namely oil.  The United States has created a significant presence in the Middle East starting with President George H. W. Bush and continuing until today.  I see this as a tactical move for the future.  Within the next 50 years, as oil supplies approach depletion, the United States will be in the perfect position to acquire the worlds largest oil deposit.  With thousands of troops in the region, and the thousands more that will mostly likely be deployed there over the years, we will have a military presence capable of defending the natural resources available.  As stated in the beginning of this article, I mentioned that there will be wars fought over resources; the Oil War, as I like to think of it, will be the first of their kind.  It will not be the United States against the nations that make up the Middle East, no.  This will be a global war comprising of two groups, the United States and its allies (most likely the EU nations, NATO nations, etc) versus Russia and its known allies, and the soon to be allies of Russia.  The end result will be the war ending when the oil is gone.  If ended prior to that point, there will be one side who will have the oil and the remaining countries will become oil-less. 

Oil always has, and always will be (until it is gone) the driving force of the global economy.  No nation on Earth can currently sustain itself without oil.  I believe there will be select countries that will realize the severity of the situation and act in a way that will set them up to succeed and survive the issues ahead of us.  Already, nations in Scandinavia, Europe and Asia are taking the necessary steps and starting the transition towards a sustainable alternative energy fueled nation.  Most of the residencies in states such as Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Finland are heated by means of geo-thermal energy, using the Earth’s emitted heat to warm their water and houses.  The Netherlands is using tidal power and wind power to fuel much of their country.  China is investing billions of dollars a year to fund the research and development of solar panels as they try and strive away from one of their current major sources of power, coal.  But what do we see in America, no action and only the criticism of those who are trying to lobby for this action.  The first attempt by President Obama to follow in China’s footsteps by subsidizing the solar panel manufacturer, Solyndra, ended in the company ultimately filing for bankruptcy.  This should in no way discourage Congress or the public from progressing in this direction.  Success cannot come without failure.  One way or another, we will have to make the transition to a total alternative energy driven nation.  This WILL happen within the next 100 years. 

The location and resources available in our nation are immense; we have thousands of miles of coastline that can be used for tidal and wind energy, millions of acres of open land in the mid-west for solar energy and the entire country has the ability to support geothermal energy.  In addition to this, the United States has arguably the best and most advanced technology to support new nuclear power plants, which can essentially replace oil as the largest supplier of energy.  Unfortunately, nuclear energy may be a non-renewable resource itself, as we do not know how much uranium is available on Earth.  Our nation has the ability to successfully invest in every type of alternative energy to power our nation, our houses, our cars and every other energy-requiring object.  The first steps are always the hardest, but we must take them. 

In accordance with the energy need of the future and our current way of acquiring energy (through the use of fossil fuels), climate change will eventually reach a tipping point and the consequences will be devastating.  Currently, carbon dioxide is the target emission that governments around the world are trying to reduce and eliminate in an effort to combat and possibly reverse the current state of climate change.  Scientists dispute the “tipping point” at which we will see irreversible changes to our environment and climates.  Some say that 450ppm (ppm, or parts per million, being the measurement at which carbon is measured in the atmosphere) is the maximum amount of carbon before all Hell breaks loose.  Others, such as 350.org, are suggesting that 350ppm was the tipping point.  We are now hovering above 395ppm, according to, co2now.org.  Regardless of what the tipping point is, scientists have no way of determining what it might be and what the consequences will be once we reach it.  Whether or not we passed it or are rapidly closing in on it, the climate is changing and with each year that passes, we are noticing more extreme weather and are recording startling levels in sea-level rise, global temperature and their effects on the Earth and society. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, mankind, due to the burning of coal and fossil fuels, has risen carbon dioxide levels more than 100 ppm.  The last time that carbon levels were this high was more than 15 million years ago (Wolpert).  So in essence, in 200 years, we have been able to raise carbon levels in ways that it took the natural world millions of years to do – round of applause to mankind!  It is a known and accepted fact among scientists that carbon dioxide in a greenhouse gas.  A greenhouse gas is a gas that has the ability to trap heat transmitted from the sun and reflected off of the Earth’s surface in the atmosphere.  A major argument among Global Warming non-believers is whether or not carbon dioxide causes global warming.  While it is not the only contributor, carbon is one of the largest, especially today at the rate it is being emitted into the atmosphere.  Just like oxygen and water, carbon has the ability to retain heat at higher levels than oxygen, and methane is 20 times better at retaining heat than carbon ("Methane…”).  So the ability of carbon to retain heat is real and it is happening.  With more carbon added into the atmosphere (carbon levels are rising at an average of 2ppm per year) more heat in being trapped in the atmosphere causing average global temperatures to increase – the Greenhouse Effect.  Unfortunately, due to the rise in global temperature, scientists believe this is the direct cause of the extreme weather and rise in sea level seen over the past 100 or so years. 

At current rates, we will surpass the “tipping point” of 450 ppm years before the estimated oil depletion year.  In the future, due to extreme carbon dioxide levels, the earth is supposed to warm up anywhere from 3-7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50-100 years (Blaine).  Whether it is 3 or 7 degrees, or somewhere in between, a one-degree increase over the last 100 years ("Future Climate Change…”) has caused mass glacial melting, which in turn has caused sea levels to rise 4-10 inches – varying due to location – ("Climate Change Over…”).  In addition to sea level rise, the amount and magnitude of weather anomalies’ has drastically increased; we have seen stronger tropical storms more frequently, which have taken countless lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.  If the estimated increase in global temperature happens (some sort of increase will happen), we can expect to see a partial, to total melting of the Antarctic, Greenland and other glacial caps.  On July 18, 2012, the Huffington Post reported that the Petermann Ice Cap in Greenland broke off into the ocean.  This piece of ice is double the size of Manhattan (Borenstein); this is yet another example of ice cap depletion which may have consequences on humans around the world.  If we were to lose both of these ice caps, global sea level is estimated to rise two feet globally, which will essentially put many island nations, such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, under water, displacing millions of people from their homes and forcing them to relocate elsewhere in the world.  Aside from that threat, here in the U.S., New Orleans will no longer be inhabitable; much of Florida and Manhattan will also be under water.  Simply put, maps will have to be redone and the face of the Earth will be forever changed.  What are now the beaches of the United States will be underwater and those who lived miles from the ocean may have beachfront real estate.  With 44% of the worlds population (or 3 billion people) living within 150km of the ocean ("UN Atlas…”), by the end of the century, we may see close to 1 billion environmental refugees due to sea level rise.  That means 1 billion, or more, people whose home are underwater and have nowhere to go.  Many of these people will most likely relocate to urban centers inland as the coastal metropolises will be uninhabitable.  The most populated area in the world that will be effected by this the most is South East Asia, specifically China and India.  Just over 1/3 of the world’s population lives in these two nations (Exner) with most living in cities such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, Calcutta, Mumbai and Kochi – all of which are cities only a few miles from the ocean. 

So far, the future isn’t looking so bright.

Global Warming is directly related to, but not the only cause of, Climate Change.  Many believe these two terms to be the same, when they are in fact very much different.  The process of global warming affects the systems that make up climate change.  One of the better-known examples is the melting of the ice caps, which releases freshwater into the oceans.  Our oceans are driven by a system called thermo-haline circulation, which is a mixture of salinity (saltiness) and the temperature of the water – an example: Hot water rises, cold water sink and saltier (denser) water sinks and less salty (less dense) water rises.  This system creates our oceans currents and creates the atmospheric climates that define our world.  With the addition of freshwater, salinity is directly affected which throws off ocean currents, the main driver of global climate.  Over the past decade, we have seen extreme weather differentials in the U.S. and all over the world.  Summers tend to be getting warmer, winters are mostly getting colder, droughts are becoming more prevalent and extreme and what were once temperate climates (The Mid Atlantic Area and North) and are becoming more like tropical regions for longer amounts of time out of the year. 

Over the past few months, as a result of drought and climate change, thousands of towns across the country have broke temperature records, and we are currently experiencing one of the worst, if not the worst drought in our history.  “The U.S. Department of Agriculture has recently named over 1000 counties in 26 states as disaster areas – the largest declaration in history – as a result of the recent drought, wildfires and other extreme weather events” as former Vice President, Al Gore, put it on his website (Gore).  These types of phenomenon are not being seen in the United States alone; extreme weather has affected almost every region of the world in the past five years, and it is only getting worse.  According to the University College of London, almost all of the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing extreme droughts that have drastic consequences on the local regions (University).  Fresh water resources in Asia and Africa have evaporated leaving millions of people with little freshwater, people are starving because their crops and livestock are dying and the shear heat that is overcoming these nations is hot enough to kill. 


As stated earlier, climate change is partly occurring as a result of a disruption in the thermo-haline circulation system.  Over the next 100 years, with the Earth’s global temperature set to raise more anywhere from 3-7 degrees, with the most extreme temperature increases occurring in the polar regions, we can expect to see a total melting of glacial ice releasing billions of gallons of freshwater into the oceans which will not only raise sea level drastically, but it can possibly shut down the system that drives our global climate.  Now this shutting down of the thermo-haline circulation system will most likely not occur immediately, but with most or all of the glacial water in the oceans, it will only be a matter of time before we start seeing drastic global climate change.  The changes that we will inevitably face will force all of humanity to adapt to the new ways of life that will come as a result of climate change.


 This is a figure of the average temperature increases until the end of the century. The rows (left to right) go from the year 2011-2100.  Row 1 (Top) represents the best case scenario, Row 2 (Middle) Represents the expected increase and Row 3 (Bottom) represents the worst case scenario.  

With oil, global warming and climate change all serious threats, arguably the most severe issue that humans face in the next 100 years, is the decreasing access to freshwater.  Water is essential for all life - humans, animals and vegetation.  Without water, life as we know it would most likely not exist on this planet.  Although over 70% of the world’s surface is covered in water, less that 3% of it is fresh water.  According to National Geographic, of all of the freshwater that is on Earth, only .007% of it is accessible and drinkable for the 7 billion people living on Earth ("Clean Water Crisis...”). 

The most essential element of life is also one of the hardest to access, which will become a larger and more serious issue in the next 100 years, as our population is most likely going to exponentially grow.  Our population is expected to grow to 10 billion or more people by the end of the century ("Global population …”).  This issue directly affects the current and future global water issue as well as the ensuing food crisis that many nations around the world are already facing.  There is already famine killing millions of people each year; with a drastic population increase within the next 100 years, our already unstable food supply will undergo growing pressure to feed more people than it is capable of.  With only 7 billion people on the Earth at the moment, more and more forests and farmland are already getting destroyed in order to support the ever-growing population.  Within the next 100 years, we may no longer see the our planet from space as a blue and green, but more or less a blue and brown planet with lights covering every corner of the Earth.  With this being said, we will see the second and third natural resources wars, the Water War and the Food War. 

The issue at hand, that will ultimately decide the future of mankind is not the state of the economy, or who is the strongest nation, no.  The issue that is constantly under minded and ignored, but is the most threatening to our species is the status and stability of the environment and ecosystem.  My vision is in no way exaggerated or dramatic, it is actually supported by many of the worlds leading scientists and politicians.  Unfortunately, the issues of global warming, climate change and overpopulation draw harsh criticism from people who are fed false information.  Hundreds of billions of dollars per year are spent on advertising to brainwashing information in an attempt to persuade the public that global warming is a hoax, or that climate change is not real, or that our future is looking peachy and that everyone will have food (or only Americans considering it is mostly American corporations that monopolize the global food industry) so that the value of their company does not decrease and so their annual profit reports continue to break records.  The fact that our own politicians, the ones that we elect and who swear under oath to protect and serve the civilians of the nation and who are the same ones protecting these companies and special interest groups, should make you cringe. 

Those who realize this corruption that we call Congress and the natural resources industry are often labeled as “green freaks” or “eco freaks” because of the opposition that they show towards these corporations and people who are single handedly destroying our world now, and the future that our children will live in.  I fear for those who will be alive in the next 100 years.  It will in no way be a world that I would want to live in.  It will be a world filled with war, not because of political differences, but in an effort to survive.  Natural resources, water and food are already scarce, but will only become less available.  Global warming will raise sea level in ways that will flood most of the metropolitan areas of the world forcing billions of people to become environmental refugees.  In addition to the billions who will become refugees, there may be billions of people who will lose their lives due to global epidemics that will rapidly spread, lack of clean water for drinking and hygiene and the fact that a majority of the world population will no longer be able to eat. 

With the exception of the worlds richest nations (America, China and a few European countries) what was just said will affect the rest of the nations.  What are now our allies will become our enemies as we fight to acquire the remaining natural resources such as oil, water and food. 

I, along with millions of people, have been laughed at for caring about the environment.  Unfortunately, most nations outside of the United States do care about the environment and make it a government responsibility to ensure the environment recovers and stays in a stable state.  We have had to make sacrifices for the health of humanity and the environment before in the cases of chlorofluorocarbons (or CFC’s; a chemical used in aerosols that was a factor in the deterioration of the ozone layer) and lead.  Within a few years, most of the global community rid of the use of all CFC’s and lead in paints and fuel; not too long after that, we saw a recovery of the ozone layer and a decrease in lead concentrations in the atmosphere, as well as lead-attributed illnesses.  There is no reason that this same philosophy could not be applied in the carbon dioxide and fossil fuel issue.  Actually, there is – the Oil industry and those who protect it.  Unless we make a change to the way our governments protect and view the oil industry and start to heavily regulate carbon dioxide levels and fossil fuel use, and start to transition to renewable energy, my vision of the future can and will happen.  The United States is the strongest and most influential nation in the world, but with the political polarization that we have in our nation, it will take a drastic change and restructuring of our government and the views of a certain political party (including its public constituency) to realize that we must change our ways. 

For those who believe that environmentalism is a joke and that climate change or global warming are not real, or that humans are in no way contributing to global warming, wake up.  You are the same people that will utterly destroy our planet.  Science has proven that the combustion of fossil fuels release carbon dioxide.  Science has proven that carbon dioxide traps heat and finally, science has proven that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun causing global temperature to rise.  Global warming and climate change are very real and are occurring right in front of our eyes. 

For those who do not believe that a stable and healthy environment create a stable and health economy, also need to wake up.  We have seen that natural disasters such as tropical cyclones, mudslides and tornadoes’, as well as other natural disaster, have not only caused millions of lives throughout history, but it has also caused national and global economies to plummet - Hurricane Katrina did it in 2005.  With an unstable and climate change-prone environment, strong tropical storms, heavy rains, droughts and more natural phenomena will continue to occur.  Without healthy crops and livestock, our market prices will skyrocket, as we are seeing now with the drought that is sweeping the United States. 

Some have forgotten that the fossil fuels debate is just as much of an environmental issue, as it is an economic issue, if not more.  It was the natural world that developed the fuel that we use every day.  Without the millions of years that it took to create the oil, coal and natural gas, there would be no fossil fuels here.  We only started heavily using these resources less than 200 years ago at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and it will have only taken 300 years to deplete the oil deposits, and possibly the natural gas deposits as well. 

I believe that this future will happen, although I believe it is possibly preventable.  It will take drastic changes to global government priorities and it will most definitely upset many people who have special interests in certain industries.  There is no longer time for political debates on issues such as carbon emissions and global warming because the science is there and for the most part it is universally accepted.  To prevent the apocalyptic possibilities that may very well become the reality of our future, we must significantly decrease carbon emissions, ultimately eliminating them within the next few years.  Oil extraction and use must eventually stop within the next few years, as oil combustion is the leading carbon emitting source caused by man.  All developed nations, since they are the ones that use the majority of carbon emitting fuels, must start the permanent transition to renewable energies, such as nuclear energy, solar energy, hydro-electric energy, wind energy, etc.  And finally, the technology to sequester carbon from the atmosphere must be used.  While this may not completely reverse the unimaginable damage that humans have already caused to the environment, it may possibly slow down climate change systems. 

The inevitable fact that population increases will occur is another issue.  I unfortunately believe that more countries will adopt the same policies that China has on how many children a family may have in an attempt to control global populations.  With population growing as fast as it is, this may be the only temporary solution for the next 100 years until another there is better technology to care for and feed the billions of people that are expected to inhabit the Earth by the end of the century. 

This is our only home; we know of no other places in our universe that we can get to which can support our way of life.  So this is what we have.  We need to realize that the Earth was here billions of years before us and it will be here billions of years after us.  99% of all species that have lived on Earth have become extinct; with the current path that we are on, we may very well join that statistic.  We are a part of nature, as is every other living thing on this planet.  We abuse the resources that the Earth produces for us to live off of and show it no respect back.  I hope for the sake of our lives, our children’s lives, and for the future generations, that we change the way we currently live life and treat our environment.  To leave a dead and unstable environment as our legacy is not something that I want to be remembered for, and you shouldn’t either.  Again, everything that I said is not bogus material, it is scientific facts that will happen.  I do not want to live in a world consisting of global wars, billions dead and environmental disasters because we are too stubborn to stop emitting increasing levels of carbon and cutting use of fossil fuels. 

This is my letter to you all, to warn you about the future world that you and your future generations will live in if we do not change our current ways.  It is bleak, grim and disturbing.  I fear for us all, for our lives, for humanity and for all life on Earth that there may no longer be life past the end of the century.  But, if we change our ways of life, and follow the steps that I discussed, we may still have time to halt our damage and begin to reverse that damage that we have done.  It is up to us to decide our own future…what will you do? 


Works Cited:

Blaine, Thomas. "Global Climate Change, CDFS-186-96." Ohioline. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0186.html>.
Borenstein, Seth. "Petermann Glacier In Greenland Breaks Off Iceberg Twice The Size Of Manhattan." Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/greenlands-petermann-glacier-iceberg_n_1682463.html>.
"CO2 Now | CO2 Home." CO2 Now | CO2 Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://co2now.org/>.
"CO2 and Heat-Trapping Gases FAQ | Union of Concerned Scientists." UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions | Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html>.
"Clean Water Crisis, Water Crisis Facts, Water Crisis Resources - National Geographic." National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/>.
"Climate Change Over the Last 100 Years." Welcome To The White House. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://clinton5.nara.gov/Initiatives/Climate/last100.html>.
Exner, Rich. "36 percent of world's population lives in China and India: Sunday's Numbers | cleveland.com." Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather - cleveland.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/07/36_percent_of_worlds_populatio.html>.
"Future Climate Change | Climate Change | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealevel>.
Gore, Al . "Al's Journal." Al's Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://blog.algore.com/>.
"Global population to pass 10 billion by 2100, UN projections indicate." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38253>.
"Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://www.epa.gov/methane/>.
OPEC. "OPEC." World Oil Outlook 2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2012.
<www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_201
"UN Atlas: 44 percent of us live in coastal areas « Coastal Challenges . com." Coastal Challenges . com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://coastalchallenges.com/2010/01/31/un-atlas-60-of-us-live-in-the-coastal-areas/>.
University College London. "Drought Monitor." Global Drought Monitor. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://drought.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/drought.html?map=%2Fwww%2Fdrought%2Fweb_pages%2Fdrought.map&program=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmapserv&root=%2Fwww%2Fdrought2%2F&map_web_imagepath=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_imageurl=%2Ftmp%2F&map_web_template=%2Fdrought.html>.
Wolpert, Stuart. "Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago,
scientists report / UCLA Newsroom." UCLA Newsroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2012. <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-111074.aspx>.



Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Environmental Policy: Obama vs. Romney


With November only a few months away, tensions between the two presidential hopefuls are higher than ever.  The discussions of jobs reports, economic woes, and healthcare have rapidly become the more popular issues that have been highlighted over the past few months.  Something that is touched upon by both candidates is environmental policy and climate policy.  Under these two categories are, but not limited to: energy, emissions, sustainability, regulations and, of course, the economy.

Barack Obama

Taking it back to the 2008 campaign season, President Obama placed a heavy emphasis on his concern about climate change and his aspirations to become a nation that would eventually lead the global fight against global warming and climate change.  After his win in the 2008 election, one of his first signed bills was a cap-and-trade on carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States.  His hope was to have atmospheric carbon levels down 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.  Since this bill was signed into effect, there has been very little action by the President or Congress on climate change, since most of their attention quickly shifted to the troubled economy and the healthcare debate that carried on for over two years. 

Still, President Obama has mentioned climate change many times since 2008.  He sees the future of America as a more sustainable nation with less dependency on foreign oil and a nation able to invest in alternative energy.  In his 2012 State of the Union address, he proposed an “All of the Above” strategy for American energy production. The President literally meant “all of the above” as we would begin to research in the possibility of utilizing American-made oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, wind energy, solar energy, biofuel, etc. 

While the president has already taken on step in the right direction with his cap-and-trade bill, there are still miles that need to be walked.  Some with certain political mindsets often frown upon environmental policy and environmental regulation; regulations in general are referred to as “Job Killers” given their tendency to create restrictions on certain businesses.  In the environmental industry, regulations, such as the carbon cap-and-trade, are said to create inabilities on the oil and energy industry and will eventually force those companies abroad.  This may be true in some senses, but the end result is a necessary move to begin lowering not only our nations carbon footprint, but as well as our nitrogen footprint and our (insert greenhouse gas) footprint. 

President Obama has made his vision and want for alternative energy clear.  He has stated that he wants to take the billions of dollars in government subsidies away from Big Oil and direct that money to the alternative energy industry.  His first attempt with the solar panel company Solyndra did not turn out as anyone had hoped or expected, but it did give the administration something to fix and build off of for the future.  Hopefully the government and our public can take the positives out of this attempt to create green jobs and energy and not let anyone get discouraged about trying to do this again.  Government support in alternative energy is nothing new, in fact China lends billions of dollars to different companies each year with the hope that they will be able to create alternative energy systems to lower their national energy costs.  While some thought of the $535 million that the U.S. granted Solyndra as high, it was mere chump change compared to the more than $20 billion that China granted their domestic companies.2 This was an admirable attempt by the President, and a necessary on at that.  Each year, billions of dollars are given to Big Oil through subsidies; these same companies are the ones who are recording record profits in a so-called “struggling economy”.  The idea of taking that money and applying it to the future of American energy is something that we should commend our current government for doing. 

With that being said, many in the government quickly turned on the President after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy.  That hasn’t stopped the President, or his colleagues in the Democratic Party, from attempting to once again fund alternative energy research. 

Aside from these examples, the Obama Administration has used the EPA as a tool to regulate our environment.  Oddly enough, the EPA was founded under President Richard Nixon, a republican.  Once established presidents have worked with the EPA to establish laws that would regulate the water and air, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.  As a bipartisan creation, neither party had an issue with the necessary regulation of the air and water.  Decades later, this agency has become a target of scrutiny due to its funding and regulatory duties. 

Under President Obama, our government has been in gridlock with virtually nothing getting passed, at least not without national controversy.  It is a shame to see our environment, something that affects all of us, become a political bargaining tool.  As something that we abuse for its resources, for pleasure and for growth, we tend to show it no respect at all.  If President Obama is reelected, it will be interesting to see what elements of the climate change debate that he will bring forth.  The talk of climate change, energy or global warming hasn’t really been discussed that much during his campaigning...yet.  I expect that over the next few months, he will be much more vocal about these subjects as we are starting to see rising gas prices again and as our nation is experiencing extreme weather that has caused billions in damage and has even cost some their lives.  Information about President Obama’s next “First 100 Days” in his potential second-term has come out and what his priorities will be.  He has made a commitment to once again prioritizing climate change on his list of goals now that the economy is slowly, but surely, becoming better and that his Healthcare Bill was passed.  


Mitt Romney

Governor Romney is a strong presidential candidate and has just as good of a chance at becoming president as President Obama (they are virtually tied in almost every poll taken).  Romney, unlike his former GOP-nominee opponents, actually acknowledges global warming and climate change as real threats.  He also expressed his belief that humans have an active role in climate change, but he doesn’t know how much.  With the realization that we need to act on climate change, Mitt Romney’s vision of environmental policy is drastically different than President Obama. 

Romney has stated that he believes in oil, natural gas and coal as the future of American energy – as well as placing a slight emphasis on alternative energy needs.  He has stated that he plans to utilize that Marcellus Shale for natural gas, our nations abundant coal supply as well as opening up federal lands for oil drilling such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska (ANWR), the Gulf of Mexico and our outer continental shelves.  He also says that on Day 1 in office he will approve the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.  This project aims to unite the Canadian Tar Sands (rich in oil) with the Gulf of Mexico with an oil pipeline that will cut across the middle part of the country potentially putting not only wildlife at risk, but also the Ogallala Aquifer, our nations largest supply of underground freshwater.  A spill or leak in the pipeline would wreak havoc on the ecosystem and will kill a vast amount of wildlife as well as potentially polluting the Aquifer deeming it unusable. 

Romney is very much against the Environmental Protection Agency as well as its ability to regulate environmental issues that have economic impacts.  He believes that the EPA is using government money in “onerous”3 ways that is placing a burden on the economy and destroying jobs, specifically their regulations against CO2; to Romney, the cap-and-trade system that President Obama signed into effect restricts job growth as well as economic growth.  Immediately after that claim, he goes on to express his interest in clean coal as well as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.  Fracking is a process that uses vast amounts of freshwater, mixed with over 600 chemicals to break apart shale rock, which releases natural gas that can be acquired for use.  President Obama has not acted on this topic yet, meaning he has not prohibited it, but he has also not said that he favors the current methods.  He acknowledged, in his 2012 State of the Union address, the need for better methods of acquiring the gas after reports of gas and other chemicals contaminating local water sources, which has caused public health issues. 

The Solyndra issue has been a tool that Romney has tried to use against Obama calling him “irresponsible and unethical” for his attempts to subsidize the company in an effort to create sustainable energy.  Although he criticizes the president, he has stated that he wants to fund research and technology to produce alternative energy…the same thing that Obama tried to do. 

While in office as the governor of Massachusetts, Romney was faced with one of the most recent attempts at establishing modern alternative energy through an offshore wind farm called Cape Wind.  This project was due to create a number of wind mills a few miles off of Cape Cod which was due to generate “420 megawatts of clean, renewable energy.”1 Romney shot down this proposal due to the aesthetic inconvenience that it would create for the locals and vacation-goers of the town.  This project would not only create an ample amount of power to a region with “the highest energy costs in the country” as Romney put it, but it would also create close to 1,000 jobs as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 734,000 tons per year.1 In addition, besides creating enough power that is equivalent to 113 million gallons of oil, it would reduce electric market prices in the region by $4 billion over a 25-year span.1 


Overview and My Take:

After comparing and contrasting the two presidential nominees, their views are as such:

Obama wants an “All of the Above” approach that will include all types of energy with a heavy emphasis on alternative energy sources.  He wants the subsidization of corporations’ that are progressing the alternative energy front instead of the current subsidies that we are giving to the oil industry.  He wants regulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in an effort to reduce levels by 2020.  He wants the protection of federal lands from oil production and he has yet to publicize his stance on fracking. 

Romney wants a similar approach to Obama.  If there is one thing that the two nominees agree on it is the necessity of alternative energies in the future.  Unlike the President, Romney wants to cut the regulations against “job creating companies such as the oil industry” as they tend to create economic strain.  He wants to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, open up federal lands such as ANWR for oil drilling as well as offshore drilling.  He wants to subsidize alternative energy companies.  He wants to heavily utilize all fossil fuel resources that we have here in America.  This means the full production of natural gas through fracking, coal burning power plants and oil refineries, but in a less polluting way. 

This is my stance on the two nominees, and I am open to comment and criticism on my views.  When it comes to the future of America and the future of our environment, President Obama’s goals heavily outweigh those of Mitt Romney.  Romney and the Republicans do not like regulation against the oil industry not because of the jobs that aren’t created (because there is the same amount of jobs if companies are only allowed to release “X” amount of carbon as opposed to releasing “Y” amount of carbon.  The oil companies are not complaining either because since Obama signed the bill into effect, oil companies have continuously recorded record profits, so they are not hurting as bad as some are saying.  Obama has already attempted to establish a subsidized alternative energy program.  Granted it did not turn out as expected, he is still utilizing more alternative energy sources.  Romeny shot down an alternative energy project that would create jobs, lower costs and create affordable, renewable power because of the aesthetic inconvenience that it put on the people of Cape Cod.  After seeing a picture of what the wind farms would look like from the shore, it is ridiculous that this project was not approved.  The windmills were so far out to sea that they were practically invisible to the naked eye.  I do not agree with the stance that Romney takes on the KXL Pipeline, while it may create some jobs, probably not as many jobs that some are saying, it still creates an extremely dangerous situation that could damage the vulnerable ecosystem, but it also endangers our national security.  Also, gas prices would not go down by that much, if at all.  In addition to those points, many scientists are in agreement that if those tar sands were to burn (which is how they would acquire the oil) it would create the tipping point of climate change due to the amount of carbon it would ultimately release into the atmosphere. 

Aside from all of this, I simply do not trust the Republican environmental policies anymore.  Up until President George W. Bush, I saw bipartisan efforts when it came to environmental policies.  Since then that party has developed a strong hate towards an agency that they helped develop and mostly created on their own (EPA), as well as turning on regulations and bills that their own party members established (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act).  Also, the fact that their main financial contributors and lobbyists are the some same companies that these regulations effect, is something to think about.  It makes me question their sincerity about actually creating strong environmental policy and Romney’s sincerity about exploring alternative energy sources, 1) after he turned down the Cape Wind project and, 2) because of the strong influence of the oil industry on the Republican Party.  Governor Romney's Energy Advisor is billionaire oil-tycoon, Harold Hamm.  Hamm is calling for more subsidies for oil companies which would in turn give him more money down the road.  This is also why I am positive that under Romney, we will not see the push for alternative energy that he has mentioned.  The oil industry, at that point, will have infiltrated the executive branch and will have the ability to directly influence Romney.  The last thing that Hamm or anyone in the oil, coal or natural gas industry wants to see, is subsidies taken from them and allocated to companies researching and manufacturing alternative energy sources.  Eventually, the demand for foreign and domestic oil will decrease and the industry will no longer make these record profits once alternative energy starts to make larger impacts on our nation. So, under Romney, with Hamm in the position that he will be in, there will most likely be no alternative energy expansion, at least not enough to make an impact on our power grid and national energy prices.  

It is a shame that our nation has become so politically polarized within the past 10 years.  Since 2008, it has become even worse, where no matter what the topic is, for better or worse, the opposing party will go against it just because the other proposed it.  In a perfect world, environmental policy, as well as all types of policy, should go back to the bipartisan efforts of the 1970’s.  Both parties were in unison when it came to establishing policy and federal agencies related to the environment.  As is now, that society had its back up against the wall with a changing climate, worsening environmental conditions and decreasing public health.  Today, it doesn’t matter what the benefits of alternative energy would be on our country or regulating carbon levels in an effort to start reducing our impact on the global climate (since we are the leading polluter in the world) or protecting our citizens against harmful chemicals in an effort to acquire natural gas.  None of that seems to matter anymore and those who try and fight to put those laws into effect get nowhere, they only receive criticism from the opposing party.  Our government has become corrupt.  Plain and simple.  Those in congress are paid off by corporations to become lobbyists within our own government and the oil industry is the biggest contributor to this mess.  They target the Republican Party and have turned them into their own puppets in an attempt to block any legislation that could possibly harm them financially, whether it is a corporate gains tax or a cap-and-trade system on carbon. 

If it were up to me, this would be my environmental policy as it relates to energy, regulation and the economy.  I would not use coal burning power plants; coal is the second worst carbon emitting fossil fuel next to petroleum.  As we have seen in Southeast Asia, specifically China, and just 100 years ago in America, coal is and was detrimental to the environment and to human health.  With coal out of the picture, those plants that were once used to burn coal can be transformed to fit alternative energy power plants such as biofuel, solar, etc.  Oil will still have a role in America, as we will just be in the beginning stages of moving to a fully alternative energy nation.  As the largest carbon contributor in the world, it is our job to lead the world in efforts to reduce carbon emissions.  At current levels, about 390ppm and rising about 2ppm per year, the quickest way to reduce levels is to eventually eliminate all emissions.  With oil supplies already low around the world, it is within the next 100 years that we will not have any and will be forced to find another source of energy.  I would rather act now rather than when we have no choice.  Utilizing ALL alternative energy sources is a necessity if we plan to have a strong future.  That means offshore wind farms along the seaboards, solar panels across the country, nuclear power plant usage, hydroelectric in our rivers, tidal power in Maine and elsewhere, and every other type of alternative power.  At some point in our near future, we will be forced to convert our entire nation to a sustainable alternative energy using society.  People say that by doing this, jobs will be lost, but it is quite the contrary.  Millions of jobs will be created over a short amount of time to create this infrastructure and it will in turn boost our economy.  THIS is the true future of America, not some fantasy. 

Simply put, President Obama has the better vision to achieve these goals now and Mitt Romney does not.  Some one once told me that a healthy environment creates a health economy and that the economy cannot survive with a deteriorating environment.  Globally, we are seeing a deteriorating environment, and while it may not be fully related, we are seeing a weakened global economy.  As the global leader in almost everything, we must take a stand and lead the other nations in global climate change and the sustainable future that will ultimately inhibit all of our lives.  But who will be the leader, will it be Mitt Romney or President Obama, or somebody else?  Only time will tell my friends. 


Sources: