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:

¹http://www.capewind.org/article24.htm

²http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/why-solyndra-failed-and-the-doe-loan-program-is-next/8396

³http://aboutmittromney.com/energy.htm

http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/climate_change/obama_administrations_carbon_cap_and_trade_program.cfm

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/25950/congressional_war_on_epa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Environment