I was very interested to watch the Vice Presidential debates that took place on Friday October 3rd so that I could hear what Vice Presidential hopeful Sara Palin had to say about her (and McCain's) stance on American energy security and independence.
There were several points that Palin and Biden differed on regarding energy security and independence, but the fundamental difference between the two became apparent when Palin stated that "we" did not know what caused the global greenhouse affect and climate changes. Biden was firm in his response that if we don't know what is causing the problem, then we have no means of fixing it. He emphasized that the changes we are experiencing globally are man made, and gave some examples to solidify his point.
As Biden stated, some countries like China are building dirty coal burning plants every week. This may be an example of what not to do to cause further damage to the environment, but there are many other countries, the United States included that add to global pollution. We continue to damage to the environment by driving gas powered vehicles and allowing industry to pollute our waters and atmosphere. The fact that we have the ability to use alternate forms of energy, but neglect to do so in many cases makes us as culpable as any other industrialized nation in adding to global warming.
Biden clearly understands what needs to be done to slow the effects of global warming. Palin, who states she does not know what causes global warming cannot provide a solution to the problem because she does not understand the problem.
Palin fails to address alternative forms of energy. She feels that "safe, environmentally-friendly" off-shore drilling is the answer to energy independence. How is off-shore drilling safe for the environment when the product and by-products of what is drilled will continue to damage the environment? Oil will not sustain the country indefinitely because it is a fossil fuel that will eventually run out. Biden also points out that McCain has voted numerous times against funding for alternative energy sources. The Republican's stance is further punctuated by Palin's advocacy for off-shore drilling.
After watching the debate it became evident to me that Palin not only lacks the experience to understand the issues surrounding energy security and independence, but lacks the vision to see to the future. Biden clearly has a greater understanding of what America needs to do to facilitate the right kind of change to promote environmentally friendly and safe energy security and independence in this country.
Fiona Bowie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In regards to Biden's comments about China's dirty coal burning plants - Biden is trying to illustrate that if we come to the forefront of clean coal technology, we will have something valuable to export to China. In this discussion and discussions about alternative energy development, he is making an economic argument that we can become strong exporters of energy technology, which will strengthen our economy. To me, this is one of the best reasons, besides all of the logical ones related to energy independence & security like cost, sustainability, safety,environmental impact, etc., that seems to be least talked about. I also think it would contribute to a better view of the US internationally, if we are offering the world better energy. I think that when we talk about drilling offshore, it has the opposite effect, giving the world the idea that we just don't get it, and/or we just don't care, a message they've been getting alot of lately. Focusing on better energy as a nation could be an important part of changing how the world sees us, while at the same time providing economic stimulus and strength.
Heather Wegan
Heather's comment is interesting. Can we turn our dependence on energy into a strength using our knowledge for a more efficient and cleaner energy technology/policy which will be in demand in places in developing world in years to come? I wonder who is the world's leading power in renewable energy.
I agree with this comment, it would help strengthen our economy if we could export clean energy to other countries. However, I can't help but think that it would be ideal if China could produce their own clean energy. It would be improbable that the United States could export enough energy to sustain China while maintaining our own energy needs, so China would likely continue to depend on "dirty" coal burning plants to supplement the energy they imported.
Fiona Bowie
How much energy, or energy technology is exported is only icing on the cake. Simply not importing is the main economic force, in the end. We have our own market for energy.
Also, though, China is exporting more renewable energy technology than other countries (ie, windmills), and doesn't seem to be grappling with whether or not the countries they are exporting to should be producing their own windmills. I can't imagine that, should everyone want to get their windmills from China, that China would mind. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to find a way to supply the world.
If the US is the leader in green energy, both in production and technology, we will have a better economic position in the world. This may lead to other countries developing better energy technology at a faster rate than they already are, and perhaps, one day, each country will be truly energy self-sufficient.
Since each country does have it's own consumers of energy, and renewable energy can be produced in each country, if the technology is there, it is possible this would happen, and the growth of renewable energy industry should be supported with good, country by country data on how much energy is needed. But right now, we could grow our renewable energy industry much larger than it is without much risk anytime soon.
Then the question becomes, who will accept our renewable energy products, and who will choose to stay behind, or develop their own industry, rather than support our economic growth?
I think that's where the quality of our diplomatic relationships will make a huge difference. If we have an administration with a liberal perspective, that believes in promoting and securing our place in the world by means of diplomacy, I think we will have a wide market. If we have one with a realist perspective, that believes we should promote and secure our place in the world through activities like preemptive, or, as it turns out in Iraq, preventive warfare, we are going to limit our market, and perhaps even motivate our adverseris to band together in their own renewable energy coalition.
One of the larger, more developed states may utterly dominate that coalition, in the way I am proposing we dominate, and we may find ourselves in a bi-polar balance of power. This may, however, not come without the price of war that is most likely to occur during the point of power transition from our current hegemony (If other factors, such as our economy!, don't bring that about first, anyway, before we can stabilize it through the growth of this energy industry of which I speak).
One could argue that this may happen no matter how wonderful our diplomatic relations are, and I would have to agree... But it seems to me that we will have more allies if we are pro-diplomatic, and there will be a better chance for peace.
- Heather Wegan
Post a Comment