Barack Obama is to be the 44th President of the United States. Obama won the majority of the popular vote and the majority of the electoral college by a landslide. It seems that the majority of Americans are looking for change in the way this country is governed and can identify with what Obama is saying and what he represents. While the economy is the main concern of most Americans, energy security and independence were important topics of both candidates' campaigns.
McCain's energy policies would likely not have been as environmentally friendly or as progressive as Obama's. Both candidates had some similarities in their policies, but overall Obama is more concerned with finding alternative sources of energy and decreasing emissions by a greater amount. McCain's reluctance to promise to provide a greater cap on industrial emissions was probably because he was hesitant to anger big business interests. McCain seemed to be following the standard Republican policies and his support of President Bush's policies on energy and the environment certainly did not help him garner support from the American people.
Four, or even eight years is not going to be enough time for Obama to completely turn the country in the right direction, but it will be a start. Hopefully, Obama will be able to make some positive changes in environmental and energy policy. There is environmental damage that needs repair and we need to institute preventative measures to keep from further damaging the planet. Energy policy needs to be environmentally friendly, but economically viable as well. Obama's win means hope and the opportunity for positive change for the United States.
Fiona Bowie
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Writer's Election's '08 Paper: Extended essay discussing each candidate's positions on energy security and independence policy, with added commentary
Energy Security & Independence: Obama vs. McCain
Barack Obama and John McCain both have a plentitude of information about their positions on energy security and independence available on their campaign websites, and there is also a self-proclaimed nonpartisan website, ontheissues.org, that details each of their positions on energy. Campaign websites offers a stylized presentation of their positions, while ontheissues.org offers potentially more candid interview responses, and further provides senatorial voting records and fact checks. From a combination of these resources, mixed in with some other resources from the blog and beyond, a fairly clear picture of each candidate’s positions on energy security and independence can be presented.
Obama and McCain’s stated differences of opinion on how to deal with oil dependence are actually fairly minimal. Both assert the notion that we must promote domestic oil supplies to create a drop in oil prices that are mutually perceived as unreasonably high. They both think that consumers should be compensated for the punishment high gas prices have inflected upon them, though Obama wants to achieve this through a windfall tax-funded cash rebate to consumers, while McCain has supported suspension of the highway fuel tax, which he has proposed be funded by the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.
They also both believe that the wealth transfer to hostile oil producing countries that dependence on foreign oil creates threatens our national security, though McCain puts more focus on his belief that the empowerment that our dependence gives these states is a threat to the balance of power.
They are in agreement not only in their belief that part of reducing oil dependence is creating decreased demand through incentives for the development, production and consumption of alternative fuels to power our transportation sector, but also in the auto-industry centric policies they would implement to achieve this goal, though subtle differences between them exist.
Additionally, they make a cognate “climate change” case for decreasing dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic, pointing to the role of fossil fuel dependency in creating the surplus greenhouse gases that have resulted in the melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts and storms, and disease migration, and agree that a cap and trade strategy will best foster a market change in this direction.
They further settle on the shared opinion that domestic natural gas production should be promoted through investments in infrastructure via the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to decrease dependence on oil, though McCain believes we should also lift the present moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, while Obama believes we should harvest unconventional shale supplies in Arkansas and Texas.
The most significant difference between the candidates on the issue of oil dependence lies in their belief of how domestic oil production should be promoted. Obama believes we should require oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land they currently have the leased right to drill on but aren’t, by forcing them to either develop the leases or surrender them to competing companies for development. He also believes we should look into the feasibility of accessing as much as 4 billion barrels of oil the U.S. Geological Survey indicates is available in Montana and North Dakota, as well as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Lastly, he believes we should promote enhanced oil recovery, which uses carbon dioxide to produce more oil from existing fields, through a carbon cap-and-trade bill that will provide incentives for emitters to send their carbon dioxide to existing fields for this process. He believes that development of this cap-and-trade industrial relationship between emitters and oil fields should be further supported by mapping carbon dioxide sources and creating a database that matches emitters with oil fields. McCain believes that to produce the necessary changes of perception the price-influencing oil futures market relies on we must expand drilling operations beyond their current reach through lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the only specific plan he has to promote domestic oil production.
Both candidates see a benefit of, if not a need in the future for the U.S. to become leaders in the newly environmentally aware international economy of the 21st century, for the reasons of controlling energy costs, promoting energy security, creating jobs, and fostering a livable climate for the future. Both want to actuate a multi-faceted strategy to achieve this through institutional support of a green automotive and energy sector, like government incentives that will foster the development of green automotive and energy sectors. Both want to use biofuels, or alcohol fuels, and they both want to upgrade to a digital electricity grid.
The differences between them lie in the policy details their respective strategies would employ to achieve these goals. Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to promote the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles that can get up to 150 miles to the gallon, encourage energy efficiency, promote commercial development of renewable energy on a commercial scale, produce a highly skilled green workforce, fund research and development of second generation biofuels, and support low-emission coal plants. He additionally plans to create an initiative in which a pathway connecting veterans, disadvantaged youth, and other displaced workers to green technology jobs is institutionally supported. He wants to implement policies that will encourage manufacturers to modernize factories to run on and produce green products. He also wants to encourage conversion to flex fuel vehicles that can run on biofuels by requiring new autos manufactured here to have this capability. He tempers his support for biofuels with the disclaimer that a national low carbon fuel standard must be implemented which will ensure that these biofuels do not just replace dependence on oil, but also result in reduced carbon emissions. McCain’s positions on this issue are extremely akin to Obama’s. McCain also wants to invest in clean coal technology, fund green technology research and development, encourage the market for solar, hydro and wind power, and institutionally support the creation of a green workforce, He also believes we should develop better biofuels, though he is more concerned with market distortions created by biofuel sources than he vocalizes about carbon emissions impact, and in this difference policy proposal distinctions can be made. Also, unlike Obama, McCain wants to end subsidies and tariffs that support corn-based ethanol exclusive of other potential alcohol-based fuels.
When it comes to policies specifically designed to tackle the problem of climate change, there are many similarities between Obama and McCain, though differences do exist. The candidates are each proposing a cap-and-trade system to address climate change, in which carbon emissions levels are capped at an allowed level, and those emitting below allowed levels can sell emission credits to high emitters, creating an economic incentive to being a low emitter.
On this subject of cap-and-trade, the primary difference between the candidate’s views is that Obama sees the “cap” in cap-and-trade as vitally important to success of that program, while McCain tends to think capping isn’t necessary because the economic benefit of trading will provide enough of an incentive to create the desired market changes. Despite this small difference, both candidates are firm in their belief that a cap-and-trade strategy will encourage the development of clean coal technology that each believes is important as both a domestically consumable product and an importable commodity.
The most significant difference between the campaigns on climate change has to do with their relative emphasis on either natural renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power, or a nuclear source. Obama emphasizes the former, McCain the latter. Obama points to the security risks and radioactive waste issues that increasing the number of nuclear power plants presents, while McCain doesn’t feel these are issues that generate enough concern to justify not taking advantage of an available form of energy that helps us to reduce our carbon footprint. He also believes that since other nations are using nuclear energy, if we fail to keep up, we will fall behind and lose in the international balance of power. Therefore, McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with an eventual goal of 100 new plants. He believes resulting security risks are minimal, and that the technology that will allow us to cleanly reprocess nuclear waste is essentially around the corner. Conversely, he has consistently voted against new investments in renewable energy during his time in the Senate.
Obama believes we must increase our dependence upon clean sources of renewable energy, and find ways to make non-renewable, dirty sources of energy such as coal more environmentally friendly. He believes nuclear energy presently plays an important role, since it makes up 20% of our energy and 70% of our non-carbon emitting electric energy. However, he believes that discussions about the creation of new plants must be weighed carefully against factors related to international security, and nuclear waste production and storage. Accordingly, his plan does not call for an increase in the number of nuclear power plants.
Another difference between Obama and McCain regarding climate change is the role each believes the U.S. should take in international diplomacy. Obama believes we should reengage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that is the main forum on an international scale that addresses challenges related to climate change. He also believes the U.S. should lead the creation of a Global Energy Forum comprised of the G8 plus Brazil, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa, who are the world’s top energy consumers. McCain has previously indicated that he would have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, if given Bush’s opportunity to do so, but his campaign’s official line is along the lines of ‘no international diplomatic discussions or agreements without commitments from China and India’.
Despite specific differences as to how to deal with climate change, as the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, McCain is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression is likely to result both domestically and internationally regardless of the candidate chosen.
Issues related to energy have been at the forefront of the current U.S. Presidential election largely because of the relationship of these issues to oil prices, climate change, and geopolitical conflicts, all three of which appear to be perceived as serious, imminent threats to the American way of life by both of the major candidates.
However, the different solutions each propose can at least partially be attributed to their respective ideologies. While it appears McCain relies on the identity perspective to an extent, and Obama appears to employ a critical theory perspective in many ways, most would agree that Obama’s perspective is principally liberal, and that McCain’s is essentially realist. It is due in part to the interaction between each candidate’s perspectives and the issues which produces the differentiated policy proposals regarding energy security and independence that each campaign has espoused.
McCain’s and Obama’s energy policy proposals agree with each other more often than they disagree with one another. But even where they agree there is a relationship to their ideologies in that it is often the borrowing from other perspectives which each candidate has employed in the creation of their own ideologies that opens up opportunities for common ground between them to emerge. Ours is not a black and white world, and among the grays are common shades betwixt the end extremes. Obama and McCain each start out on either side of the middle, but not so far from each other that the flexibility of their perspectives doesn’t lead them to sometimes cross paths.
This flexibility might be the product of a sort of political appeasement each party has made to appeal to the peripheral voters of the other’s party, or perhaps a result of a sort of political homogeny that has emerged out of our mass media culture, or a combination of these and/or other factors, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates how the role of ideology in policy-making is tempered by other influences.
This is an important aspect of discussions about energy security and independence, because the most favorable results that logically lead from empirically determined solutions are undermined in the current reality in which perspective competes almost evenly with empiricism as the wellspring of solutions, but the flexibility within ideologies created by cultural factors provides a countermeasure from which energy policy progress appears to have emerged. By measure of how near a candidate comes to empirically-derived solutions within this paradoxical reality, then, one can evaluate and compare their efficacy.
How to measure empiricism? After all, we all operate from our own perspectives, and often U.S. voters consider empiricism to be whatever comes closest to the beliefs of their party’s platform. Ethical, moral judgment must be employed, which takes not only objectivity, but knowledge of the issues. Unfortunately, around election time campaigns and the media tend to highlight ideological differences as a matter of marketing strategy, and voters have little opportunity to acquire empirical knowledge about energy issues or the objectivity needed for sound evaluation. In this context, discussions about campaign energy policies in part point out the failures of either campaign to adequately address energy issues, but also become examples of how energy policy progress can be derived from the campaign process.
In the case of climate change, empirical evidence has outweighed perspective, and both candidates believe climate change is real, consequential, and needs to be addressed. However, even in this counter-argument, one can find the role of ideology, for it can be argued that it was largely the protection of domestic economic markets dependent upon oil and coal that was perceived as vital to maintaining the balance of power in the international political order which led the current administration to ignore the reality of climate change in the previous two elections - the zero sum argument. Climate change is more perspective friendly to liberals who believe in a positive sum possibility, because conceding the ineffectiveness of our current energy system does not convey weakness and subsequently loss of power to the liberal, but rather opportunity for progression through diplomacy and international cooperation. It is John McCain’s break from his ideology, that flexibility, which has allowed the role of empiricism to influence energy-related policy decisions.
By this argument, liberals are more likely to come up with solutions that will be based on empirical evaluations of reality sooner than realists in the current international order, because as of now, the U.S. is on top, so from a realist perspective, it would be unwise to upset the status quo. For realists, it took serious evidence of need, like hard to ignore massive melting of the polar ice caps and intensified storm patterns that threaten the human way of life before action was considered necessary, while liberals trusted experts predicting these events’ call to action as sufficient proof that action was needed. In this respect, Obama is typical, and McCain is not. As the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, he is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression will undoubtedly result, both domestically and internationally. It appears that the demonstrated severity of climate change and subsequent international responses have convinced the realist that the status quo will no longer work in the U.S.’s favor in the quest to stay at the top of the international order.
Heather Wegan
References
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Promoting a Healthy Environment.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf.
“Barack Obama on Energy & Oil.” OnTheIssues.org. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #1, Item #1: McCain’s Conflicted Views on Energy.” 28 Sept
2008. Blogger.com. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #4, Item #2: Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy.” 01 Nov 2008.
Blogger.com. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Cohen, Steven. “Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely
not the answer.” Soapbox, Aug 2009. Grist.org. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/.
“John McCain on Energy & Oil”. OnTheIssues.org. 01Nov2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
“The Lexington Project: An All of the Above Energy Solution.” JohnMcCain.com.
01 Nov 2008. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues1767laa4-2fe8-4008859f
0ef1468e964f.htm.
“Remarks by John McCain on his Comprehensive Plan for Energy Security.”
JohnMcCain.com. 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771aec271bf823e.htm.
Barack Obama and John McCain both have a plentitude of information about their positions on energy security and independence available on their campaign websites, and there is also a self-proclaimed nonpartisan website, ontheissues.org, that details each of their positions on energy. Campaign websites offers a stylized presentation of their positions, while ontheissues.org offers potentially more candid interview responses, and further provides senatorial voting records and fact checks. From a combination of these resources, mixed in with some other resources from the blog and beyond, a fairly clear picture of each candidate’s positions on energy security and independence can be presented.
Obama and McCain’s stated differences of opinion on how to deal with oil dependence are actually fairly minimal. Both assert the notion that we must promote domestic oil supplies to create a drop in oil prices that are mutually perceived as unreasonably high. They both think that consumers should be compensated for the punishment high gas prices have inflected upon them, though Obama wants to achieve this through a windfall tax-funded cash rebate to consumers, while McCain has supported suspension of the highway fuel tax, which he has proposed be funded by the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund.
They also both believe that the wealth transfer to hostile oil producing countries that dependence on foreign oil creates threatens our national security, though McCain puts more focus on his belief that the empowerment that our dependence gives these states is a threat to the balance of power.
They are in agreement not only in their belief that part of reducing oil dependence is creating decreased demand through incentives for the development, production and consumption of alternative fuels to power our transportation sector, but also in the auto-industry centric policies they would implement to achieve this goal, though subtle differences between them exist.
Additionally, they make a cognate “climate change” case for decreasing dependence on oil, whether foreign or domestic, pointing to the role of fossil fuel dependency in creating the surplus greenhouse gases that have resulted in the melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts and storms, and disease migration, and agree that a cap and trade strategy will best foster a market change in this direction.
They further settle on the shared opinion that domestic natural gas production should be promoted through investments in infrastructure via the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to decrease dependence on oil, though McCain believes we should also lift the present moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, while Obama believes we should harvest unconventional shale supplies in Arkansas and Texas.
The most significant difference between the candidates on the issue of oil dependence lies in their belief of how domestic oil production should be promoted. Obama believes we should require oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres of land they currently have the leased right to drill on but aren’t, by forcing them to either develop the leases or surrender them to competing companies for development. He also believes we should look into the feasibility of accessing as much as 4 billion barrels of oil the U.S. Geological Survey indicates is available in Montana and North Dakota, as well as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Lastly, he believes we should promote enhanced oil recovery, which uses carbon dioxide to produce more oil from existing fields, through a carbon cap-and-trade bill that will provide incentives for emitters to send their carbon dioxide to existing fields for this process. He believes that development of this cap-and-trade industrial relationship between emitters and oil fields should be further supported by mapping carbon dioxide sources and creating a database that matches emitters with oil fields. McCain believes that to produce the necessary changes of perception the price-influencing oil futures market relies on we must expand drilling operations beyond their current reach through lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the only specific plan he has to promote domestic oil production.
Both candidates see a benefit of, if not a need in the future for the U.S. to become leaders in the newly environmentally aware international economy of the 21st century, for the reasons of controlling energy costs, promoting energy security, creating jobs, and fostering a livable climate for the future. Both want to actuate a multi-faceted strategy to achieve this through institutional support of a green automotive and energy sector, like government incentives that will foster the development of green automotive and energy sectors. Both want to use biofuels, or alcohol fuels, and they both want to upgrade to a digital electricity grid.
The differences between them lie in the policy details their respective strategies would employ to achieve these goals. Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to promote the production of plug-in hybrid vehicles that can get up to 150 miles to the gallon, encourage energy efficiency, promote commercial development of renewable energy on a commercial scale, produce a highly skilled green workforce, fund research and development of second generation biofuels, and support low-emission coal plants. He additionally plans to create an initiative in which a pathway connecting veterans, disadvantaged youth, and other displaced workers to green technology jobs is institutionally supported. He wants to implement policies that will encourage manufacturers to modernize factories to run on and produce green products. He also wants to encourage conversion to flex fuel vehicles that can run on biofuels by requiring new autos manufactured here to have this capability. He tempers his support for biofuels with the disclaimer that a national low carbon fuel standard must be implemented which will ensure that these biofuels do not just replace dependence on oil, but also result in reduced carbon emissions. McCain’s positions on this issue are extremely akin to Obama’s. McCain also wants to invest in clean coal technology, fund green technology research and development, encourage the market for solar, hydro and wind power, and institutionally support the creation of a green workforce, He also believes we should develop better biofuels, though he is more concerned with market distortions created by biofuel sources than he vocalizes about carbon emissions impact, and in this difference policy proposal distinctions can be made. Also, unlike Obama, McCain wants to end subsidies and tariffs that support corn-based ethanol exclusive of other potential alcohol-based fuels.
When it comes to policies specifically designed to tackle the problem of climate change, there are many similarities between Obama and McCain, though differences do exist. The candidates are each proposing a cap-and-trade system to address climate change, in which carbon emissions levels are capped at an allowed level, and those emitting below allowed levels can sell emission credits to high emitters, creating an economic incentive to being a low emitter.
On this subject of cap-and-trade, the primary difference between the candidate’s views is that Obama sees the “cap” in cap-and-trade as vitally important to success of that program, while McCain tends to think capping isn’t necessary because the economic benefit of trading will provide enough of an incentive to create the desired market changes. Despite this small difference, both candidates are firm in their belief that a cap-and-trade strategy will encourage the development of clean coal technology that each believes is important as both a domestically consumable product and an importable commodity.
The most significant difference between the campaigns on climate change has to do with their relative emphasis on either natural renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power, or a nuclear source. Obama emphasizes the former, McCain the latter. Obama points to the security risks and radioactive waste issues that increasing the number of nuclear power plants presents, while McCain doesn’t feel these are issues that generate enough concern to justify not taking advantage of an available form of energy that helps us to reduce our carbon footprint. He also believes that since other nations are using nuclear energy, if we fail to keep up, we will fall behind and lose in the international balance of power. Therefore, McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with an eventual goal of 100 new plants. He believes resulting security risks are minimal, and that the technology that will allow us to cleanly reprocess nuclear waste is essentially around the corner. Conversely, he has consistently voted against new investments in renewable energy during his time in the Senate.
Obama believes we must increase our dependence upon clean sources of renewable energy, and find ways to make non-renewable, dirty sources of energy such as coal more environmentally friendly. He believes nuclear energy presently plays an important role, since it makes up 20% of our energy and 70% of our non-carbon emitting electric energy. However, he believes that discussions about the creation of new plants must be weighed carefully against factors related to international security, and nuclear waste production and storage. Accordingly, his plan does not call for an increase in the number of nuclear power plants.
Another difference between Obama and McCain regarding climate change is the role each believes the U.S. should take in international diplomacy. Obama believes we should reengage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change that is the main forum on an international scale that addresses challenges related to climate change. He also believes the U.S. should lead the creation of a Global Energy Forum comprised of the G8 plus Brazil, India, Mexico, China, and South Africa, who are the world’s top energy consumers. McCain has previously indicated that he would have signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, if given Bush’s opportunity to do so, but his campaign’s official line is along the lines of ‘no international diplomatic discussions or agreements without commitments from China and India’.
Despite specific differences as to how to deal with climate change, as the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, McCain is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression is likely to result both domestically and internationally regardless of the candidate chosen.
Issues related to energy have been at the forefront of the current U.S. Presidential election largely because of the relationship of these issues to oil prices, climate change, and geopolitical conflicts, all three of which appear to be perceived as serious, imminent threats to the American way of life by both of the major candidates.
However, the different solutions each propose can at least partially be attributed to their respective ideologies. While it appears McCain relies on the identity perspective to an extent, and Obama appears to employ a critical theory perspective in many ways, most would agree that Obama’s perspective is principally liberal, and that McCain’s is essentially realist. It is due in part to the interaction between each candidate’s perspectives and the issues which produces the differentiated policy proposals regarding energy security and independence that each campaign has espoused.
McCain’s and Obama’s energy policy proposals agree with each other more often than they disagree with one another. But even where they agree there is a relationship to their ideologies in that it is often the borrowing from other perspectives which each candidate has employed in the creation of their own ideologies that opens up opportunities for common ground between them to emerge. Ours is not a black and white world, and among the grays are common shades betwixt the end extremes. Obama and McCain each start out on either side of the middle, but not so far from each other that the flexibility of their perspectives doesn’t lead them to sometimes cross paths.
This flexibility might be the product of a sort of political appeasement each party has made to appeal to the peripheral voters of the other’s party, or perhaps a result of a sort of political homogeny that has emerged out of our mass media culture, or a combination of these and/or other factors, but whatever the reason, it demonstrates how the role of ideology in policy-making is tempered by other influences.
This is an important aspect of discussions about energy security and independence, because the most favorable results that logically lead from empirically determined solutions are undermined in the current reality in which perspective competes almost evenly with empiricism as the wellspring of solutions, but the flexibility within ideologies created by cultural factors provides a countermeasure from which energy policy progress appears to have emerged. By measure of how near a candidate comes to empirically-derived solutions within this paradoxical reality, then, one can evaluate and compare their efficacy.
How to measure empiricism? After all, we all operate from our own perspectives, and often U.S. voters consider empiricism to be whatever comes closest to the beliefs of their party’s platform. Ethical, moral judgment must be employed, which takes not only objectivity, but knowledge of the issues. Unfortunately, around election time campaigns and the media tend to highlight ideological differences as a matter of marketing strategy, and voters have little opportunity to acquire empirical knowledge about energy issues or the objectivity needed for sound evaluation. In this context, discussions about campaign energy policies in part point out the failures of either campaign to adequately address energy issues, but also become examples of how energy policy progress can be derived from the campaign process.
In the case of climate change, empirical evidence has outweighed perspective, and both candidates believe climate change is real, consequential, and needs to be addressed. However, even in this counter-argument, one can find the role of ideology, for it can be argued that it was largely the protection of domestic economic markets dependent upon oil and coal that was perceived as vital to maintaining the balance of power in the international political order which led the current administration to ignore the reality of climate change in the previous two elections - the zero sum argument. Climate change is more perspective friendly to liberals who believe in a positive sum possibility, because conceding the ineffectiveness of our current energy system does not convey weakness and subsequently loss of power to the liberal, but rather opportunity for progression through diplomacy and international cooperation. It is John McCain’s break from his ideology, that flexibility, which has allowed the role of empiricism to influence energy-related policy decisions.
By this argument, liberals are more likely to come up with solutions that will be based on empirical evaluations of reality sooner than realists in the current international order, because as of now, the U.S. is on top, so from a realist perspective, it would be unwise to upset the status quo. For realists, it took serious evidence of need, like hard to ignore massive melting of the polar ice caps and intensified storm patterns that threaten the human way of life before action was considered necessary, while liberals trusted experts predicting these events’ call to action as sufficient proof that action was needed. In this respect, Obama is typical, and McCain is not. As the first Republican presidential nominee to believe that climate change is a reason to modify energy policy, he is ushering in a unified commitment to addressing the issues of climate change, and societal progression will undoubtedly result, both domestically and internationally. It appears that the demonstrated severity of climate change and subsequent international responses have convinced the realist that the status quo will no longer work in the U.S.’s favor in the quest to stay at the top of the international order.
Heather Wegan
References
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New Energy for America.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Promoting a Healthy Environment.” BarackObama.com.
Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf.
“Barack Obama on Energy & Oil.” OnTheIssues.org. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #1, Item #1: McCain’s Conflicted Views on Energy.” 28 Sept
2008. Blogger.com. Accessed 01 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Bowie, Fiona. “Week #4, Item #2: Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy.” 01 Nov 2008.
Blogger.com. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://obamaversusmccainonenergy.blogspot.com/.
Cohen, Steven. “Just Say No: Nuclear power is complicated, dangerous, and definitely
not the answer.” Soapbox, Aug 2009. Grist.org. Accessed 02 Nov 2008.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2006/08/08/cohen/.
“John McCain on Energy & Oil”. OnTheIssues.org. 01Nov2008.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm.
“The Lexington Project: An All of the Above Energy Solution.” JohnMcCain.com.
01 Nov 2008. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues1767laa4-2fe8-4008859f
0ef1468e964f.htm.
“Remarks by John McCain on his Comprehensive Plan for Energy Security.”
JohnMcCain.com. 01 Nov 2008.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771aec271bf823e.htm.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Week #4, Item #2, Greenpeace on Nuclear Energy
Nuclear power is a controversial subject when it comes to the discussion of sustainable and renewable energy sources. Recently, some members of Greenpeace have changed their stance from opposing nuclear energy production to supporting it. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, spoke out about his change of opinion over two years ago.
Moore used to believe that nuclear energy was "synonomous with nuclear holocaust" as did many other members of the organization. Mr. Moore now feels that people need to change their perspective on nuclear power. He feels that at this time nuclear power is the only sustainable energy source that can support our needs and our economy. Additionally, there will be no increased carbon footprint on our planet if nuclear energy production is increased.
Moore states that 36% of the emissions produced in the United States are due to the 600 plus coal-fired electric plants in the country. This is equal to almost 10% of the entire earths emissions. Nuclear power can provide the country with enough energy to sustain its own needs with surplus energy to export to other countries in need. This can be done without causing further damage to the environment.
All of this must be considered only if nuclear energy production can be kept secure. There are terrorist groups and countries that given the opportunity might use nuclear technology as a means of threatening and/or terrorizing other states. Moore points out that banning technology that can provide us with so many benefits due to fear of threat from a few sources is impracticle and reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Fiona Bowie
Source: www.washingtonpost.com
Moore used to believe that nuclear energy was "synonomous with nuclear holocaust" as did many other members of the organization. Mr. Moore now feels that people need to change their perspective on nuclear power. He feels that at this time nuclear power is the only sustainable energy source that can support our needs and our economy. Additionally, there will be no increased carbon footprint on our planet if nuclear energy production is increased.
Moore states that 36% of the emissions produced in the United States are due to the 600 plus coal-fired electric plants in the country. This is equal to almost 10% of the entire earths emissions. Nuclear power can provide the country with enough energy to sustain its own needs with surplus energy to export to other countries in need. This can be done without causing further damage to the environment.
All of this must be considered only if nuclear energy production can be kept secure. There are terrorist groups and countries that given the opportunity might use nuclear technology as a means of threatening and/or terrorizing other states. Moore points out that banning technology that can provide us with so many benefits due to fear of threat from a few sources is impracticle and reminiscent of the Cold War era.
Fiona Bowie
Source: www.washingtonpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
