McCain v. Obama: the Environment

After reviewing the energy plans for both presidential candidates, it is clear to me that both are market liberals. Their approaches differ, but in all likelihood neither will make a big enough dent fast enough in regards to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. They both have long-term plans, but we all know how that goes; if Congress even passes it, the plans are supposed to be in place for the next 40 years or so but there is no guarantee that the next administration will carry on with the previous administration's plan. Thus, it is hard for me to believe that either plan will be able to do much good within the next eight years.

The first thing I noticed on McCain's website was the emphasis on breaking away from FOREIGN oil, which implies to me that he is not really interested in ending dependence on oil all together. I think that his plans to start domestic drilling would only prolong our oil dependence and make oil cheaper, so that people will be able to use more of it for less money. More is clearly not the best choice for our planet. As for climate change itself, he seems to be planning to bide his time until some new technological discovery comes about to save the environment without anyone having to make sacrifices in lifestyle. The first point on his climate change platform is, "Climate policy should be built on scientifically sound, mandatory emissions reduction targets". I am all for scientific evidence, but who determines which information is "scientifically sound"? There are still those people out there who think climate change is a myth and it sounds to me like McCain is, at the very least a skeptic or in denial. I agree with Jordan that McCain's plan is more comprehensive (on the website)and he makes some good points about implementing carbon emissions permits, etc. While I do not know much about nuclear energy, I would be concerned about waste if we are going to have 100 new nuclear power plants in the next fifty years, at the same time that China and Russia are also exploring increasing nuclear power. Every possible solution should be thoroughly considered with regards to sustainability.

As for Obama, he is annoying ambiguous. He has grand plans to increase the use of renewable energy sources, but does not go into much detail with regards to how he will go about this. What I like about his ideas is that he is trying to encourage/create a connection between "going green" and boosting the economy. If these two ideas remained separate ideals, they would only end up preventing each others success. Reducing green house emissions 80% by 2050 was kind of shocking to me. I mean, of course that would be awesome, but that would entail a rapid increase in the production of hybrid-type vehicles and making them appealing to the average, SUV all the way, American. That is ambitious. It could happen and I would like it to happen, but forgive me if I do not hold my breath. However, I like that Obama is focusing more on the poorer of American families. The way things are going in the market liberal direction, these people will need to be in a position to buy a new hybrid car and pay for the privilege of cleaner technologies.

At the end of the day, I cannot decide which platform would be more beneficial to the environment. I have trouble placing any kind of trust or reliance on presidential campaigns and with an issue like climate change, which entails a change in the "American way", it will be difficult to convince 300 million people that they cannot go on as they have in the past.