If it's crap... We'll tell you
The Environmental Essay I wrote about Obama
I got my mark back so I can now safely post my essay here. I got 93% on it. Enjoy.
Opposing Forces: An Analysis of Obama’s and McCain’s Environmental Policies
Analysis
During the George W. Bush administration, environmental and science programs,
research and policies have been abysmally neglected. Due to his policies, America has fallen
from being the world leader in technology and innovation. The next president will have the
challenge of bringing America back its role as the leader of the world in these fields.
The environmental record of the current President has been demoralizing. He passed two
bills (The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act) which said that the United States would
decrease pollutants in the water and air, but it instead gave free rein to companies to pollute even
more. He even withdrew America from the Kyoto Accord which caused America to lose the
respect of the world.
The election between Senator Barack H. Obama and Senator John S. McCain is an
historic one. Both candidates have contrasting views about the direction in which they will lead
the country. Senator McCain’s policies mostly mirror George W. Bush’s policies and he was not
afraid to say he “voted with the President ninety percent of the time” (McCain, 2003). Senator
Obama opposed many of George W. Bush’s policies and wishes to focus the nation more on a
path of hope, innovation, science, math and engineering.
Both candidates have different beliefs when it comes to developing oil drilling sites.
Senator Obama opposed drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) (2008) while
Senator McCain has a varied record when it comes to supporting the drilling in ANWR
(McDaniel, 2008). Offshore drilling is opposed by Senator Obama (2008), but Senator McCain
reversed his original position and now supports offshore drilling (McDaniel, 2008). McCain
blasted Obama over his opposition to offshore drilling, especially since gas prices have been
reaching record highs, but he failed to mention that even if they started drilling now, “it would
take at least ten years to get any oil” (Obama, 2008).
Each candidate has their own plans for alternative fuels. Senator McCain says that he
supports alternative fuels (2008), but his voting record says otherwise (McDaniel, 2008). He still
opposes corn ethanol subsidies (McCain, 2008). Senator Obama supports ethanol subsidies and
proposes investing fifty million dollars into developing clean energy and green jobs (2008). He
also proposed investing an additional $150 million into research and development of renewables
(Obama, 2008).
A plan is needed to allow America to move towards alternative fuels, so Senator
McCain’s mysterious plan for this process needs to be clarified. On the other hand, Senator
Obama supports large cash investments to develop alternate fuels (2008).Originally, Obama
supported corn ethanol, but he recently adjusted his stance by saying that the nation needs to
move toward cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from plant waste, such as husk and wood chips)
(Obama, 2008). This would allow decent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without raising
food prices to the same degree compared to corn ethanol.
Scientists from around the world have urged developed nations to decrease on their
greenhouse gas emissions to stop climate change. One of the gases to cut back is carbon dioxide.
A Cap-and-Trade system has been proposed by Senator Obama in which emission caps are
mandatory, but pollutant permits are completely up for auction, to achieve carbon dioxide
emissions that are eighty percent lower than 1990s emissions by 2050 (2008).
Senator McCain also supports a Cap-and-Trade but lowered his expectations for carbon
dioxide emissions to sixty percent (lower than 1990s emissions) by 2050 (2008). While it is
admirable to have a goal for emission reduction, it needs to be more drastic than Senator
McCain’s plan. On the other hand, if Obama pushes too hard on companies to decrease their
emissions, it could drive up prices on gas, oil, buildings and food.
A Cap-and-Trade system is a marketing system where all corporations are given a certain
amount of pollutant permits (Talbott, 2008, p. 129). If they emit more pollutants than what they
are allowed, they are fined. To avoid getting fined, companies that have not decreased their
emissions, can buy their permits from companies that have decreased their emissions (Talbott,
2008). This allows companies to adjust towards new pollutant goals while rewarding companies
who have achieved their goals.
Another way to fight climate change is through reducing forest consumption. Trees
convert carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. During the Clinton administration, he created a
roadless rule bill that protected sixty million acres of national forest land from road construction
and logging. Senator Obama has an even more impressive presidential policy concerning forest
and public land by continuing his support for Clinton’s roadless rule, improving conservation of
national land, and increasing funding to national parks (2008).
McCain has a lackluster policy. He said he would repeal Clinton’s roadless rule if he is
elected President (McCain, 2008). Senator McCain’s past record also is not very encouraging.
He cosponsored a bill to allow handguns in parks and opposed bills on designation of wilderness
(McDaniel, 2008). Cutting down national forests is not a direction to move towards if one of a
candidate’s goals is to reduce greenhouse gases. Cutting down these forests would only cause
carbon dioxide levels to surge. Also, the bill to allow hand guns in parks could increase the rate
of accidental injuries and deaths in parks.
Even though both candidates support decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, they have to
overcome one of the greatest contributors to American carbon dioxide: coal plants. Senator
McCain has given his full support for new coal plants and liquid coal technology (2008). Liquid
coal technology is a cheaper and more efficient form of coal. Senator Obama is willing to ban
construction on new coal plants if emissions caps do not slow down the need for construction of
new plants (2008). He has shown some support for liquid coal technology (Obama, 2008).
Every year, America’s energy consumption increases. In response to this trend, Senator
Obama plans to reduce energy consumption by fifty percent by 2030, while at the same time,
believing that nuclear plants should only be expanded if their security and waste problems are
addressed (2008).
In terms of efficiency, McCain claims to support reduction of energy consumption
(2008), but has not presented a goal (McDaniel, 2008). To account for the increasing need for
energy, McCain plans the construction of forty-five new nuclear plants by 2030 and an
additional fifty-five after that (McCain, 2008). Unfortunately, he has not responded to the
security or environmental issues surrounding nuclear power plants in either his platform or his
speeches.
Justify
The past eight years have shown what a fiscal conservative can do to America’s record
on the environment. Almost every step of George W. Bush’s administration has been to crush
science, technology and the environment. President George W. Bush has now reached the end of
his term and will be replaced by either Republican candidate John S. McCain or Democratic
candidate Senator Barack H. Obama. Who will be the most likely person to renew America’s
scientific goals—Senator Obama who has a good record on energy and environmental policies or
Senator McCain who voted with President Bush “90% of the time” (McCain, 2003)?
Senator Obama’s plan for energy independence is more logical than Senator McCain’s
plan. Senator Obama’s Cap-and-Trade system allows for a market-based system that rewards
companies that do decrease their emissions, while not being too harsh on companies that are
unable to reach their goal (2008). Senator McCain has a similar plan but its goal does not achieve
Senator Obama’s goal of carbon dioxide levels 80% lower than 1990 levels (2008). This goal
must be achieved to avoid “a high chance of economic shock and disruption created by extreme
weather events...” (Porteous, 2008, p. 22).
In terms of oil, Senator McCain does not seem to understand that America only produces
three percent of the world’s oil supply but consumes twenty-five percent of it. This was
expressed at his campaign when he and his supporters chanted, “Drill, baby, drill” (McCain,
2008). Senator Obama understands this issue which is why he is moving forward towards a plan
that improves fuel efficiency, increases alternative fuel research and development, and supports
subsidies for ethanol (cellulosic) (2008).
Senator McCain has yet to show his proposal for alternative fuels (McDaniel, 2008)
while Senator Obama’s policy includes investing a hundred and fifty billion dollars towards
research and development on renewable energy, and around fifty billion dollars a year for
development of green jobs and clean energy (2008).
Senator Obama has taken a responsible approach towards addressing energy
consumption. He moves towards reduction in energy consumption, increase of wind power, and
an increase of hybrid and electric cars, this in turn would create thousands of jobs (Obama,
2008). Senator McCain has yet to provide a comprehensive plan, but his lack of a plan is
overshadowed by his energy plan to build forty-five new nuclear plants by 2030 and fifty-five
after that (2008).
Senator McCain mocked Senator Obama’s concern over the security and environmental
impact of nuclear reactors. In an article by Leiter about nuclear energy, she stated that: “Industry
opponents...argue that nuclear facilities are not cost-effective, and that the dangers of nuclear
power—including safety risks, proliferation risks, and radioactive waste generation—outweigh
any putative climate change benefits” (Leiter, 2008, p. 5). In a time when there is a large risk of a
terrorist attack, it probably is not the smartest idea to build forty-five new targets that could
result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
In a recent report by the League of Conservation Voters, Senator Obama’s plan was
given a Lifetime Score of 86%, while they gave Senator McCain’s plan a 24% (McDaniel,
2008). It seems that most economists, environmentalists and politicians agree that Senator
Obama’s plan is the most logical and efficient way to achieve an energy independent America.
As previously stated, Senator McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. George W. Bush
lead America down a slope from a respected and innovative world player downward toward a
recession and failed economic policy. How can McCain who voted almost identically to Bush
make any positive change in policy or outcome. Taking into account Senator McCain’s voting
record and his current policy and Senator Obama’s voting record and his current policy; it is
abundantly clear that Senator Barack H. Obama has the superior environmental plan.
Reference
Leiter, A. (2008). The perils of a half-built bridge: Risk perception, shifting majorities, and the
nuclear debate. Ecology Law Quarterly, 35 (1), 31-72.
McCain, J. S., Obama B. H. (2008, September). 14 Questions. Retrieved November 1, 2008,
from Science Debate 2008 web site: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42
McCain, J. (n.d.). Climate Change. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from John McCain Presidential
Campaign web site: http://www.johnmccain.com
McDaniel, J. (2008, September/October). Presidential science lessons. E: The Environmental
Magazine, 19 (5), 26-32.
Obama, B. (2008). Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan To Renew America’s
Promise. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Obama, B. (n.d.). New energy for America. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from Barack Obama
Presidential Campaign web site: http://www.barackobama.com
Porteous, J. (2008, June/July). National business leaders debate urgent climate risk adjustments.
Ecos, (143), 22-23
Talbott, J. R. (2008). Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace
Trickle-Down Economics. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
Opposing Forces: An Analysis of Obama’s and McCain’s Environmental Policies
Analysis
During the George W. Bush administration, environmental and science programs,
research and policies have been abysmally neglected. Due to his policies, America has fallen
from being the world leader in technology and innovation. The next president will have the
challenge of bringing America back its role as the leader of the world in these fields.
The environmental record of the current President has been demoralizing. He passed two
bills (The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act) which said that the United States would
decrease pollutants in the water and air, but it instead gave free rein to companies to pollute even
more. He even withdrew America from the Kyoto Accord which caused America to lose the
respect of the world.
The election between Senator Barack H. Obama and Senator John S. McCain is an
historic one. Both candidates have contrasting views about the direction in which they will lead
the country. Senator McCain’s policies mostly mirror George W. Bush’s policies and he was not
afraid to say he “voted with the President ninety percent of the time” (McCain, 2003). Senator
Obama opposed many of George W. Bush’s policies and wishes to focus the nation more on a
path of hope, innovation, science, math and engineering.
Both candidates have different beliefs when it comes to developing oil drilling sites.
Senator Obama opposed drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) (2008) while
Senator McCain has a varied record when it comes to supporting the drilling in ANWR
(McDaniel, 2008). Offshore drilling is opposed by Senator Obama (2008), but Senator McCain
reversed his original position and now supports offshore drilling (McDaniel, 2008). McCain
blasted Obama over his opposition to offshore drilling, especially since gas prices have been
reaching record highs, but he failed to mention that even if they started drilling now, “it would
take at least ten years to get any oil” (Obama, 2008).
Each candidate has their own plans for alternative fuels. Senator McCain says that he
supports alternative fuels (2008), but his voting record says otherwise (McDaniel, 2008). He still
opposes corn ethanol subsidies (McCain, 2008). Senator Obama supports ethanol subsidies and
proposes investing fifty million dollars into developing clean energy and green jobs (2008). He
also proposed investing an additional $150 million into research and development of renewables
(Obama, 2008).
A plan is needed to allow America to move towards alternative fuels, so Senator
McCain’s mysterious plan for this process needs to be clarified. On the other hand, Senator
Obama supports large cash investments to develop alternate fuels (2008).Originally, Obama
supported corn ethanol, but he recently adjusted his stance by saying that the nation needs to
move toward cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from plant waste, such as husk and wood chips)
(Obama, 2008). This would allow decent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions without raising
food prices to the same degree compared to corn ethanol.
Scientists from around the world have urged developed nations to decrease on their
greenhouse gas emissions to stop climate change. One of the gases to cut back is carbon dioxide.
A Cap-and-Trade system has been proposed by Senator Obama in which emission caps are
mandatory, but pollutant permits are completely up for auction, to achieve carbon dioxide
emissions that are eighty percent lower than 1990s emissions by 2050 (2008).
Senator McCain also supports a Cap-and-Trade but lowered his expectations for carbon
dioxide emissions to sixty percent (lower than 1990s emissions) by 2050 (2008). While it is
admirable to have a goal for emission reduction, it needs to be more drastic than Senator
McCain’s plan. On the other hand, if Obama pushes too hard on companies to decrease their
emissions, it could drive up prices on gas, oil, buildings and food.
A Cap-and-Trade system is a marketing system where all corporations are given a certain
amount of pollutant permits (Talbott, 2008, p. 129). If they emit more pollutants than what they
are allowed, they are fined. To avoid getting fined, companies that have not decreased their
emissions, can buy their permits from companies that have decreased their emissions (Talbott,
2008). This allows companies to adjust towards new pollutant goals while rewarding companies
who have achieved their goals.
Another way to fight climate change is through reducing forest consumption. Trees
convert carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. During the Clinton administration, he created a
roadless rule bill that protected sixty million acres of national forest land from road construction
and logging. Senator Obama has an even more impressive presidential policy concerning forest
and public land by continuing his support for Clinton’s roadless rule, improving conservation of
national land, and increasing funding to national parks (2008).
McCain has a lackluster policy. He said he would repeal Clinton’s roadless rule if he is
elected President (McCain, 2008). Senator McCain’s past record also is not very encouraging.
He cosponsored a bill to allow handguns in parks and opposed bills on designation of wilderness
(McDaniel, 2008). Cutting down national forests is not a direction to move towards if one of a
candidate’s goals is to reduce greenhouse gases. Cutting down these forests would only cause
carbon dioxide levels to surge. Also, the bill to allow hand guns in parks could increase the rate
of accidental injuries and deaths in parks.
Even though both candidates support decreasing carbon dioxide emissions, they have to
overcome one of the greatest contributors to American carbon dioxide: coal plants. Senator
McCain has given his full support for new coal plants and liquid coal technology (2008). Liquid
coal technology is a cheaper and more efficient form of coal. Senator Obama is willing to ban
construction on new coal plants if emissions caps do not slow down the need for construction of
new plants (2008). He has shown some support for liquid coal technology (Obama, 2008).
Every year, America’s energy consumption increases. In response to this trend, Senator
Obama plans to reduce energy consumption by fifty percent by 2030, while at the same time,
believing that nuclear plants should only be expanded if their security and waste problems are
addressed (2008).
In terms of efficiency, McCain claims to support reduction of energy consumption
(2008), but has not presented a goal (McDaniel, 2008). To account for the increasing need for
energy, McCain plans the construction of forty-five new nuclear plants by 2030 and an
additional fifty-five after that (McCain, 2008). Unfortunately, he has not responded to the
security or environmental issues surrounding nuclear power plants in either his platform or his
speeches.
Justify
The past eight years have shown what a fiscal conservative can do to America’s record
on the environment. Almost every step of George W. Bush’s administration has been to crush
science, technology and the environment. President George W. Bush has now reached the end of
his term and will be replaced by either Republican candidate John S. McCain or Democratic
candidate Senator Barack H. Obama. Who will be the most likely person to renew America’s
scientific goals—Senator Obama who has a good record on energy and environmental policies or
Senator McCain who voted with President Bush “90% of the time” (McCain, 2003)?
Senator Obama’s plan for energy independence is more logical than Senator McCain’s
plan. Senator Obama’s Cap-and-Trade system allows for a market-based system that rewards
companies that do decrease their emissions, while not being too harsh on companies that are
unable to reach their goal (2008). Senator McCain has a similar plan but its goal does not achieve
Senator Obama’s goal of carbon dioxide levels 80% lower than 1990 levels (2008). This goal
must be achieved to avoid “a high chance of economic shock and disruption created by extreme
weather events...” (Porteous, 2008, p. 22).
In terms of oil, Senator McCain does not seem to understand that America only produces
three percent of the world’s oil supply but consumes twenty-five percent of it. This was
expressed at his campaign when he and his supporters chanted, “Drill, baby, drill” (McCain,
2008). Senator Obama understands this issue which is why he is moving forward towards a plan
that improves fuel efficiency, increases alternative fuel research and development, and supports
subsidies for ethanol (cellulosic) (2008).
Senator McCain has yet to show his proposal for alternative fuels (McDaniel, 2008)
while Senator Obama’s policy includes investing a hundred and fifty billion dollars towards
research and development on renewable energy, and around fifty billion dollars a year for
development of green jobs and clean energy (2008).
Senator Obama has taken a responsible approach towards addressing energy
consumption. He moves towards reduction in energy consumption, increase of wind power, and
an increase of hybrid and electric cars, this in turn would create thousands of jobs (Obama,
2008). Senator McCain has yet to provide a comprehensive plan, but his lack of a plan is
overshadowed by his energy plan to build forty-five new nuclear plants by 2030 and fifty-five
after that (2008).
Senator McCain mocked Senator Obama’s concern over the security and environmental
impact of nuclear reactors. In an article by Leiter about nuclear energy, she stated that: “Industry
opponents...argue that nuclear facilities are not cost-effective, and that the dangers of nuclear
power—including safety risks, proliferation risks, and radioactive waste generation—outweigh
any putative climate change benefits” (Leiter, 2008, p. 5). In a time when there is a large risk of a
terrorist attack, it probably is not the smartest idea to build forty-five new targets that could
result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
In a recent report by the League of Conservation Voters, Senator Obama’s plan was
given a Lifetime Score of 86%, while they gave Senator McCain’s plan a 24% (McDaniel,
2008). It seems that most economists, environmentalists and politicians agree that Senator
Obama’s plan is the most logical and efficient way to achieve an energy independent America.
As previously stated, Senator McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time. George W. Bush
lead America down a slope from a respected and innovative world player downward toward a
recession and failed economic policy. How can McCain who voted almost identically to Bush
make any positive change in policy or outcome. Taking into account Senator McCain’s voting
record and his current policy and Senator Obama’s voting record and his current policy; it is
abundantly clear that Senator Barack H. Obama has the superior environmental plan.
Reference
Leiter, A. (2008). The perils of a half-built bridge: Risk perception, shifting majorities, and the
nuclear debate. Ecology Law Quarterly, 35 (1), 31-72.
McCain, J. S., Obama B. H. (2008, September). 14 Questions. Retrieved November 1, 2008,
from Science Debate 2008 web site: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42
McCain, J. (n.d.). Climate Change. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from John McCain Presidential
Campaign web site: http://www.johnmccain.com
McDaniel, J. (2008, September/October). Presidential science lessons. E: The Environmental
Magazine, 19 (5), 26-32.
Obama, B. (2008). Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama’s Plan To Renew America’s
Promise. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Obama, B. (n.d.). New energy for America. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from Barack Obama
Presidential Campaign web site: http://www.barackobama.com
Porteous, J. (2008, June/July). National business leaders debate urgent climate risk adjustments.
Ecos, (143), 22-23
Talbott, J. R. (2008). Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace
Trickle-Down Economics. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.
Tags: barack, environment, environmental, essay, john, mccain, obama, policy
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
I recently saw the trailer for the upcoming film 'Brothers', and I have to say that this film has seriously Oscar winning potential! The cast is tremendously talented, not to mention the 6 time Academy Award nominee director, Jim Sheridan! I was a...
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
