Evaluating Obama, Romney environmental policy

On the night of Nov. 6, when we are all glued to our televisions and computers, waiting for the election results, we will not only be deciding our next president, but also the environmental policies that could make or break the future of our species. 

 And while it’s true that we must make sure to cast an informed vote this November, especially during such a feverishly partisan election season, we must also take into account that political rhetoric isn’t the only thing heating up. 16 of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record, July was the hottest month in recorded history, and there is consensus among the scientific community that man-made global warming is well underway. What’s more alarming, the early signs of a changing climate are becoming more observable as well. Remember this summer’s devastating drought, hellish wildfires and general upsurge in severe weather? The vast majority of climate scientists agree: This is what climate change looks like. This year’s anomalous weather provides us with a preview of what the rest of our lives will be like unless significant policy to combat global warming is enacted very, very soon. 

As youth, this understanding should raise some glaring red flags in our politically active minds. And rightfully so: It’s imperative that we factor each candidate’s environmental policy into our vote this November, and it’s only just that we vote accordingly for the candidate whose policies would best protect our environment and in truth, our future. 

 And so, let us first consider our current administration. With regards to fossil fuels, under President Obama, domestic oil and gas production has reached their highest level in eight years, imports have fallen to lowest levels since 1996 and safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have been raised substantially.

 President Obama has also called on Congress to end oil subsidies and increase clean energy investments; started the Better Buildings Initiative (which will make commercial facilities 20 percent more efficient by 2020); and established new standards for automobiles to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. 

 No less, in this year’s State of the Union, President Obama announced that he “will not walk away from the promise of clean energy,” and so far, his statement holds true: Obama’s policies have ushered in an unprecedented amount of green jobs, evolving a previously underdeveloped sector into one of which over 3 million Americans are employed. 

But enough about Obama, let’s try to get a grasp on Romney. Mitt Romney’s environmental platform consists of a plan to accelerate oil-drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and public lands in general, toward which he holds a clumsy and eerily ambiguous stance. A Romney presidency would also increase federal subsidization of the fossil fuel industry, cut funding for renewable energy sources and end federal loan programs that help companies develop more efficient automobiles. 

It doesn’t take an environmental scientist to recognize how abhorrent these environmental views are, but what are we to expect from ol’ Willard? His presidential campaign has received $2.3 million dollars so far from the oil and gas industry, along with oil magnates Charles and David Koch having pledged $60 million in untraceable Super PAC donations. You’d probably support policies in your plutocratic donors’ interests as well, assuming you’re as susceptible to the scent of cash as most politicians today.

This is not to paint Obama as some squeaky-clean politician though, as his campaign has also accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry, however at a much smaller amount, to the tune of $722,000. 

But above all else, President Obama’s environmental policy bears one huge advantage to all rational minded voters: It is rooted in logic. Obama understands the fact that climate change is underway due to our overproduction of greenhouse gases, and he plans to invest in more clean and efficient means of energy. Romney, on the other hand, rejects this notion entirely and the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it. 

To some of the environmentally conscious among us though, the Obama administration’s efforts to combat global warming have not done nearly enough, and that is true to some extent. Obama’s policies are certainly not acting swiftly or aggressively enough as some climate scientists say is necessary to avoid the dangerous effects of global warming. 

 However, due to our political system and the duopoly it enables, we are provided with only two viable parties, and thus two viable candidates. Having said that, by now the choice is clear: A vote for Mitt Romney this November is a vote for unprecedented, rapacious environmental destruction. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a future plagued by the worst-case scenarios of climate change. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against our generation and the planet we will inherit. A Romney presidency is something no environmentally-conscious student should support. Of course, though, the choice is yours.

--

Special thanks to Rebecca Leber over at Grist as well for her awesome post "How Obama and Romney compare on green issues", which I borrowed a lot of my links from. The main substance of this post was published in my column in today's Maneater as well, but in a more edited/condensed form which you can read here if you'd like.
Don't hesitate to share your thoughts, especially if you're a youngin as well -- we need to get more climate change networking/mobilizing going for our future's sake!