Spring Break
Column: The Future of Environmental Policy
Laura Huchel, Environmental Columnist
Issue date: 1/8/08 Section: Opinion
Whether or not you find evidence of global climate change compelling, environmental and energy policy is something all voters should consider before heading to the polls. Once destroyed, a habitat is not easily replaced, and the repercussions can wreak havoc on biodiversity. Continuing to do "business as usual" with energy policy will promote increased acid rain, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign sources of fuel.
The President elected in November will assume an enormous role in shaping environmental policy. It has become apparent that every candidate harbors his or her own unique approach. The question to ask is: Who has the most effective strategy that best addresses the problems we face together as a planet and how will we meet our responsibilities as a nation?
John McCain acknowledges the reality of climate change, but adds that participation of developing countries like China and India in reducing emissions is crucial as the US addresses global environmental problems. He focuses on reducing dependence on foreign oil and increasing nuclear energy sources. While much less harmful than fossil fuel sources, nuclear energy is nonrenewable and many US nuclear reactors are nearing the 40-year retirement mark. A more comprehensive and favorable list of environmental policies would address a global commitment to seeing reductions in deforestation, willingness to cooperate with other nations, and industry incentives and checks on emissions.
Hillary Clinton is eager to show her commitment in dollars and cents through so-called "aggressive" policies and reduction plans. She proposes that renewables (wind, solar, hydro-powered, and geothermal energies) should generate 25% of electricity by 2025 and also addresses the huge environmental impact of transportation. With regard to economic feasibility and encouragement, she promotes cap and trade programs and programs that retrofit low-income housing renovation for energy efficiency. Her policy does not make any global commitments, but in a speech she encouraged global cooperation to combat climate change and recognized deforestation as an international problem.
The President elected in November will assume an enormous role in shaping environmental policy. It has become apparent that every candidate harbors his or her own unique approach. The question to ask is: Who has the most effective strategy that best addresses the problems we face together as a planet and how will we meet our responsibilities as a nation?
John McCain acknowledges the reality of climate change, but adds that participation of developing countries like China and India in reducing emissions is crucial as the US addresses global environmental problems. He focuses on reducing dependence on foreign oil and increasing nuclear energy sources. While much less harmful than fossil fuel sources, nuclear energy is nonrenewable and many US nuclear reactors are nearing the 40-year retirement mark. A more comprehensive and favorable list of environmental policies would address a global commitment to seeing reductions in deforestation, willingness to cooperate with other nations, and industry incentives and checks on emissions.
Hillary Clinton is eager to show her commitment in dollars and cents through so-called "aggressive" policies and reduction plans. She proposes that renewables (wind, solar, hydro-powered, and geothermal energies) should generate 25% of electricity by 2025 and also addresses the huge environmental impact of transportation. With regard to economic feasibility and encouragement, she promotes cap and trade programs and programs that retrofit low-income housing renovation for energy efficiency. Her policy does not make any global commitments, but in a speech she encouraged global cooperation to combat climate change and recognized deforestation as an international problem.
Be the first to comment on this story