Gross Politics in the Primaries Despite the numerous pressing issues that face America today, candidates are instigating and/or participating in “gross”, mudslinging politics. Most recently, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have been in the spotlight. With the democratic constituency torn between the two, each candidate is vigorously defending their reputation. As we have seen in the past with the fall of Howard Dean’s campaign due to his accidental screech, now known by some as the “Iowa yell,” it is not beneath us to ridicule a candidate for something minuscule, and potentially irrelevant. Two weeks ago there was a feud over a controversial statement made by Hillary regarding Martin Luther King. Last week Obama supporters accused the Clintons of teaming up on him, and this week they are battling over endorsements from the Kennedys. Ultimately, we must overcome these petty issues and use the little time we have left of the primaries to discuss issues that have been neglected up until now. Namely, our future plans for the environment.
Negligence of Gross pollution
Candidates from both parties are being light on detail when discussing environmental and energy policy. According to Andy Karsner, assistant secretary in the US Department of Energy, "The candidates are fiercely competing on who loves renewable energy more, who's greener. I try to remind people, no matter what party the candidates come from, to force out a discussion on the more challenging aspects. We need them to rise to the leadership so they can tackle the serious part of the challenge, not just the easy parts."
In the SOC118 campaign announcements the candidates minimally discussed their environmental plans. Reporters too, have failed to ask questions relating to the issue because they are preoccupied with questions concerning issues that the campaign organizations deem controversial, like healthcare and foreign policy. Not that these issues aren’t important, but we need to make the environment priority as well, before it’s too late. According to their official websites, Clinton and Obama both plan to auction 100 percent of carbon emission credits. This ensures that companies pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than being able to give their emission rights to oil companies. They also plan to cut emission down to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. They plan on doing this by cutting foreign oil imports and investing in alternative sources of fuel. Sounds like a plan, right? Easier said than done. The Kyoto Protocol, which is the international treaty designed to slow down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, was presented to President Clinton when he was in office. He was able to sweep it under the rugs for President Bush, who definitively threw it out. He felt that meeting the target of reducing U.S. emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels would be too much of an economic burden. He was right! By 2006 the U.S. was already 15.8 percent above 1990 levels.
Can They Meet Their Promises
Obama and Clinton have equally ambiguous plans. While the goals are clear, the means of attaining them are unrealistic in a capitalist, democracy such as the U.S. Can they promise us that the economic pain won’t outweigh the green gain? Although President Bush is scorned by environmentalist for not being environmentally conscious, he was honest enough to admit that he was not willing to suffer the economic consequences of signing the Kyoto Protocol. I would be surprised if the president elected was able to uphold his/her promises. But then again, it’s difficult to measure the success of one president’s policies if they’re only in office for 4-8 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment