The Tech Trap

Technology, I would argue, is generally a positive force.  Innovation  has assured our survival as a species and also greatly increased our quality of life though it could be argued, and is by some, that certain technological developments are currently driving us in the opposite direction.  A lot of this has to do with the goals of the the developers/drivers of the new technology.  Consumerism, as argued by both Meadows and Assadourian among others, is fundamentally detrimental to the environment.  As such, if a technology is developed for the sole purpose of selling it, it is a negative development.  The newly released iPhone 5, for instance, is an example of negative technology.  It represents new technology because it is shinier and has a few more bells and whistles than its predecessor, but it is negative because its release has convinced many iPhone owners that their phones are obsolete and that they must buy the new version.  Over the past week, I have rolled my eyes at multiple friends and acquaintances as they explain how their iPhone that they purchased just a few months ago is now worthless because there is something newer on the market.  The production of the new iPhones wastes resources as does shipping, marketing, etc.  Then there is the question of what happens to the old iPhones: do people sell them, throw them out, use them as coasters?  In short, new technology is a negative force when it is developed to be sold rather than to address a legitimate issue.

That said, technology can be a negative force as a consequence of the externalities that result from it.  The green revolution, for instance, caused a myriad of unforeseen environmental problems despite being driven by a benevolent goal.  We see this a lot: a new technology is developed and seems to effectively address a problem but causes  even more in the end.  This phenomenon occurs because we can never fully predict what effect a new technology will have down the road, and this is probably where innovation is most dangerous, which does not mean that it should be avoided. Rather, we should be careful to at least try to foresee more of the "unforeseen" consequences of new technology and then have systems in place to control them.

Finally, I do believe that technology holds the key to controlling and ultimately reversing environmental degradation. Frankly, it has to.  Returning to older practices, more in touch with nature, might be more effective in stopping more degradation, but it is viewed as regression, and as such, I do not believe that it will happen short of some Hollywood-esque post-apocalyptic scenario.  Further, this change would be extremely effective in preventing further damage, but we're at a point where we have quite a bit of cleaning up to do as well, and innovation is absolutely key in this respect.  I agree with Assadourian that people need to fundamentally change the ways they live, think, and consume and that green technology will not fix the problem if we do not fundamentally alter our behavior.  However, this shift is going to have to be framed as progress and accompanied by new green technological innovations. Technology got us into this mess, and it's going to have to get us out of it.

Technology and Environmentalism

In our conversations about how to live harmoniously with the environment technology change is a parameter we can bet on, but not rely upon  The importance of technology change to the environmental movement differs depending on whether you're speaking to a cornucopian optimist or a more dour environmental pessimist.  Over the course of human history, technology change has been the engine to secure unimagined comforts and conveniences; it has increased the length of our lives by protecting us from disease, and made the time we spend on earth richer by connecting us with loved ones.  It is no surprise now then that many environmentalists go boldly forward under the assumption that technology change will also be able to protect us - and our descendants - from ecological collapse.

There is danger, however, in guessing incorrectly the pace of technology change.  Certainly we can say the rate of environmentally friendly technology change will be greater than zero.  Already there are many enterprising, inventive organizations and individuals who have developed ways to harvest energy, produce food, and transport people in less environmentally degrading ways.  Technology change is only one of many factors though, and relying on the rate of tech change to make up for the deplorably slow pace of governmental, social, and cultural change would be folly. 

The effect of technology change is not directly related to the development of new technologies alone.  People do not install solar panels on their roof simply because the technology to do so exists, nor will more people use electric buses because in some lab a scientist has developed a more efficient super-capacitor.  The incorporation of technology change into the way we live our lives is dependent on what government facilitates, and what culture demands.  As Assidourian and Bateson argue in the readings this week, consumer culture has driven production and consumption to levels that would have defied the imaginations of our forebears.  In order for technology change to create a more ecologically sustainable society, we need to construct a new paradigm where such technology is demanded as much as the newest iPhone. 

Technology is unique in the environmental conversation because it comes with a time-tested caveat: technology is a double-eged sword.  While it has been the engine of our success as a species, it has also allowed us to live in ways more disconnected from nature and each other, and by it we have created dangers to threaten the entire human race.  It is inescapably ironic, for example, that the same technology that created the first weapons of mass destruction now fuel our agricultural system.  Technology requires ethical consideration, and green tech is no exception.  Like all technologies, green technology has the potential to aggravate existing social and economic social inequalities.  Some technologies, as described in the "State of the World, 2010", require heavy energy investment at the beginning and only become green in the long run. 

Therefore, it is necessary to consider the implications of the technologies we adopt in our efforts to become less environmentally damaging; it is the creation of durable, reusable, and equality reinforcing technologies that will fuel an ecologically sustainable future.  However, we should always be careful not to invest all our hopes in one panacea.  Technology change is a powerful tool in our arsenal, but it cannot be our only tool - democratic governance, social cohesion, and cultural change are all equally necessary to secure a more prosperous and verdant future. 

Technology as a positive force

While pondering this week’s blog prompt, I realized that I was stuck so I decided to do what most people who are stumped do: define the words in the question. Technology is such an integral part of our society but it’s used so easily that it becomes one of those words that people know but cannot properly define. What is technology exactly? What is considered technology? The answers to these questions are important because it helps us understand how our shape our views of technology’s impact in society through our own definition of what constitutes itself as technology. Well, according to Merriam-Webster, technology can be defined (among other ways) as “…the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area.” The word practical itself is defined as “… of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something.” Now, this something can be an idea, plan, or method. Going by the stated definition of technology, the iPhone 5 is considered technology but so is a recycling method (not the physical product itself but the idea of it) that details how to remove paper from plastic products, for example.

I believe that technology can ultimately be used as a positive force in the environmental fight. There are so many great things that people are doing with technology that it should not be disregarded in discussions of what we can do to help slow down the deterioration of the environment. We should be encouraging (green) technology rather than condemning it. Just look at how far we’ve come with the computer. The first computer was a massive structure that took up an entire room. It must have taken a lot of energy to power it and it could not even do complex tasks. Contemporary computers can do much more while using less energy.

This does not mean that I do not realize the negative impacts of technology on our environment. Honestly, I have never met anyone who has recycled their old T.V. or used batteries. The truth is that most outdated and/or unwanted technology in America is thrown out on the curb and unfortunately spends its last days in a landfill. However, I do not think that it is the technology that is at fault but rather the mindset behind its creation, use, and subsequent abandonment.  Technology can be a positive force in our lives by making certain chores easier, faster, and even more environmentally friendly (the trend nowadays). The problem lies in our consumerist lifestyle. A great example of this is the reaction to any Apple products. With the release of the iPhone 5, people are throwing away their iPhone 4/4S and lining up for the latest technology. Our desire for the latest and coolest technology coupled with our increasingly shortened attention span means that we demand more and more physical products that use up more resources. In a few years, Apple will come out with a new edition of the iPhone that will replace the current iPhone 5 and satisfy our need for change. People should keep innovating and changing the current technology because the current trends in technology shows us it will lead to a more efficient and environmentally friendly end result. The problem is the attitudes that drive our consumption of technology: is it because we want to be more efficient or is it simply because we want to be the owners of the latest technology? 

Technology holds a key, but we are the key masters

 Since a young age, I have been a sci-fi fanatic. From Star Trek to the (often strange) depths of cult sci-fi literate  I have eaten it up. As technologies have been infused with our society, as an example, your relationship is no longer deemed legitimate unless it's 'facebook official,' I have gotten more more giddy about the prospects of the development of holograms, virtual worlds, and an onslaught of new technologies that we can only dream of now. 

I see technology as a generally good force, especially for the development of further green initiatives. The advent of a whole new generation of high tech, low output devices to replace our aging systems. Technology moved us from coal to nuclear energy, it will move us into high efficiency renewable energy. It's brought us electric cars, the stepping stones for future transportation revolutions by  reigniting the idea that there is an alternative to fossil fuels. As the years go by, competition will likely fuel new initiatives for a slightly more environmentally conscious generation.

Technology has one fault though, it is still slave to its creators. Until we can create a sentient, eco-minded AI to make new technologies for us (which would be badass, I am in full support of AI systems, even dumb ones) we are the 'gatekeepers' of progress. Outside of a university lab, it is the market which largely controls the direction of technological developments. The market is still in the 70's-80's mindset of maximize consumption and growth at all costs, and technology follows that model. That can only change with a shift toward a symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. Once that happens, I feel that we will see a much more healthy relationship. 

What we need are solutions!

There is little doubt that not enough is being done to confront the monumental environmental challenges facing human society. Recycling, hybrids, and trendy green movements rooted in consumerism will not stave off the ecological tsunami of pollution, climate change, and the destruction of natural resources. However, Michael Maniates, and many other environmentalists who share a similar view offer only a fundamental redesign of the world order: a shift unseen since the transition to democracy from the late 18th century to the end of the 20th century.

I agree that what is being done isn't enough. I agree that the future looks bleak. I agree that bold action must be taken at an international, state, and local level. However, I am troubled that the only solution offered by those who share Maniates's beliefs are a destruction of the institutions and systems that have moved millions of people around the world out of poverty, saved millions more from communicable diseases, and led to the development of technology that has connection all seven billion of us in the blink of an eye.

The perception that "easy" is some sort of failure is a fallacy. There is no doubt that we are miles ahead of where we were (in regards to the environment) a century ago, or even fifty years ago. Improvements have been made in terms of efficiency, sustainability, pollution, etc., etc., etc. Those hard earned accomplishments should not be overlooked.

Adam, argued that we need "hard-hitting legislation which puts a corporation's existence on the line if they do not follow green practices." Such legislation would "force the company to disband if they are found in violation of strict laws." This amounts to nothing more than environmental fascism and ecoterrorism. It is important that the shifts and actions we take as a society to combat environmental issues has broad-based support; just as the civil rights movement, WWII, and American Revolution had. The ecological revolution starts, with as Mark mentioned, getting the word out and educating a country about where the road we have been on for decades leads (environmental apocalypse).

Yet, perhaps where Maniates's piece causes me to scratch my head hardest is that it lacks any specific policy solutions. The closest reference vaguely states, "Avoiding the worst risks of climate change, for instance, may require reducing U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent in the next 30 years". That is not to say that I offer any solutions (these solutions must come from experts, scientists, academics, and researchers in relevant fields), but Maniates's lack of solutions is indicative of a troubling trend in environmentalism.

There is little debate that we are not doing enough. There is no question that harm is being done. However, there is a noticeable lack of solutions to the modern environmental crisis. What we need are solutions. Clear, specific, and realistic policy, scientific, and other measures to address environmental concerns. Yes, we are not doing enough, but until given solutions otherwise, we must do what little we can, even if it is considered "easy" by some.

A Conundrum

Michael Maniates makes an interesting point regarding the emphasis on proposed simple fixes to save the environment.  I agree with his point that the tone of publications such as The Lazy Environmentalist and other publications that preach that we all can prevent climate change and other ecological disasters merely by taking shorter showers or using the right type of light bulb is a bit condescending. Fixing/saving the environment is not so simple.  The government and environmental organizations should be asking for more from people, but general consensus seems to be that people are not willing to do more. Maniates does not seem to agree with this and thinks that people would do more to combat climactic instability if more was asked of them.

One on hand, I agree.  Many of the people who do make the small changes in their lives, particularly the ones who were recruited to the green lifestyle by their favorite pop stars, likely are not aware that they are not doing enough.  As a result, they do not know what they should be doing, and the government, environmental organizations, and eco-minded celebrities (essentially those groups with a public platform) need to stress that more significant action is necessary. They control the information; yes, the facts are out there, but most people won't put in the effort to find them, but that is not to say that people would not take more drastic action if they were fully aware of the scope of the environmental problem.  In that sense, the aforementioned groups bear the responsibility for getting the word out, and by understating the problem, they are not only treating the general public like children but are, in fact, perpetuating the problem that they are tasked with solving.

Conversely, however, I am not sure that people would be responsive if asked to do more to protect the environment.  People in general, especially the American populace, have a long history of laughing in the face of fact.  For instance, there is a sizable portion of the population that still denies climate change entirely, which, after decades-worth of evidence, is completely ludicrous.  As such, if people were asked to  dramatically alter their lifestyles; I generally question whether they would or if they would seek out the sources that make them feel better.

Finally, I want to touch upon the strength of interest groups in American government and the role that they play in preventing the type of strict and comprehensive environmental policies proposed by another one of our bloggers.  Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big-any-industry-that-is-fundamentally-detrimental-to-the-environment have a lot of money and, as a result, a lot of power in influence in Washington.  They can rally supporters among our elected officials both directly by contributing to their campaigns (thanks DC United) or indirectly. I am not saying that our representatives our all corrupt and in bed with big business, but a Fortune 500 corporation can devote a lot more resources to preventing more environmental legislation than an NGO can to promoting it.

Going Green: Taking it one step at a time

Although it was written in November of 2007, the arguments in Professor Michael Maniates’ article “Going Green? Easy doesn’t do it” are still relevant to our world today. The only difference is that the environmental problems that plague our society seem to be getting worse while the pace of our actions seem to be the same, if not slower and more apathetic.

The fact is that going green is considered “trendy” nowadays. It’s everywhere but with most trends, people want an easy way out. The minute and easy little steps that they can do to seem like a friend to the planet is their way of participating and being a part of the green movement with as little effort as possible. Is this ideal? No, it is not. We want people to care about the environment. We want them to take real action and not be complacent with just doing what they think if their fair contribution. We want people to rethink their consumer-oriented lifestyle. However, we also do not want to overlook the importance of doing the small things. Constantly reinforcing those habits in a way that produces discussion of the environmental issues is a good thing.  A lot of people do not have the time or money to be as environmentally friendly as they would like to be. In the short run, it costs more to be environmentally friendly sometimes than it does to just blindly consume and throw away the finite resources available. Our problems seem to extend much further than just not doing enough.

As mentioned in my previous post, the privileged few on this planet that shameless consume far more than their “fair share” of this earth do so in blissful ignorance; ignorance of the scope of the environmental problems that we, as humans, are contributing to the supple world surrounding us.  Ignorance, not the coddling of the masses by environmental elitist, is the root of the problem. How can people demand more drastic action if they are not properly educated on it? In a country where people still doubt the existence of global warming, trying to force drastic action on the public is not going to change much. People need to possess the desire to change the way we consume and dispose of things.  At the same time, they also need to be properly informed on the issue. Unfortunately, it could take a lot of time before that happens and time is a luxury at this point. 

Reduce, Reuse, Revolution

Modern environmentalism is faith based.  The daily activities involved in "being green" - recycling your bottles, packing your lunch in reusable tuppleware, unplugging your cell phone charger, etc. - are like a kind of mantra, or prayer: something we do over and over again with a belief that our small individual actions will spur into motion some force much larger than ourselves.  In his article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It", Michael Maniates point out that there is little basis for this belief.

"The hard facts are these: If we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of the growth of environmental damage."

Emulating the piety of the modern urban - sub-urban environmentalist doesn't cut it if our intentions are to actually change the way we impact the natural world.

This raises the question, if "being green" the way we see it today is not enough then what is enough?  What actions or changes do we have to make in our lives and our societies to meet our own needs without exchanging the health of the environment or the potential of future generations?  The truth is that "being green" seems to be easy because it fits in the existing systems of production and consumption.  For example, rather than making the exceedingly painful shift to a fully renewable energy economy we will instead encourage our population to turn the lights off when they depart for an evening out; rather than restructuring our cities and towns to be more walkable and bikeable we will ask people to buy Priuses.  Unfortunately it is the production-consumption system itself that is at the root or environmental degradation, and no amount of recycling will pull 7 billion people back from the brink.

The kind of changes we would need in order to see positive environmental change are, as Maniates calls them, fundamental.  Reducing our impact on the environment will mean reforming our agricultural system, overhauling our transportation systems, and most importantly of all, letting go of the doctrine of never-ending economic growth.  Fundamental changes like these amount to changing the rules of a game that has been in play since the Industrial Revolution.  Some people and societies are very good at this game, and for obvious reasons, would be annoyed if the rules suddenly changed.

There are powerful interest groups, and there is our own deep-seated, albeit supressed, aversion to unconfortable change that create extreme inertia.  It is inertia that is the true enemy to the environment, and by extension, to ourselves; and it is inertia that we will need to overcome to be true environmentalists.

Time to pull out the big guns

I have to agree with Mr. Maniates that it's time for the greener ranks of our population to be empowered to do more and for the coddling to stop. The ordinary citizen should be encouraged to do more than recycle here and there or buy a light bulb. But the everyday person can only do so much, and it's time to start looking at the more radical violators more sternly.

While there have been initiatives to encourage people not only in the U.S. but other countries to be far more environmentally conscious about their choices and development, but it's hard to argue for greener policies and development while there is little regulation and punishment for violates here in the U.S.

U.S. legislation on the environment is already some of the weakest in the developed world, and we severely lag behind many other nations in the development and encouragement of greener industrial practices, and we have to look at our political/economic system as a major cause of environmentalist woes. When California decided to take matters into it's own hands and wanted to enforce stricter standards for emissions, they found themselves in court against the Federal government, which was very clearly acting to defend the more egregious offenders of the stricter standards, American car markers. With how deeply corporations have embedded themselves within Washington politicians, a green-conscious citizen has little to no voice to make their concerns heard.

Furthermore, the environment has not become a political issue, and a toxic one at that. A vote for one party or the other has become a vote for either jobs or earth, and when the article was written, the job market was starting to look gloomy. Four years after the 2008 crash, unemployment is uncomfortably high and job security is not guaranteed. It's easy for one side or the other to say 'screw the planet, we need to get people back to work.'

Because our, and increasingly the world's, economic system relies on constant expansion and growth, the notion of paying more to be environmentally conscious is a poor business choice. with countries making a 'race to the bottom' to secure their place in the markets, things like the environment are business expenses that can be pushed to the side to ensure profits. Companies who are trying to become more green do not yet have enough incentive to make a real impact. So there is huge demand to maximize profits and little motivation to try and be environmentally conscious.

What we need is hard-hitting legislation which puts a corporation's existence on the line if they do not follow green practices. Clearly fines have only so much impact, so raise the stakes and force the company to disband if they are found in violation of strict laws. To do this, companies need to be distanced from lawmakers. Trade with a country needs to be dependent on their business practices. We have one of the largest consumer bases in the world, use that in our favor. Our economy can be far more effective than our military when it comes to changing the globe.

Drill Baby Drill (for some articulate policy)

A quick search of "Environment" on the Mitt Romney campaign websites will mostly turn up blog posts concerning "environment for jobs" or "environment for job creation." Yet, the Obama campaign (though it does have a separate page dedicated to the environment), only lists "Energy" on its main drop down tab of issues. Frankly, the environment is a low-priority issue; the benefits (and costs) are long-term, and short term concerns such as jobs, security, and whether or not people who love each other should be allowed to marry take priority.

Thankfully, Romney's plan does not involve getting rid of the EPA (thank you Rick Perry), but he does laughably argue in the first paragraph of "Obama's Failure," "In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the President and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs." It almost seems as though President Obama and his granola-eating handlers are just itching to kill jobs (the use of the word "kill" when describing jobs is a debate for a different day).

Romney's plan is based on an entirely different political ideology, one based on liberal economic policies such as deregulation, minimal government involvement, and streamlining of procedures. But, beyond my philosophical differences, one line in particular stood out to me: "Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview." The foundations and implications of such a policy are extreme. Such a change is a boon to the energy industry, but also seems to ignore the greatest environmental issue facing the world: Global Warming. The Romney Plan (or website) does not mention "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" (more PC) in any way, shape, or form. This is perhaps the most disturbing facet of the Romney Plan.

President Obama's Energy/Environment Plan features a picture of a large windmill and another photo the the first family on a scenic hike. The differences between the two plans are stark. President Obama shows a clear focus on investment in alternative forms of energy. Romney argues that government should not direct the course of the energy industry (while seemingly turning a blind eye to billions in subsides to oil companies). Yet, while the Obama plan does feature colorful graphs, facts, and figures, its environmental policy seems based on bold platitudes such as, "From the Great Lakes to the Gulf and the Rockies to the Smoky Mountains, he is working to preserve our environment and protect our natural outdoor heritage."

Simply put, both candidates know that the environment will not be a deciding issue of this campaign. Jobs are what matter, and all other issues (energy, taxes, spending, etc) will be tied to creating jobs. President Obama will try to articulate that creating "Green Jobs" is key to the future of America's economic success, while Romney will most certainly argue that Obama's energy and environmental policies have killed jobs. Yet, both candidates see the political importance of advocating for a decreased dependence on foreign oil, but the means to that end slightly differ.

Perhaps more interesting policies are Gary Johnson's libertarian environmental and energy policies (hands-off doesn't quite describe it) or Jill Stein's "Green New Deal," which might even have MSNBC cry "SOCIALISM!" It is deeply troubling that the environment is merely a footnote of the 2012 Presidential Campaign, and it seems that it will remain so as long as there are issues whose effects are felt on the short-term remain present and pertinent to the American people.

Anti-Climactic at Best

Without being too partisan, the first thing I am struck by is the absence of a definitive Romney environmental agenda.  Candidates always have an issues section.  In Obama's 'Energy and the Environment' is third on the list, right below 'Jobs & Economy' and 'Education'; in Romney's 'Energy' is one of 12, and you have to delve into the other sections, like 'Regulation' and 'Tax' to find mention of the environment.  This is indicative of the candidate's vastly different ideas of what the environment is, and what that means to American voters.  

Romney is to some extent at a disadvantage, while Obama can point to specific initiatives he has implemented throughout the last four year, Romney must tactically focus his campaign on attacking those initiatives.  However, that doesn't explain the lack of environmental agenda altogether.  Romney plan for the environment is strewn throughout the other issues sections because that's where it fits best in his platform at large.  Environmental regulations, environmental taxes, investment in green technology, all represent market inefficiencies contributing to jobs lost, national interest neglected, and a declining international position.  If it's possible to be pro-Carbon, then Romney is trying to brand himself as such by, "elimina[ting] regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration's costly and ineffective anti-Carbon agenda."  Pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American; the environment is to be respected but not to stand in the way of a free and efficient marketplace.  The only traditionally environmentalist moment in Romney's platform is short: "As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment..." quickly followed by, "be[ing] mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers.  

To note Romney's lack of environmental platform, however, is not to say that Obama's is perfect.  Obama's 'Energy and Environment' section of his website points to a few environmental priorities for his adminitration: clean air, clean coal, and a diversified fuel economy.  However, none of these, including the "All-of-the-above" plan, offer any concrete steps to achieving these goals.  The one tangible initiative Obama's platform does cite is the America's Great Outdoors program.  AGO has actually had an effect on granting more authority to land trusts in the US, and channeling funding towards programs that get Americans better connected with nature.  It's not necessarily as to the point as a committment to halt offshore drilling might be, but I think it has value nonetheless.  So much of environmental politics over the last decade has been focused on energy and climate change that relatively little effort has been directed towards fostering the connection between Americans and their surrounding natural environment.  The AGO report from 2011 states that nearly 80% of all Americans find it "difficult to connect with nature" in their lives.  That's an important figure for a nation that's trying to determine how willing it is to protect its natural resources and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.  

Philosophically, Romney and Obama are miles apart on their ideas for the future of America's natural environment.  The former sees what has become an obstruction to a free market economy, while the later sees a chance to stimulate new economic opportunities and encourage exploration.  Neither of them have the well-definied conservation initiatives that I would like to see as an environmentalist, but perhaps that's too much to ask for during an election season.  

The Politics of the Disappearing Environmental Platforms of Presidential Candidates

As we have come to see in our discussions over the past couple of classes, the environment is seen as a dirty word and issues related to it can be controversial debate. Perhaps it is attributed to the fact that people do not want to face the reality of Earth as a container of finite resources. Perhaps it is because people do not want to believe that their lifestyle is directly contributing to the destruction of our only planet. Ignorance is bliss and most Americans would rather consume millions of pounds in plastic a year than face the true nature of the state of our environment. Whatever the reason, environmental issues do not receive the same level of severity or priority as economic and social issues. 

This trend is not exclusive to the American public. As potential representatives and decision makers for the American people, the platforms of presidential candidates reflect what is most important to the public. Thus, it is not surprising to me that at first glance, the energy and environment (or in Romney's case, just energy) platforms of President Obama and Mitt Romney are not as comprehensive as compared to their opinions on America's economic or foreign policy. 

In terms of key differences, President Obama’s platform seems constructed to please both sides of the environmental and economic debate while Romney’s platform seeks to utilize the environment to strengthen the economy rather than protect it for future generations. Examples of the dual appeal of President Obama’s platform includes his desire to invest in Green technology and subsequently create more jobs through this industry highlights as well as his initiative to improve fuel efficiency of passenger automobiles. Romney’s plans to exclude carbon dioxide from the Clean Air act and streamline the process for companies to conduct “pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas” reflects his desire to get the economy booming first and then maybe think about the repercussions for the environment. 

Both candidates seem to agree that the United States should reduce its reliance on foreign oil (Read: Middle East) by developing its own source of energy. To President Obama, this means developing the clean-coal industry and investing more money in developing green technology. To Romney, it means doing things like forging partnerships with neighboring countries such as Canada in order to construct ta pipeline that would deliver Canadian oil to the United States. Both have different solutions to the problem but at the very least, they agree that America's desire for energy is growing and we need to look at substitutes if we want to continue living our extravagant lifestyle. 

In general though, it seems as if the platforms of both candidates will do little to drastically change the way Americans consume and dispose of products. The major points that President Obama is pushing in his environmental platform is extremely lenient compared to how huge America's carbon food print is compared to the rest of the world. I think that he is completely bowing down to the automobile industry by giving them until 2025 to double the fuel efficiency of passgener automobiles. It is not as if the technology does not exist for that. The automotive industry can make more fuel efficient cars, it just chooses not to at this point. Giving them 13 years to improve the fuel efficiency of their cars means that we are allowing people to put even more toxins into the environment for the next 13 years before we decide to even think about changing things. Scientists have already said that it is too late to keep the Earth in the state that it has been in for thousands of years but if we follow President Obama's plans then it will definitely be entirely too late. 

Romney's platform fares no better. In fact, it seems to be even worse than President Obama's platform for the sole reason that he does not seem to even act as if he cares about protecting the environment for future generations. Looking through Romney's page, all I see are sentences related to the economy, profit, jobs, deregulation, and streamlining processes for corporations. Romney even states that green technology will hold us American companies back in the international market place. As someone else in the class pointed out in their blog post, Romney's platform does not include the word "environment". It is just simply "energy" and this makes sense because he is solely focused on how America can possess, use and develop more resources for obtaining enough energy to fuel the American economy. 

Ideally, I would love to see both candidates take this issue more seriously. President Obama should be more strict in his policy initiatives and use the power of the government to force industries such as the automobile industry to be on par with the rest of the world in terms of fuel efficiency. I would like to see Mitt Romney change his mind about green technology. While it may be costly, it should not be seen as a disadvantage for American companies competing in the global marketplace. Furthermore, he should not go through with his policy of excluding carbon dioxide from the Clean Air Act. That is only further deluding the American public.

Presidential platforms aside, what ultimately matters is that the American public needs to demand more action from their representatives. You never know when you have a good thing until it's gone. Unfortunately, we do not have another planet to escape to when things go badly on this planet... well not yet at least. 

Presidential Energy (and Environment?) Plans

As Adam already stated, the most striking difference between President Obama and Governor Romney's platforms is all in the name.  Obama's explicitly references the Environment while Romney's platform does not.  This is not to say that Romney plans to disregard the environment entirely; he does, however, place a much stronger emphasis on sustaining and expanding the carbon-based energy sector to create jobs.  His two stipulations regarding environmental regulations concern me.  The first is that he will "ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process," which is mildly concerning because it suggest to me that the government will have to bear some of the costs of companies complying with environmental regulations, which could lead to more lax implementation and lack of impetus to create new ones.  At the same time, it could also lead to higher compliance, which would be a very good thing.  His second point, however, is that he would "amend [the] Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview," which is quite a bit more concerning considering present issues regarding carbon emissions.

Another obvious difference between the two platforms is the emphasis that each puts on green technology. The Obama platform includes multiple stipulations regarding electric cars, low carbon fuel, clean coal, renewable resources, etc. while the Romney campaign only supports "basic research" into alternative energy funding, not even alternative energy itself.  One gripe I do have with Obama  is that it still places a heavy emphasis on fossil fuels which I understand, but I would like to see an emphasis on relieving our dependence on oil in general rather than just foreign oil.  That said, I find Obama's merging of energy and environmental concerns far more appealing than Romney's pure emphasis on energy.

Romney and Obama with respect to Energy and the Environment

The first stark difference between the two candidates is how the frame the issue. On Obama's page, he labels the section Energy and the Environment, whereas Romney simply calls it Energy. Obama's page has multiple bolded phrases and sections outlining his commitment to the symbiotic strategy he espouses, one where we do not have to choose between the environment and the economy (and thus energy). Romney's position clearly demarcates the environment as a secondary priority to energy and the economy. To quote, he says: "As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers." He also references the president's environmental initiatives as hindering he growth of the economy and energy. He has a clear bias toward job growth, a fair bias to have in our economically tougher environment. 

As an environmentalist, I would personally like to see the growth of a green movement in both parties like we see in Europe and other parts of the world. A vote red or blue would not mean a vote for or against the environment. I believe both candidates can do more to foster the growth of green industries and support subsidies for those companies, as the R&D and technology is expensive. Obama's camp should invest in more intelligent investments, as a number of his projects were hefty failures, and Romney, the self proclaimed champion of working Americans, should incentivise alternative fuel exploration and stop reliance on foreign resources.
-Adam