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.