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