Menu

Government Class

0 Comment

The Renewable Energy Divide In her story Renewable energy: Dems, GOP diverge published in USA Today on September 27, 2007, Martha Moore explains that the Republican and Democratic candidates for President have different ideas that split predominantly down party lines regarding the use of renewable energies. Both party’s candidates have voiced support for investing in alternative energy. Republicans justify this action so as to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil while Democrats are concerned more with reducing the human impact on the global warming crisis. The Democrats want to go further by federally mandating a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide industries may emit while Republicans oppose emissions caps. Republican and Democratic candidates for President, as evidenced by their campaign rhetoric, appear as if they agree on an issue. Both have espoused funding renewable energy sources such solar, wind, and bio-fuels but their motivations are as different as the ideological chasm that exists in the parties themselves. Democrats have made global warming a centerpiece of their campaigns and renewable energy is but a part of that while Republicans make only glancing mention of man’s influence on climate changes. Alternative forms of energy, according to Republicans are beneficial because it will reduce the amount of oil imported from the countries that support terrorism. In support of their global warming platform, Democrats also want to reduce pollution emitted from factories and increase the efficiency of automobiles. In addition, Democrats oppose the concept of liquid coal as a replacement for coal saying that it would produce greenhouse gasses at an unacceptable rate. Republicans generally support liquid coal. Moore’s article points out that environmentalist groups have dismissed the Republican stance on renewable energy as ingenuous and motivated by political ambitions rather than concern for the environment. The Republicans make a good point. Encouraging the use of renewable forms of energy by investing federal funds, if advanced on a massive scale, may decrease the amount of foreign oil that must now be imported. Because much of it is found in the Middle East region of the world, this has historically been a volatile area and largely unfriendly to the U.S., not depending on this region for the country’s ‘life blood’ is a great idea. The Democrats mention this aspect of their renewable energy argument in passing and maybe they should bring it up more often to score more political points in the general election. Global warming is the most pressing issue, however. The candidates of both parties understand this but, for whatever reason, the members of the Republican Party would likely reject any of their party’s candidates that would make it a focal point of their run for office. For this reason, political reasons, the Republicans seldom will even say ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ during a speech or debate. Possibly it is because former Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat and liberal-minded environmentalists are the ones sounding the global warming alarm. Far be it for Republicans to join ideologically with either group even when it means certain catastrophe for the entire planet. Republicans are concerned about the negative economic impact that transforming the nation’s energy consumption habits might produce. Democrats have not articulated the urgency of the situation well or often enough nor have they ensured that every American understand that new forms of energy would create many thousands of high paying jobs and keep the country on the cutting edge of this emerging technology. This article essentially said that if you are concerned about energy independence and global warming, vote Democrat in 2008. Works CitedMoore, Martha T. Renewable energy: Dems, GOP diverge. (2007). October 22, 2007