Author: Emily Bell
In 1973, America faced an oil shortage unlike anything that had been seen before. When the crisis passed, President Jimmy Carter realized the need for energy reform in America.
“We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program, to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs,” President Carter said.
Sound familiar?
It seems like as with many other trends, the passion and support for environmentalism has run out. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) website, both ocean levels and temperatures are rising, signifying that clean and sustainable energy should be a priority to prevent aggravated climate change. So where is this issue in the 2012 Presidential campaign? Candidates across the country have covered everything from foreign policy to “Obamacare,” but one of the most important threats, climate change, has been left unaddressed.
In the past, activism groups have incited incredible changes in the way we live to make our world a healthier and longer-lasting place. After a protest of approximately 20 million Americans on Earth Day in 1970, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. The most recent catalysts for action were Vice President Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which again spurred people around the world to think about the environment in which we live, and the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline’s environmental impact. So where has climate change been during the election flurry?
The main event that drew away from the issue has been the economic downturn over the past decade. The country is focused on jobs, money, budgets, and taxes. But, even in an economic crisis, shouldn’t we be concerned about the big picture? The phrase “climate change” wasn’t mentioned at all during the 2012 Presidential debates, a stark contrast to the nine times it was used to make environmental points during the 2008 debates. The even more interesting observation is that the solutions to environmental responsibility proposed by this election’s two candidates sound eerily similar to the ones presented four years ago. We’ve acknowledged the need for clean energy but not the immediate threat of climate change.
Obama in a 2008 debate said,“I believe in the need for increased oil production. We’re going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling…We’re going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy.” Governor Mitt Romney, meanwhile, asserted earlier this month that offshore drilling was the only way to get America energy independent. Comparatively, the candidates don’t sound like they have conflicting views on the subject of clean energy.
It has been four years, and nothing much has seemed to change about the nuclear waste situation. Today, the Nuclear Energy Institute states on its website that, “The federal government plans to develop advanced recycling technologies to take full advantage of the unused energy in the used fuel and reduce the amount of toxic byproducts requiring disposal.”
The President has run into resistance in Congress and has been focused on improving various other parts of the American system including the economy, the health care system, military spending, and foreign policy, a valid reason for our stagnant environmental situation. Despite all of the challenges he has faced in office, he still managed to make progress by increasing America’s energy output.
The forms of energy Obama mentions are less than stellar when it comes to the environment, but the increases in their production has created many new jobs, an encouraging sign for the American economy. Romney argues against spending money on alternative forms of energy because he does not believe that the amount of jobs gained is worth the amount of money spent. “You provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives,” he said.
The criticism and many blockades set in place by those who believe jobs and costs outweigh the benefits of green energy is enough to stop many environmentalists who hope to change the way our society depends on the Earth’s resources. Alternative energies cost money and money is not something politicians want to spend in the current economy when we already have forms of energy, however harmful they may be. Coal is a cheap way to create jobs, but it’s not the proper source for U.S. energy dependence.
Maybe the problem is not the politicians, but the people. We are distracted by the immediate and visible issues like the economy, freedom and equality. We do not consider the fact that without a clean and responsible interaction with the Earth’s resources, the other issues are irrelevant in the long run.
It is the responsibility of the American people to show our representatives that the environment is important to us. Leaving the environment as a side note is not enough; it needs to be the main focus, because the clock is ticking to develop the necessary long-term solutions needed to alleviate climate change.
Emily Bell is an undeclared first-year. She can be reached at ebell@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
