We the Climate Ostriches?
Are we Americans
ostriches? Why in these presidential
debates nothing has been said about the climate change. How many of us truly realize that the overwhelming
scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is trapping heat in the
atmosphere, with potentially catastrophic long-term effects.
Obama and Romney failed
to address our increasing ecological
disasters in the debates. While they
have talked about extracting ever-larger quantities of oil, natural gas and
coal no discussion has been made of their serious economic and environmental impacts.
Romney did falsely attacked
Obama in the first debate on his failure with creating green jobs. Yes a few did fail, however, most were a huge
success . In the second debate, Romney
spoke about how the President “has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr.
Coal.” Romney declared, if elected,
would be all three. Obama countered, “We have increased oil production to the
highest levels in 16 years.” “Natural gas production is the highest it’s been
in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment.” Does anyone still remember what happen in the
Gulf Oil Spill?
Where is public
opinion about our future global ecological challenges? Yes Obama does cite that his administration
has invested in alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, however,
he fails to talk about lessening greenhouse emissions and thus do not
contribute to atmospheric warming.
Romney deludes us
with about “North America[n] energy independence.” This is a myth in since the international
energy market sets the price of oil is a global supply and demand. Also experts
predict that we heavily rely on foreign energy sources way into the future. Even if we extract all the oil and natural
gas be produced in the United States, Canada and Mexico energy prices will not fall. Natural price is localized since
it harder to transport over long distances.
Also the technology of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — to pump
huge quantities of natural gas, and the price is already quite low yet enormous
environmental impacts have yet to be fully understood. Also fracking has been mostly unregulated and
subsidized undermining alternative energy markets with providing lots of cheap
fracked gas. Fossil fuels enjoy much greater corporate welfare.
Both Romney and Obama
are pro-coal. However Obama champions we he calls “clean
coal” technology, which is a contradiction terms or more political rhetoric. The bottom-line is of we wish to lessen
carbon emissions; burning coal is the source of the problem.
So both Obama and
Romney say they accept the findings of climate scientists are correct about the
warming of the atmosphere. Yet they both
fear talking or addressing this issue because of public
opinion polls. Like Congress we are cowards
to even to show by example to lessen our impacts so to influence big emitters such as China, India
and Brazil to do their part. However, California and other states are taking the lead. Simply
this issue of climate change has serious security and future implications. Not being truthful about the full
ramifications of different energy sources has resulted in robbing Peter to pay Paul. Using inexpensive fossil fuel now have enormous future costs jeopardizing our next generations.
Unfortunately this presidential
campaign reflects Americans unwillingness to address climate change. Because it is a delicate and tricky subject both
Obama and Romney have opted to play it safe and ignore one the most detrimental
issues in our lifetime. Leaders are
supposed to lead not just follow public opinion. It is a pity since our symbol of the eagle is
now looking more like an ostrich.
Comments