I've greatly enjoyed watching the reactions to the debates. It's a great time of year, when all Americans can sit down in front of their television and shout at it. For the most part, people’s reactions have focused on Romney’s describing his “binders full of women” during a question about women’s rights in the workplace. (In short, the argument was that Romney could support women in the workplace because he’d hired them before and made sure that they could get home to take care of their children and cook and do other woman’s work while still working. I'm sure that's what the women were worried about.)
This was
not, however, the part of the debate that concerned me. I saw, near the
beginning, a question on energy, in which both candidates held their ground
considerably well. They both talked about how they wanted to increase jobs in
the oil and coal sectors, with Obama touting how he had opened up more public
lands to drilling than Bush. But he's also invested in green energy! Historians surveying the postapocalyptic wasteland of two hundred years in the future shall surely say of Obama:
Romney, meanwhile, criticized Obama's inability to let the sector expand indefinitely, turning the heat up on Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney's mix-of-energy policy includes both kinds- oil and coal!
Romney, meanwhile, criticized Obama's inability to let the sector expand indefinitely, turning the heat up on Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney's mix-of-energy policy includes both kinds- oil and coal!
Obama
replied by pointing out that Romney, during his
governorship, publicly declared that a coal plant “killed” and helped to
shut
it down, which shut down coal jobs. As a man who criticizes his
opponent's departure from facts, Obama should probably be encouraging
when Romney does resort to truths.
This happened during the first debate, too. Romney twice pressed Obama on his funding of green energy companies, which Obama did not even attempt to defend.
This happened during the first debate, too. Romney twice pressed Obama on his funding of green energy companies, which Obama did not even attempt to defend.
These
discussions of energy were entirely backwards. Neither one mentioned the issue
of global warming, perhaps the most pressing issue to our society currently.
Neither one defended the closing of coal plants by pointing out that just the
direct pollution from coal plants, without even mentioning the long-term
effects of global warming, kill thirteen thousand people per year[1].
Romney has rejected the environmental moderation he championed during his time
as governor. Obama continues to pretend that “clean coal” is not a complete
fabrication of the coal industry.
We ought to
have a president who is proud of shutting down coal plants. We ought to have a
president who defends the public’s right to public lands, who will stifle the
oil drilling industry. We ought to have a president who will stand in front of
the Keystone XL pipeline every step of the way, who will note with a smile that
oil production is down in America, and who will not replace coal with the
slightly-better natural gas.
We ought to have a president who understands that short-term job numbers are not worth a serious risk to society. The current voting priorities of America are irrational and absurd. Environment should be the number-one priority in this election, but it seems all we can do is hope for 2016.
written by Noah Shavit-Lonstein, Oct. 27, 2012
[1]
http://washingtonindependent.com/97196/study-predicts-13200-deaths-from-coal-pollutants-this-year
No comments:
Post a Comment