Based on the views I've espoused in class, I'm more or less sure any of my 'blogmates' could have looked at the question and known that I had a cookie cutter answer for a response. Of course I commend Obama's efforts to restrain the fat-cat profiteers we can hold responsible for the promotion and flagrant advocacy of the status quo as rooted in contemporary transportation and the use of fossil fuels. By eliminating tax incentives to the tune of billions of dollars, Obama is sending a strong signal that his administration, to some degree, is opposed to allowing energy companies to control our country. This is a huge achievement in light of the last president's inability to do so.
Nonetheless, eliminating one type of subsidy doesn't solve the problem. It's positive for Obama to halt such reckless government policies, but he needs to posit alternative energy as the only viable solution to our fossil fuel addiction. Accordingly, I believe he should dramatically increase subsidies for clean energy by way of solar and wind power. It's important here to distinguish that the Obama administration's definition of what clean energy is has a broader definition than mine - chiefly, I don't consider coal or nuclear energy to be included in a plan to sustainably power our country for the next 100 years. The former is a resource that can and would be controlled by corporations that would be able to maintain their control over citizens and the government alike while eventually dwindling in supply and simultaneously exacerbating the state of the planet. The latter would leave us with a material we wouldn't know how to dispose of as well as position our nation in a vulnerable state - although perhaps I'm biased based on my hometown's proximity to Three Mile Island in PA. Conclusively, Obama should be very skeptical about how the US allows these giant commercial actors to play a role in future development. He is, however, taking strides in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment