Republican Rapscallions

Obama's speech given at Georgetown seems to finally affirm one of his progressive planks that helped him garner the youth support that pushed him into office. His dedication to curbing oil consumption is imperative to combating climate change, but like any politician, he set deadlines way into the future that could arguably be met in a shorter amount of time with more heavy-handed policies. While these theoretical policies would be undoubtedly less popular, and particularly with his anti-environmental rightist opposition, they would be much less easier to undo. For example, Obama set the goal to purchase only fuel-efficient government vehicles by 2015, but if a Republican wins the election in 2012, this ambition could easily be reneged on. I'm thinking specifically of a paralleled story of Carter installing solar panels on the White House only to be removed by Reagan when he took office.

Another aspect of the debate between the right and left regarding energy is how to prevent, and then curtail any environmental regression the Republican-majority house may permit to happen. Just one among many examples is Senator Vitter's intention to promote domestic drilling, particularly in Alaska, as well as block certain EPA anti-pollution regulations. This second stipulation made my jaw drop - why would these policies exist if it weren't agreed on that they should in the first place? The thought occurred to me that perhaps Senator Vitter's true ambition would be to go down in the history books as a martyr at the hands of some radicals such as Earth First, but this suggests that our bureaucratic and highly partisan system can sustain itself long enough for this debate to develop any lessons worth publishing in a history book. I'm inclined to think that because of these weaknesses of our political system, as well as the long list of cons related to capitalism,there will not exist an opportunity to analyze the contemporary history of the United States in light of the way things are now.

One final thought rests with a particularly succinct and sarcastic tweet from political pundit Matty Glesias: "The good news about Obama's new energy policy is that even if it were better, it still wouldn't pass congress."

Was it just me, or did this lack controversy?

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.