Another important difference between the two candidates is related to energy and how it impacts the environment. Although both candidates agree that climate changes are occurring, Biden attributes the changes to man, whereas Palin is unsure as to whether or not they are caused by man, and said that arguing about the cause was not important.
I was pleased that the energy issues received some attention during the debate. The presidential and vice presidential candidates have yet to say what, if any, programs that they have promised may need to be cut due to the $700 billion being spent on the bailout. It stands to reason that something will need to be sacrificed, and I'm afraid some of the investment required for clean energy may be in jeopardy. When there's not enough money to go around, it's easy to fall back into the same old trap and continue to buy foreign oil.
A full transcript of the debate (text and/or video) can be found at:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
6 comments:
I am always skeptical about what the candidates say during debates especially on issues like the environment because both sides present their issues as practically ideal. Palin says off-shore drilling is environmentally safe while Biden says it is not. I don't know which to believe. I would love it if you could give some information (besides the candidates opinions) on this subject. I felt that Palin saying that we shouldn't argue about the causes of global warming was naive. How are you supposed to find a solution if you don't even know the problem? It seemed like a way of avoiding a subject that she knew she was in the minority opinion about. What makes me nervous about the Obama Biden plan is their hope in using Nuclear Energy. When I think if Nuclear Energy I think of Chernobyl and nuclear waste. I hope their plan for Nuclear Energy is different from the past.
Biden continues to reference clean coal and personally I feel there is no such thing as clean coal. Most researchers know its an oxymoron because there's always going to be a risk involved with the consumption of coal. Furthermore, it is believed the technology to produce clean coal on a widescale wont be availaibe until 2030 and green house emmissions is an issue that needs to be addressed long before then.
It was refreshing to hear Obama speak clearly on his priorities, priorities I too embrace. And in an order that I find acceptable and realistic. His opponent seems to have priorities right out of the Water Boy - remember the cheer "(we) can do it" all - and give tax breaks to the richest of us. We are great! USA. USA. USA. How many trillions is that debt?
McCain and Obama both present positive thoughts towards environmental issues but my question is, what exactly is each candidate going to do to put their ideas into practice? I think that it is extremely important that Americans begin to look at how our actions today will effect future generations in the years to come. I would like to know the different strategies each candidate has in order to put their ideas on environmental issues into place.
Hey American Blogger - just like there is safer sex there is safer coal - there are trade offs - and I don't hear anyone saying "clean" coal is the long term or only answer. What we need is someone who has this issue and all of the corollary issues it raises as the priority issue on a short list of very important priorities. And health care, in my opinion, is right up there as a very close second. How in a country of Hummer's and Lexis' and 50" LCD HDTV's can we morally justify uninsured children? Are we that selfish? After years of free market economics are there fewer uninsured children? Have these programs worked? If not (and not is the correct answer), it is time to try something else. I understand these are hard fixes - needing systemic change. So is education - and maybe long term, education may become the most important. But focus is key.
Thanks for your comments. Laurel - you bring up several good points and I'll try to address them. As to whether or not offshore drilling is environmentally safe, I don't really know the statistics regarding the drilling itself, but I think we all know that eventually the oil ends up mostly in the form of gasoline, which is one of the biggest contributors to emissions. So I think it's hard to refer to drilling as environmentally friendly. As for nuclear energy, I hope to have a more detailed post regarding the use of nuclear energy in the near future. I am trying to keep an open mind, although I share your concerns regarding safety. On the upside, and why I think it's important to look into it, my understanding is that it has zero emissions and the costs associated with upstart are being compared to that of wind, but without some of the downsides associated with wind power. Look forward to more info soon. American Blogger brings up another good point regarding the issue of clean coal. I was surprised at how much Biden seemed to focus on clean coal during the V.P. debate. It's another area where I'm trying to keep an open mind until I can research it in more detail, it too deserves a post of its own. In my mind, the downside is that it's a non-renewable energy source, and it does impact the environment negatively. The push for cleaner coal has actually been going on for a while, and the Clean Coal Initiative came into existence under the Bush administration. The reason why I think it deserves a closer look is because we do have a large amount of coal, and if it can be made cleaner than it is today, well that's still a step in the right direction, as chuculainn pointed out. It may be that zero emission, renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and nuclear (which has its own set of issues) may never be enough to satisfy our total energy needs (or usage anyway), so that cleaner energy at least improves our current situation. In addition, it has been brought up that China relies heavily on coal and if we can develop the technology to make it cleaner, we can work with China to reduce their emissions as well. They have made it clear that they intend to use their coal, so we all will if we can partner to reduce emissions. Both ennaeiram and Laurel expressed well-deserved skepticism as to what the candidates will actually do about energy when they get into office, and I must say I agree. The same thing could be said with regard to health care, education and other areas. In terms of what they say they are going to do, they both have some pretty detailed plans laid out on their websites.
Post a Comment