Monday was the last presidential debate of 2012
election. During the past three
debates, many issues had been discussed, and we all see the clear differences
between President Obama and governor Romney. However, surprisingly, one of the hottest topics was not
discussed and asked about. That is climate
change. And this marked “the first” since 1980s that climate change didn’t come up in presidential debates,even the topic of clean energy was only mentioned briefly here and there. But it does not change climate change as one of the most important and hardest to answer problem for current society.
Many people in US have accepted the idea of climate change,
and for people, who have not, they should. There is hardly any doubt on the existence of climate
change, but the cause of it is now the central question. Many people believe that it is solely
due to human activities, but the scientific evidences have just not been enough
to give a clear, one plus one equals two, answer to convince everyone, even
scientists. People have been
criticism governor Romney for changing his position on climate change. But it is not his fault for changing
his answer when he probably doesn’t know the answer himself. The truth be told, no one really sure
what the cause is and if cutting the emitting of CO2 is really going to change
the situation. Therefore, making
policies for climate change that will apply nationwide is hard and getting it
approved is even harder. Moreover, the issue about alternative energy technologies,
such as high production costs, low efficiency and high polluted producing
process for equipments, makes the situation even worse. Everyone expects the president and the
government to do the right thing for the country and the world, but what happens
if there is not a right thing to do?
However, it doesn’t mean that promoting clean energy is not
necessary, because there is not only the climate to be considered. The limited supply of fossil fuel is a
clear answer for developing alternative energy facing high growth of energy
usage of modern society. When
governor Romney says, “I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas,” I will ask
what is going to happen if there is no more oil, coal or natural gas. To develop America’s oil, coal and
natural gas industries is not proceeding for energy independent, it is only
accelerate the end of fossil fuel age for America.
One the other hand, it also doesn’t mean that we should just
put all of our money into renewable energy and paying billions of dollars to subsidize
the market. The green technologies
nowadays are still too immature and costly both on money and on earth
resources. They need much more
improvements before entering the market to compete or to replace conventional energy. Clean energy is the future, but the
clean technologies that we have now is not the right answer yet.
I think you hit your main points and overall stance in the final paragraph. I disagree in that I think the government needs to make a constant effort to invest in renewable energy, provide incentives for businesses to comply, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly 84% of energy consumed is produced from fossil fuels/oil, natural gas, and coal. Factoring this in, we need to take a proactive position against climate change. California has began leading the nation in these efforts with AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% in 2050. Investing so much money in these programs is extremely costly, yes, but it is a necessary investment in order to alleviate the burdens and hardships generations will face with these climate changes and global problems.
ReplyDeleteI think you have get my idea wrong. I agree with you on the importance of renewable energy and government's role in promoting it. However, what I have problems with is the way government is doing now. It is investing too much money on business and subsidizing instead of improving renewable energy technology itself. The $90 billion energy project money that President Obama put in for alternative energy at the beginning of his office is almost all gone by now. The issue is that the green technology is not advancing enough to support itself as a competitor in the market, so that government needs to help it out. But the government can only help out to a certain point, and we do not have trillions of dollars just sitting there for alternative energy. The government need to find a more effective way to do this with out paying so much money, and the green technology need to be improved much more before it can hold the responsibility that people expect it to hold. Moreover, please do not think CO2 is the only pollution out there. Other earth resources and other forms of carbon pollutions, even chemical pollution from maintenance are equally important. In that contents, the green energy that you are thinking may be not so green anymore. The goal should not be how much more alternative energy that we can produced, because it will never catch up will our fast growth of energy consumption at rate nowadays. The key here is to have real green technology to be efficient and able to stand in the market by itself.
DeleteI think investing in renewables and improving renewable energy technologies is essential to America's future. Not only because of global warming but because of our oil dependency. We rely far too heavily on foreign oil which costs us a lot. Perhaps the government is going about it an inefficient way. Maybe the solution is to encourage private enterprise to invest in renewables.
ReplyDelete