Taking a closer look at the full costs of energy acquisition and dissipation
Whether or not a bipartisan climate policy is feasible or not definitely is a legitmate question. However, whether it is or is not possible, I think that movement in the Senate for bipartisan legislation towards climate change is an extremely positive thing. The most effective way, in my opinion, for the U.S. to make a significant movement towards actual policy for climate change is to put aside party differences, find common ground, and work together. Although I think it is overly optimistic to rely on this legislation passing anytime soon, I do think its a step in the right direction for the country that even the idea is being tossed around. On another subject, the article lists nuclear power being one of the key elements in climate change policy. Would nuclear power not have an impact on the environment as well?
This article spoke to the "myths" clouding the climate change debate. Both sides of the political spectrum have clung on to ill-founded ideologies concerning climate change and, as a result, little progress has been made in Congress. Senator Kerry and Senator Graham begin to break down the climate change myths and get to the root of the issue. Without partisan rhetoric, the climate change debate does not seem so debatable. This article shows that bipartisan cooperation is not impossible, but that more members of Congress must be willing to step outside of partisan lines and look at the climate change issue head on.
I agree with Kelly and Graham that we need increased bipartisan rhetoric to spur climate change legislation, as well as a multi-faceted approach. While we ought to continue to develop wind and solar energy technologies, we should also explore nuclear power in order to diversify our renewable energy portfolio. We cannot have all of our eggs in one basket, especially in a basket in another country.
I agree with Alex in that when party lines fade, it seems the great debate about climate change is no longer up for debate. Bipartisan policy is a step in the right direction, and the mitigation of concerns is key in gaining support of those from both sides of the political spectrum. I think the first step is to invest in R&D to become a world leader in the production of alternative energy sources. I too refuse to believe that the U.S. is incapable of becoming a world leader in this respect. A bipartisan plan for climate change would address the 50/50 divide that currently exists in the U.S. In reference to the two articles we had to read for class today, we are not taking full advantage of nuclear power nor are we taking advantage of wind power. Investing in a portfolio of energy sources is key to reducing our carbon footprint and as we funnel more money into R&D, job creation will be a positive externality. Hopefully, the bipartisan policy will receive support from republicans and democrats alike so that we can spend less time arguing and more time acting.
Its interesting that one of the main arguments for developing a climate policy is due to our dependence on imported oil. One of the articles we read for class addresses this issue entirely saying that there is really no such thing. I understand that it would increase national security in that if other countries chose the same route as Venezuela, we would be safe to use only our domestic oil; however, it has been proven that oil-import dependence is essentially a myth (Darmstadter 2). Furthermore, I took note of the idea of the tragedy of the commons when the authors said that the "Environmental Protection Agency [would] impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing." Perhaps these new laws would actually bring freedom rathen than ruin to the commons?
I appreciated the effort and sincerity of Senators Kerry and Graham. They factually addressed many issues that have been misinterpreted in the public debate in some arenas. Many of their proposed solutions were effective and in line with many of the articles we've read, and I would be all for them. I agree with them that it will take a genuine bipartisan effort to pass necessary climate legislation for these solutions. My only concern though is how will they achieve this bipartisanship legislation? Rhetoric is great but needs to be backed up with action. At the end of the day, it comes down to votes. They make it sound like there will be 60 senators that easily agree to this. Playing devil's advocate, I could see opposition building over supposed huge economical costs or over the border-tax. Just the word "tax" has a negative connotation with many.
These senators are definitely moving in the right direction. I liked the way they pointed out that doing nothing is still doing something. It still incurs consequences (Environmental Protection Agency regulations). They present valid points supporting their argument throughout the article, and they also present them in a way as to show everybody the possible threats our country could face if we continue to take no legislative action. (They mention for those who aren't so concerned with climate change to think about all the money we're sending overseas to unstable countries.)
Post a Comment