Sarah Schenck
Ms. Duquette
AP Gov A P.3
26 September 2010
Energy/ Environmental Policy Issue Paper
Between the hundreds of billions of dollars spent yearly on foreign fossil fuels, the growing hostile relationships with unstable supplier nations, and the dangerous consumption of resources that pose dire threats to not only the environment, but the economy as well, it has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that America is amidst an energy security crisis that must be solved. When it comes to finding the most viable solution to this dilemma, there is a general consensus that action must be taken to quickly reach energy independence in our nation. However, the method by which we should achieve this is a sizzling debate amongst Democrats and Republicans.
From a Democratic standpoint, the solution lies with government intervention in the energy market. In regards to becoming energy independent, pursuing a plan to invest billions of dollars into “a green energy sector that will create up to five million jobs” (presidency.ucsb.edu) over the next ten years will employ widespread use of non-fossil fuels and focus on creating a renewable energy industry that develops solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. According to Democrats, a course of action to establish an economy-wide cap and trade program by offering incentives for reduced carbon emissions will create enough revenue to dedicate to making “America fifty percent more energy efficient by 2030” (presidency.ucsb.edu).
In contrast, Republicans' solution to the crisis puts emphasis on a “a free-market, hands-off approach” (wikinvest.com). While Republicans also want to veer away from dependency on foreign nations for our oil supplies, they support replacing it through “increased production of American-made energy” (johnboehner.house.gov) with domestic oil and gas production over developing alternative energy supplies (ontheissues.org). Additionally, encouraging conservation and efficiency through tax incentives is also a main priority of Republicans, such as McCain's proposed Clean Car Challenge in which a five- thousand dollar tax credit would be presented to those who purchase zero- emissions automobiles. Furthermore, in stark contrast to Democrats, Republicans support coal-to-liquid investments as an option for future energy use.
While the basis of Democratic response to the energy crisis revolves around development of renewable energy sources and elimination of drilling in foreign nations, as well as in America, Republicans are supportive of achieving energy independence by taking advantage of the natural resources from our land. Despite the method by which the U.S. takes action, it is vital that a switch be made immediately in order to ensure economic relief and a healthier planet.
Bibliography
http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Republicans_vs._Democrats
http://ontheissues.org/Background_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78545
www.johnboehner.house.gov/.../06102009AmericanEnergyAct.pdf
It makes sense that the Democrats would want the government to intervene, seeing as how that's usually how they are with matters. It seems to me that both points of view are reasonable, though.
ReplyDeleteAlso, COOL WATER COLOR BACKGROUND? Did you do it yourself or just find it or what?
Both sides have legitimate arguements here, however it seems to me the American people might not be too worried about becoming energy independent. Many will not care where it comes from as long as the energy is here, so they msy not want to spend so much money (tax dollars) on it as the Democrats want.
ReplyDeleteJake- Not necessarily. People are becoming more conscientious about our foreign energy reliance because of the increasing costs. As quoted from the Republican Party Platforms 2008 site, "Our current dependence on foreign fossil fuels threatens both our national security and our economy and could also force drastic changes in the way we live. The ongoing transfer of Americans' wealth to OPEC — roughly $700 billion a year — helps underwrite terrorists' operations and creates little incentive for repressive regimes to accept democracy, whether in the Middle East or Latin America."
ReplyDeleteIn the long run, switching to alternative energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal) will not only benefit our environment (we could get into the whole global warming debate here), but also provide us with energy independence, saving us hundreds of billions of dollars by freeing us from our reliance on foreign supplies of oil.
Cody- true, i noticed with most of the issues throughout the other blogs posted that both democrats and republicans have in general somewhat of the same opinion, just differing solutions to go about handling things. like with immigration, as kevin said, "The two parties’ views are similar, but the Republicans seem to be more direct and willing to dispose of illegal immigrants, as opposed to Democrats who want to help everybody get on path to find the promise of American prosperity."
It seems that both parties have stayed true to their general ideals of how much the government should intervene. Each side has good ideas about how to handle this issue, and I think the idea of a tax credit is particularly interesting. I really liked how you emphasized that both parties will have to compromise in order to find a solution to this potential crisis.
ReplyDelete