Energy/Environmental Policy Issue Paper
As the world of the twenty-first century advances into further realms of industrial and scientific advancement, it is simultaneously faced with just such actions’ greatest detriment- a directly related depletion of the resources which make those motions possible. How to regulate what is left and how to go about gaining more are both issues that are hotly contended and largely polarized, both by the effects of the media and the beliefs of the two major political parties in relation to the issue. In appropriately opposing viewpoints on what must be done, the Democratic Party and Republican Party have developed generally irreconcilable platforms in the debate- the liberally-minded Democrats support the idea that an economy can be both successful and environmentally minded through the creation of policies that place regulations on environmentally damaging companies and help fund programs designed to create alternative energy sources; Republicans favor a system that is not so dependent on government regulation but is instead based on the actions of private individuals through offering incentives to businesses and property owners who are environmentally-conscious as well as increasing our stores of energy sources (coal and oil as well as, to a lesser extent, alternative sources).
The Democratic viewpoint on the issue is largely defined by their belief in a “larger” government. As a whole, the Party derides the previous view posed that a government must make a “choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment”, but instead further the view that the two can advance simultaneously, with new technologies that can protect the environment being able to offer more American jobs. It is similarly supported that through government protection, lands should be guarded from invasive drilling for oil and gas and that as a whole through government intervention and support of substitute programs dependence on foreign supplies of oil should be reduced. On the energy front, it is the Party’s opinion that support of large oil companies should be largely removed, and that the money garnered from these suspended subsidies can be put into programs designed to increase the amount of alternative, independent energy sources. As a whole, energy and environmental policy should be fueled by government regulation and tax funded creation of environmentally-friendly industries and infrastructure.
Republicans oppose many such actions, believing that, though there need not be a choice between a “healthy economy and a healthy environment”, a prospering economy drives a clean environment. As such, much of their policy focuses on offering monetary incentives to private property owners and businesses to encourage them to be more environmentally conscious. A basic belief of their platform is that “people who own the land also protect it”. As such, through “providing market-based incentives”, environmental prosperity can be assured by the private sector, and not by government regulation. Focus is likewise placed on offering incentives to businesses to be environmentally-friendly without actually placing laws requiring them to do so (keeping government interference to a minimum). To reduce dependence on foreign oil, it is believed that America’s own untapped sources should be accessed and the methods of its use made more efficient, as well as offering larger tax credits to businesses and individuals who expand the use of alternative energy sources. As a general rule, the Party supports efforts which further environmental policy through benefits to property owners, which would encourage them to be more environmentally-friendly in the interests of efficiency and profit without actually imposing much government regulation or creating environmentally-protective public infrastructure from tax money.
Firstly Rick, let me say that this paper is beautifully written for being done in the wee hours of the morning...
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find it interesting that Republicans think that there is a choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. To me, that just doesn't seem possible. Also, being given monetary incentives doesn't really seem to be that great of an idea either.
"Rrrrrrick!"
ReplyDeleteGood yob, buddy ol' pal! Did you write this before or after starting you lab book? Haha just kidding... Your paper is super long. How many words even was it?? Oh, well. Alison is right. This is a beautiful paper. It's very descriptive and thorough with a paragraph on each position. My group was totally going to do this topic, but I'm glad you guys did because you probably did it better. :)
omg. (<--written in acronym). Your paper is positively gorgeous and beautiful...very unlike my blunt response (omg).
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, unlike the other topics, yours is not as controversial seeming between the two opposing parties. All the other topics had completely conflicting views or ways to achieve a goal (ex: gay marriage; economy deficit). While your opposing sides have different paths to the same goal (as does the economy deficit), both pathways incorporate the same ideas into their path, thus creating similarities. Then again, if they were to be in opposition, one would have to be "anti-environment", and in all sincerity, that just would never happen. But all in all, you can see the democratic push towards true environmentalism, while the Republicans still stick to their "money-makin'" ideals, thinking that through a healthy economy all good things develop. These ideas in themself are very contradictory to each other, but not nearly to the same extent as other social issue.
Firstly, this paper is gorgeous.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you did a really great job of explaining the Republican idea about environmentalism.
I think that democrats are taking a much more serious stance on the matter and trying to push it into being a commonality in this country that we are energy efficient and not dependent on foreign oil. Gore was on Letterman a month or so ago and talked about an entire plan he had that would make our nation green and in doing so, provide jobs for millions of Americans.
The Republican method of basically bribing private business into being energy efficient does not seem like a strong enough tactic if thisis something America is going to start taking seriously.
Rick, i agree with the others about your paper. All of us know that the two parties have different opinions and ways of solving these problems. Both ways are wonderful solutions if companies are serious in changing their procedures of manfucturing and drilling energy (e.g. oil, and wind), however none of this will work until the government becomes more serious in preventing mass habitat loss.
ReplyDelete