President Obama:
-Backs EPA-proposed regulations that will limit the CO2 emissions from power plants that run on fossil fuels.
-Wants to control and reduce the emission of mercury from power plants—a plan that was proposed by the EPA.
-Wants to allow the federal governments to continue regulating gas and oil drilling on federal lands.
Mitt Romney:
-Against regulating CO2 emissions as proposed by the EPA.
-Notes that regulations by the EPA on limiting toxins from coal-fired power plants puts too much of a monetary burden on plant operators.
-Wants more oil and gas drilling on federal lands
-Believes the EPA has "gotten out of control"
-Wants less regulation on nuclear power to help the industry grow again
"This article was written by Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, with research assistance from Rebeka Ryvola, Aliyya Swaby, and Jacob Cohn." It cites numerous documents, including the US Department of Energy, and it was published on September 17, 2012.
How will climate change negatively effect the economy?
Your post was pretty easy to read and provided me with points I did not previously know, but did either Obama or Romney say anything about their plans regarding renewable energy?
ReplyDeleteGood job pointing out the stark differences between the two on energy. A good thing to look into would be how EPA regulations affect the decisions of corportations doing business in US when it comes to job creation and investment.
ReplyDeleteI like how you stated the differences between Obama and Romney in bullet points, that just made it easier to see. With your post I now understand how they both view the environment differently, and the graph you posted shows how the temperatures are getting higher each year due to global warming.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are taking a very biased point of view towards the obama administration. In order to have an effective blog post you should adress both sides of the arguments instaed of showing only the positives on one side.
ReplyDeleteI simply presented the views of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on environmental regulation. These are facts, and facts are not biased.
DeleteYou're skewing your facts to make it a very biased blog towards obama. If he is such a good guy then why didnt you include the fact that he has given 535 millinon dollars to Solyndra a solar company that went bankrupt shortly after there bailout. Obama is a President who throws money at a problem hoping that it will get fixed. And so far i have not seen any fixng in the economy that we are in.
ReplyDeleteHow am I skewing the facts? I simply summarized them from Yale University's article. You can visit the website if you want.
DeleteSolyndra wasn't bailed out. It was one investment loan that did not work out. I wouldn't say 535 million dollars is a lot of money anyway, considering Former President Bush's "investment" in the Iraq war cost us 3 trillion dollars. Now that's a failed investment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
See my benefits of the stimulus link on the other article...