The presidential debates have been a notable place in where people may determine who may be better for the environment. Romney and Obama have quite different plans on oil and on clean energy, although their end goal is the same in some fashion. Obama and Romney both advocate energy independence in which American won't need to depend on foreign energy as much in the future. Romney wants to increase subsidies on oil companies so that we can drill on more domestic land which will increase energy independence: great for the economy, bad for the environment. Obama wants to decrease subsidies on oil, although during his administration domestic oil production has risen. Also, he wants to continue alternative energy sources which may involve future or the extension of current subsidies for clean energy such as wind and solar; good for the economy; good for the environment.
In the end, although Romney's plan may be better for the economy in the manner of heavy oil production it will hurt the environment. Obama's plan will still produce benefits for the economy while increasing production of clean energy. It is clear that Obama's plan will create more benefit, especially for the environment
Questions:
How can the government better off the environment?
Are subsidies for newly growing green energy companies necessary?
How does the government incite individuals to be more eco-friendly?
No comments:
Post a Comment