Voting? Consider Energy

In this upcoming election it may seem if the two candidates energy policies are similar. In fact, they have two very different beliefs. With gas prices at all time highs, and environmentalists crying out for more attention, energy has become a hot topic in this election. In both debates, both candidates have said the same things they have said all along. The main difference is Romney wants most of his energy investments to go towards drilling at home and less in other countries, whereas Obama wants to use his "all the above plan" which includes all renewable energies like nuclear, wind, and solar, but also calls for more drilling in the U.S. Since wind, nuclear,and solar as well as other renewable energies seem to be the future of energy, the question seems to be whether you are voting for short term possible economic prosperity, or longer term environmental and economic prosperity.

What Your Getting When You Vote For Romney

As explained earlier, Romney's main goal is to lower gas prices by drilling in the U.S. this would be a good idea because it makes us more energy independent and lowers gas prices. Making us more energy independent helps because we would no longer have to worry about fluctuating oil prices in the middle east. We will also be able to sell some of the oil we drill here. Romney also wants to bring the keystone pipeline in from Canada that was rejected by President Obama. This helps America bring down its gas prices by having an easier way to import oil from Canada, but there is an environmental cost. It is important to add that Romney also believes in renewable energies but they do not seem to be his first priority.

What Your Getting When You Vote For Obama

Obama believes that investing in renewable energies needs to continue. His "all the above" plan is his way of ensuring that all renewable energies are being developed. He also believes that oil production in the U.S. needs to increase, but he also adds that he has increased U.S. oil production over the last 4 years. The reason Obama did not bring the Keystone Pipeline down from Canada is because of the heavy environmental concerns that it brought along with it. Even though it seemed to be "an easy decision" for Mitt Romney, Obama felt that the environmental cost outweighed the benefits. When you vote for Obama, you are getting an environmentally conscious president who understands the importance in investing in renewable energies now.

Who do believe has better energy policies and ones that will better both the economy and the environment?

http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama&on=Energy

This website provides a detailed description of both candidates energy policies and what the main differences between them are.

Is offshore drilling hurting America?

Ian Rusthoven
http://search.proquest.com/docview/274502979?accountid=6222

It seem that in the recent years that offshore drilling has never had positive effects.  From the Santa Barbra oil spill to the most recent BP oil spill, why would anyone want to drill offshore?  The fact of the matter is that offshore drilling has many positive effects to help our economy grow.
          There are many positives to drilling offshore.  For example, there are as many if not more natural gas and oil deposits in the seas than there are on land.  Oil drilling has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs in todays market.  But there is a problem because president Obama still has not lifted the ban on creating new oil rigs offshore.  This ban could be very beneficial to area of Virginia because there are many deposits like sulfur, salt, oil, and natural Gas.  This ban would help the economy grow because it would give jobs to many families along the coast's of America.  Many people believe that it is very costly for the removal of these oil rigs when the deposits are all dried up.  What many companies are doing is that instead using costly removable tactics, companies are submerging there rigs into the sea which give many of the wildlife in the sea a artificial reef to live in.  So, If offshore drilling beneficial to us and our economy?  

                                                  Image Courtesy of TeachingWithdata

Are people taxed too high or too low?

The financial crises has made many Americans to be worried about our tax system, and whether taxes are too high or too low. People who think that the taxes are too high think that the costs of the taxes outweigh the benefits of what they get. Due to massive borrowing this year,the federal deficit is expected to run about $1.6 trillion and this guarantees future tax hikes. They also realize the real cost of health care "reform" will start to kick in.  People who think the taxes are too low think differently. They think that we need more services that can be provided with out tax dollars. The US economy continues to be overwhelmed in unemployment. The people think that in order to push up job growth, the government should start a massive public works program funded by taxes on the wealthy and on financial transactions. This economic issue divides many Americans since the two sides are so different.


Opposing Viewpoints, Federal Infrastructure Investment Is Needed To Fuel an Economic Recovery
http://www.ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010544222
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=xKWjGo5RGdPxPM:&imgrefurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/w/war_debt.asp&docid=C1U10u7vF__GlM&imgurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/efi/lowres/efin866l.jpg&w=400&h=319&ei=aIyKUI_MPNTUyQHpuoGoDw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=189&vpy=354&dur=5277&hovh=200&hovw=251&tx=123&ty=97&sig=107541973519984642371&page=3&tbnh=131&tbnw=181&start=48&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:54,s:20,i:294

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010748206

High Taxes Hinder Job Creation

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/07/31/how-high-taxes-kill-jobs

This article points out multiple instances in which the current tax code affeccts individuuals who want to start businesses or invest in the market place. The higher taxes proposed by the Obama administration for high income earners are successful in scoring cheap political points with working class voters in battleground states, but what many people fail to realize is that many small businesses are taxes at an individual income tax rate and would be subject to tax increases along with welathy individuals. There is absolutley no way to suggest that small businesses will be more inclined to higher workers if their income tax rates go from 35% to 41%. The article also talks about how government intervention plays a role in the economy. In the 2009 auto bailout of the auto industry repubicans argued that auto makers should go through bankrupcy restructuring. Democrats have no claimed that they saved the auto industry, however, they did so by allowing auto makers to go through a structured bankrupcy process just as republicans had suggested. "Letting Detroit go Bankrupt" doesn't mean that the companies should go out of business and every employee should lose their job, it means that the company should restrucure and seek protection from their debts in order to endsure the profitability in the future.

Political Economy of Government Intervention in the Free Market System

Political Economy of Government Intervention in the Free Market System

Are We Falling Behind?

           
 America is now staring at a potential trillion dollar industry. Demand for clean renewable energy is predicted to increase immensely over the next twenty years. A 13 trillion dollar increase in investments in clean energy is said to be made within the next twenty years. As of now, America has the advantage over other countries in this field, however, in 2009 China invested around 10 Billion dollars more than the U.S. into the clean energy field.

Jobs

 The lower environmental cost is said to cause a spike in demand for things such as hybrid and electric cars. Through this spike in demand, it is predicted that the U.S. can produce around 1.9 million new jobs in the clean energy field. With a major concern in this country being putting people back to work, this seems to be a possible solution. With such a great opportunity being right here in front of the U.S. it is urgent that American investment in clean energy is increased.

fotopedia.com

Opportunity

The opportunity that the U.S. has been given is one that cannot be passed up, yet, the government is still showing hesitation when it comes to completely backing the industry and moving away from foreign oil. If the government does not act soon, the research and progress that has been made can possibly go to waste. All to often it seems as if big oil companies have to heavy of an influence in the government. The U.S. needs to use the tobacco companies as an example. The U.S. government  needs to do the right thing here and start increasing reliance on clean energy even if it means less profit for big oil companies. It is essential that the U.S. utilizes these energy sources while it still has the advantage over other companies. If it begins to fall behind, all investments to this point may go to waste.

How aggressive should the government be in investing in clean energy?

              Stevenson, Andy, and Nicole Lederer. "Putting America First in the Clean Energy Jobs Race."Switchboard. N.p., 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 11 Oct. 2012. <http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/putting_american_first_in_the.html>.

Money Doesn't Grow on Trees!

Is the Environment an Important Factor in Economic Growth?

environment.yale.edu

This article starts off with one of the biggest problems we have in this world is how our population can really effect our environmental status.  It explains how there is not really a way to help solve climate change, store radioactive and solid waste, salinity, expand deserts, or declining resources.  Also, it states that economists are lying about what to do in order to save the environment.

Environmental problems increase with economic growth; that is one of the main topics of this article.  Basically what that statement means to me, is that the environment is worsening as companies and businesses keep thinking only about themselves; plain and simple.

I must say, I have to agree with what this article says.  While it explains how the environment isn't being protected, the fact that companies CAN do something also goes along with it.  Also, the information provided seems to fit with all of our existing problems and continuing happenings as well.

My question for the readers is, when will governments act?

SOURCE: http://pacificecologist.org/archive/growthenvi.html
-Authority: Peter North