In this article, Marco Rubio pushes toward loosening environmental protection policies by stating that he would allow the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to go forward in addition to instating more offshore oil and gas drilling. He wants to reverse the EPA's regulation on greenhouse gas emissions and fracking in order to allow the extraction of gas and other energy resources available in the United States. He believes his plan is sustainable and will put America a step forward in economic progression while mocking Hillary Clinton and President Obama for their backwards, environmental regulations.
Although it is unfortunate, if Marco Rubio wins, such policies may be put in place with the Republican majority leading congress right now. Obama has relentlessly tried to improve the US in terms of sustainability and environmental protection. His efforts would go to waste if Rubio is elected. Rubio is focusing on the economic and political aspect: America would gain more power and money if it uses its nonrenewable energy resources. However, the cost in the long run is additional damage to America's ecosystem. He is failing to see all the environmental issues that plague America, including the drought in California and the earthquakes caused by fracking in Arkansas and Oklahoma, by putting his business ventures first. Not once does he mention climate change as his policies are not looking at the big picture. Instead of turning to clean energy like wind and solar power he is perpetuating the use of coal and other nonrenewable resources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/marco-rubios-energy-policy-centers-on-drilling-and-reversing-obama-rules.html?ref=politics
Rubio's stance on energy policies is clearly a move focused on America's economic standpoint in the industry. He wants to obtain more money and further economic progression by doing so, and I think that he actually will if he goes through with this. However, I don't think this is the best idea because of all the environmental issues that will unnecessarily be provoked. Like Simran mentioned, the earthquakes caused by fracking would just precipitate more money directed towards relief aids for those affected areas that shouldn't have dealt with the earthquake in the first place. This policy is too one-sided, in my opinion, and doesn't take into account other variables. Other, more environmentally-friendly resources should instead receive more research and attention to broaden that industry and America in the long run.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental problems are rising and movements toward keeping our world safe is currently being taught and awareness being raised in many schools. I remember in my elementary school, there was a poster contest for the three R's: Reduce, Re-use, and Recycle. Teaching kids one thing and then suddenly changing to unhealthy choices will surely confuse many. I remember seeing a scale that had the globe on one plate and gold on the other. Marco Rubio is apparently choosing the gold-filled plate. However, there is no point of having gold if you have no life. Continuing to go for the money and business advances rather than the environmental health advances in this already declining world, it seems too destructive to go for the coals. Even Styrofoam cups are banned now due to difficulties in getting rid of its waste that is harming the earth.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmental problems are scary, but I'm not sure that Rubio would be able to put such policies in place even with Republican majorities, because some Republican moderates may agree with the Democrats in this issue. There is extreme controversy over this issue, and while Rubio may get some changes in, I don't think that is reasonable to expect large policy reversals to be made, as the green movement is extremely powerful. The article does state, however, that Rubio has said that "It is innovation, not regulation, that will prompt the development of affordable fuel alternatives,” which shows that he at least understand that there is a need for a solution.
ReplyDeleteI'm on the edge with fracking. I believe in 2012, legislators were pushing for fracking in Pittsburgh. Although, gas prices would increase one side-effect of fracking is the fact that it does have the potential of contaminating water supplies. I think fracking and other environmental creating energy solutions will help us become a little less dependent on the Middle East. With sufficient energy created in the U.S. we can again become isolated and work on matters that directly affect the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Rubio and believe that this plan, though great on the outside, will cause problems for America later on as climate change and global warming are real. Rubio's plan will only damage the environment more and make it difficult for future generations to live in, for even now we can see the damaging effects of pollution in the water, as it is full of trash that kills sea animals everyday.
ReplyDelete