http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html?ref=politics
Feb 17, 2010
Obama announced yesterday that he supports nuclear power as a clean energy source, and that the Energy Department has approved a financial loan for the Southern Company to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. This came as a surprise to many environmental groups, who fundamentally disagree with relying on nuclear power for energy. However, it became clear that Obama embracing nuclear power was a move to acquire republican votes for his energy bill when he said, “Those who have long advocated for nuclear power — including many Republicans — have to recognize that we will not achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable” (1). However, many Republicans have yet to be swayed, mostly because, as Don Stewart puts it, “this would not translate into support for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions” (1), therefore most republicans would still not vote for the bill as a whole.
I find this article relevant because of our class’ recent comprehension of the global warming issue from a political perspective, mainly from the investigative documentary, Hot Politics. As it becomes clear in Hot Politics, the main reason that the government has not made any significant progress in the area of global warming is that the government is too concerned with the well-being of coal and oil companies— major polluters, yet key backers of certain political entities. For this reason, any potential solution in the reduction of Carbon Dioxide emissions is set back because of financial interests. However, I find it interesting that Obama really takes this issue of profitable incentives into consideration when crafting his energy bill, yet still comes up short in gaining republican support for his proposal. What does Obama need to include in his bill to keep the carbon cap, yet gain republican support? As this bill continues to be revised and compromised, we will witness the major political struggles in creating and maintaining a clean and efficient energy bill.
Obama seems to be trying to make up the bipartisan discrepancies of the past 3 presidents. As the documentary Hot Politics states, republics and democrats simply cannot agree on a solution where they would both benefit. Though Obama's agenda in trying to make a party-neutral plan sounds good on the outside it still seems to be flawed. First of all, will it be the best solution? Sometimes when trying to compromise too many opinions and values the quality of the bill is negatively affected. Secondly, both parties still don't agree entirely to Obama's proposal. Even neutral plans are controversial and have to endure bi-partisan debate. This on-going spiral of events is what the documentary Hot Politics blames for very little action surrounding global climate change. Somehow this nation needs to unite under this topic if they really want to make a difference in global warming.
ReplyDelete