Week 3

I looked at the energy and environmental platforms of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Governor Romney's energy plan is much shorter than Obama's. His objective is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, which he says threatens our prosperity. To accomplish this, Romney would invest in technology that increases energy efficiency as well as alternative sources of energy such as nuclear. Romney is also interested in taking advantage of our domestic energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These goals fall short of being "environmentalist," and for this reason I don't think he belongs in any of Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, proposes a much more robust set of environmental policies. He pledges to invest large amount of money in environmental causes beginning with $150 billion over ten years on clean energy. He wants polluters to participate in a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions and for America to meet benchmarks in reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Obama would lead the United States towards a broader international role in combating climate change as well. I see Obama's platform as being a mixture of market liberal and institutionalist. His proposed cap-and-trade system seems like a market liberal scheme to me and there is no doubt that he wants more international cooperation on the issue.

I think that the environment is a non-issue for Mitt Romney. He has intentionally crafted his energy policy to be based on ending energy dependence and not any environmental cause. In fact, on his energy policy webpage the words "environment," "climate," and "change" are nowhere to be found. Barack Obama addresses environmental issues wholeheartedly and I think makes more sense on the environment.