There is no unity of opinions about how climate and energy challenges should be addressed in USA. The Democratic presidential candidates are searching for different solutions while their opponents – Republican – are concerned about economic efficiency.
Nowadays energy policy is one of the most discussed issues among developed economies. The first Democratic debate for the 2016 presidential campaign, which took place in USA, recently demonstrated that there was no unity of opinions among American leading political figures and candidates for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations. The most remarkable thing is that the Democratic candidates have completely different approaches to how to address energy issue.
First of all, the energy challenge is in terms of moral, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is convinced. He states that the use of fossil fuel will plunge the country into a deep energy and ecology crisis in the nearest future. American energy strategy needs to be dramatically reformed in order to involve alternative power sources and increase energy efficiency and sustainability. It is the only possible way to leave the habitable environment for our descendants.
However, his colleague and former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton considers energy issue from the economical point of view, in contrast to Sanders’ environmental arguments. She thinks it is necessary to invest in clean energy technologies and infrastructure in order to create as much jobs for citizens as possible. Clinton states that energy reforms are to become an efficient tool to improve American labour market.
In this case, Sanders appears to conduct tougher policy than Clinton does. He claims environmental pollution, caused by non-rationalized use of fossil fuels, is the main threat for American society at present (in contrast to his colleagues’ opinion that the main danger is of a political nature).
Vermont Senator also underlines that tougher political and economic measures must be undertaken in ecological relations with world biggest polluters, such as China, India and Russia.
Though Hillary Clinton makes emphasis on fact that in 2009 China signed its first climate international document, Sanders is still convinced that it is just an illusion of cooperation. The greater part of twenty world main cities-polluters are located in China and India, so more strict measures in relations with these countries are required.
The discussion is not limited with these two points of view. For instance, there are some contradictions between those party members, who supports the President’s energy policy, and those, who think it should be replaced by more efficient one.
The first group includes former Virginia senator Jim Webb, who supports the use of coal and other traditional and relatively cheap power sources. At the same time, Webb underlines that he thinks alternative energy sources should be involved too. He also states that the climate challenge needs international cooperation to be addressed.
O’Malley, unlike Webb, claims that President’s energy strategy must be scraped, as it is out of date at present. He offers to bring into operation absolutely clean and safe electric grid based on alternative energy sources.
O’Malley explains why the President’s strategy, in his opinion, became out of date. Though it has strengthened national economy in terms of energy independence, another issue arose – the environmental problem, which must be addressed within the shortest possible time. In his presidential campaign, O’Malley promises to solve this problem by means of creating as many as possible new jobs in clean energy branch. He also considers that in 35 years United States will be 100% provided with clean power.
The only one candidate who failed to develop his own strategy touching energy problem in America was former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee. He only remarked that both climate balance and economic growth could be combined. Chafee announced that he supported the President’s energy strategy and considered that the main climate challenge was how to reduce the greenhouse gases release. However, this is exception, which proves the rule.
There is much more unity of opinions among Republican candidates. Most of them are strongly convinced that there is no need to reduce the use of traditional energy sources, such as coal, oil and gas. For instance, Florida Senator Marco Rubio states that the extended use of solar-, wind and other types of alternative energy is just a waste of money. As United states has great oil, gas and coal resource base, the focus should be on these energy sources.
Most of Republican candidates also think that alternative energy should be used in terms of American energy diversification. However, they should by no means replace the traditional power sources.
Moreover, American businessman Donald Trump is convinced that U.S. should increase its own oil extraction. America imports Canadian oil, and it is said to be the waste of costs. Trump claims that United States have enough own oil reserves to remain energetically independent. That is why he supports fracking as well.
It is obvious that Democratic and Republican presidential candidates have completely different approaches to how to address energy problem in USA. While Democratic candidates are concerned about environment, their rivals consider this challenge from the economic point of view.
