Independence

It is agreed that tackling a vast array of conflicts requires clear prioritization, but the debate comes when determining what rank is given to each issue. It must be recognized that in the United State’s current status as a world leader, the principle means of our influence (good or bad), is our economic machine. The US cannot fight unemployment, develop new technology, offer relief to foreign nations, fight for sustainable initiatives, operate an already complex array of government services and also provide the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if the economy continues to suffer for a prolonged period of time. This applies to the private sector as well. Every major functioning mechanism in this country depends on borrowing money in one way or another, and if credit markets are frozen, it will continue to have a rippling effect on everything. Even sectors that are considered to be relatively immune, such as healthcare, cannot operate at full potential unless our economy is somewhat stable. My generation has taken this for granted.

 If major short term concerns can be adequately addressed, only then it is feasible to focus on long term concerns, like reducing debt, assuring services to future generations, and of course preserving our physical global environment. It would be imprudent to focus on the far-future while neglecting the present and near-future nightmares. Among the many current environmental concerns, global warming is discussed far more than any other environmental issue (even more than the millions of yearly deaths due to lack of clean water for drinking or irrigation). Therefore it will be most relevant if I comment on this as well.

What both presidential candidates have failed to display, and what most politicians are always reluctant to display, is the exact implementation of their strategies and how they can be congruent to overwhelming short term concerns. All we hear are the long-term goals, but what of the exact implementation strategies, incentives and penalties. The US congress failed to pass a bill that cut CO₂ emissions by 66% by 2050. Obama’s goals are close to 80% reduction from 1990 levels, McCain’s are close to 60% reduction. Obama speaks of global forums and exporting technologies to developing countries while McCain meanders about fuel standards and tax credits. Both preach cap-and-trade. Now prove how and why this can be economically viable. 

Some extent of regulation is necessary, but it can only be truly effective when done in harmony with the key principle of capitalism: incentive. Unfortunately, the most powerful incentive that we as humans can grasp is financial. However that can be used as a valuable tool. Rather than saying, “by the year 20xx, we need to reduce CO₂ emissions by x%, and I support this and that policy,” and then end the discussion there (which in all three debates both candidates have done), how about layout a detailed timetable of controlled emission reduction of given industries, saying that the standards are tightened by a certain percent each year, and that economic incentives (such as tax rebates) are awarded at an exponential rate by achieving above and beyond the standards, and that penalties should be imposed for not meeting standards. Emission standards should be carefully determined by industry experts as to not impose unreasonable goals that will cripple a given economy. It’s easy to say, they should suffer if they can’t comply, and it’s easy to say, it will be better for our environment if the price of gas triples and people can’t drive anymore, but the fact of the matter is that there are serious short term implications to umbrella standards that could be far more devastating than lowering the sea level a couple centimeters. Just like we gradually got to this point over several decades, we need to wean ourselves back down to healthier emissions over several decades, in a precise and attainable way.

In light of the current U.S. economic standing, energy independence should be given as much weight as renewable resources. Independence is crucial for strengthening the dollar and eliminating geo-political stresses, both of which has been devastating in recent years. However we can’t just stop burning coal and using oil altogether. If that switch were flipped, there would be mass economic chaos. The maximum possible rate of making the transition to purely renewable resources absolutely cannot be attained rapidly enough for us to not have to use the two most powerful forms of energy we are capable of harnessing: fossil fuels and nuclear power. Since we must use these sources during that transition period, why not use what is local. We need to set a long term time table of making the two fold transition of first become energy independent, and then becoming 100% renewable. As idealistic as it sounds, we cannot jump straight to the end without using the stepping stones in between, especially not in our current economic condition.