With America facing the serious repercussions from our years of inaction around climate change and energy instability, President Obama focused on these critical issues early in his State of the Union address. Keeping to his line of bipartisanship that he established during his election campaign, Obama offered a mix of solutions to these crises. But by trying to please everyone just enough, will he be able to bring people from across the aisle together to pass the real solutions that we need so badly need?
Here is the breakdown of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The Good
A clear connection was made between helping the economy recover and protecting the environment. Obama promoted green jobs stating that we need to “put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow.” His vision includes jobs funded by his Economic Recovery Act to build high speed rail and clean energy factories – both of which are parts of the solution to our energy crisis and climate change. And, he wants more incentives to create more green jobs this year.
Obama elaborated on different investments that the Federal government can make to help address the energy crisis and climate change. This included:
- rebates for consumers making energy efficient home improvements
- financial boosts for clean tech businesses
Obama cited examples of successful federal investments in clean tech from 2009 which included a California solar panel company that was then able to create 1,000 new jobs.
Obama spoke with pride about his administration’s work on climate change. Addressing those who still doubt the reality and repercussions of climate change, he said,
“Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.”
“We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change.”
The Bad and the Ugly
Unfortunately, part of Obama’s solution to the energy crisis and climate change included investments in four dangerous sectors. His promoted:
- The building of more nuclear power plants, which received a standing ovation – while some praise nuclear for its lack of CO2 emissions, this solution is far to shortsighted since there is no real solution to dealing with the long-lasting, highly toxic waste and accidents at nuclear facilities have widespread, long-lasting ecological repercussions; furthermore, nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build, and pose as dangerous terrorist targets.
- Opening new offshore areas for oil drilling and gas development – our valuable coastlines and the wildlife that they support are too fragile to risk, especially given the fact that spills and accidents are an inevitable part of the development process
- Continued investments in biofuels – this technology has led to instability in global food prices and supplies, and also encourages the use of genetically modified seeds and toxic pesticides
- Investments in clean coal tech – this is still an unproven technology which ignores the fact that coal extraction is an extremely toxic and ecologically devastating practice
Whether or not you liked what President Obama said pertaining to the environment, there is no doubt that his words and attention given to the topic were a HUGE improvement to his predecessor. Nevertheless, the question remains: is his plan aggressive enough to pull us out of this mess and can it do so without creating other environmental crises?
