Obama's Energy Economy

Both of these presidents, former and current, have opinions on what America should be moving towards, to better the country. These presidents have both done their fair share for this country already, though Trump has only been in office for a year, while Obama has been in office for a full term, then was re elected for another. They both, though, like all things, have many similarities and differences, these things are likely affected by their party, and mindset, along with their personality. For instance, Obama is apart of the Democratic party, while Trump is apart of the Republican party, making their outlook on America and things like taxes and abortion, different. Differences

about renewable energy. Now he is committed to reduce pollution as a good social purpose. According to

At the beginning of last year, I convinced my family to start using environmentally products, focusing on green technology. In order to apply environmental technology properly and effectively, I had to figure out what alternative forms of energy existed and how well they worked. This led to my questioning: what other forms of energy could the United States be pursuing to increase its production of electricity? In an effort to research different form of energy and their benefits and detriments, I read two articles: “A Letter to the Editor” by David Rockwood and “Why Uranium is the New Green” by William Sweet. In his letter, David Rockwood, a professional engineer, discusses the several inaccuracies and possible ramifications of wind power as a main source of electricity. Rockwood claims that wind power is unreliable because of flaws in its system and design, not to mention the detrimental environmental impact. Similarly, in his article William Sweet, a college graduate, talks about different ways to impose some kind of carbon regulation. Sweet compares nuclear and wind power to coal-burning power, remarking that nuclear and wind power technologies can make an immediate beneficial difference on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the fact that Rockwood goes in depth on only wind power while Sweet talks about multiple sources of power, both of the articles made me think that the United States should pursue some other form of energy to increase its production of electricity.

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

Evidence: According to the Obama Administration, the United States has nearly doubled clean renewable energy generated by wind, solar, and geothermal since 2008.

With the Presidential Election drawing closer to American’s everyday, voters have a choice for President for the next four years. Yet the questions remains as to what truly drives voters to go to the polls every four years. American’s face many issues in this election; however, the issue I’m going to focus on boils down to one simple thing: EPA Regulation and coal. Coal has been seen as a main source of energy in multiple states such as Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. During the past eight years, the production of coal has suffered due to excessive regulation by both the Obama Administration and the EPA. With all of this being said, I will be voting for Donald Trump for President and Mike Pence for Vice President under the Republican

The Republicans solution is to utilize more on the recourses of America as a whole. This is by the means of domestic coals; also noted by the use of environmentally sound sources, such as hydroelectric plants, solar panels, and wind turbines. This will allow for a cheaper means of energy that is not a reliant on foreign countries, and allow for it to be more abundant and sustainable. The democratic means on the matter is to invest more so in domestic oils as well as environmental alternatives for energy. This includes geothermal, wind, and solar.

With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally

Incumbent Barack Obama battled it out against Republican Mitt Romney. Their campaign styles, reputation, and platforms were the ultimatum of the outcome of the general election. The economic conditions both in 2012 and leading up to that year were at devastatingly low points, where unemployment rate was a boggling 10%, highest it had been since the 1982 recession. Although, Romney came from a political family it unfortunately wasn’t enough to sway the voters’ opinions causing him to lose the presidential election. Our nation was dealing with a plethora of significant issues during this time and the citizens wanted a president who could promise to resolve those conflicts. Obama, being a returning president allowed voters to put their trust in

In the Address “On the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act Seventh Anniversary” by Barack Obama, people could see the use of descriptive assumptions about the economy of America and the use of renewable energy policies that supports Obama’s Government. Those different assumptions performed are well received by the audience. Or at least those assumptions caused a good reception in the thinking of people respect to the recovery of the economy of America and the innovation in the use of clean energy. Also, it is important to recognize some illogical assumptions in this speech of Obama.

Both Bryce and Gore illustrate their ideas of energy independence through economics. In his article, Gore proposes a five step plan, with an objective of being able to produce all of America’s energy from green energy sources within 10 years. His proposal comprises of a large investment that will put people to work. Gore promises his strategy will create millions of jobs, while simultaneously progressing the United States into independence from foreign energy, therefore having a positive impact on the economy. On the other hand, Bryce claims that a majority of Americans are largely ignorant about this energy initiative. Horrified by terrorist attacks such as 9/11, he claims that the average American considers all foreign oil as dangerous. They believe that buying oil from the Middle East is a major source of funding for terrorism. Gore would argue the rise of young Americans and their potential to play a fundamental role in securing the nation’s future with monumental moments such as, landing a man on the moon and Barack Obamas campaign.

By the Sander’s Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, Bernie Sanders wants to stablish policies that ensure a diminution of the greenhouse emissions to counteract the climate change.

However, his plans for decreasing Carbon emissions came to a standstill with the death of his cap-and-trade bill - the American Clean Energy and Security Act- that was killed in the Senate. This cap-and-trade mechanism - “a market based incentive to reduce carbon emissions,” planned to cut down on greenhouse gases and global warming by mandating a “ combine renewable electricity and energy efficiency standard requiring that 20 % of electricity sales by 2020 be met by renewable energy and energy efficiency” (aceee.org). Obama still believes it is the best course of action to use such incentives to slowly turn our nation into a society that is fully environmentally friendly. Using incentives would ensure

When a former anti-nuclear campaigner and founding member of Greenpeace proclaims in the Washington Post “the environmental movement needs to update its views…because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster,” we should pay attention. (Alger, Findlay)

America relies heavily on foreign sources for the energy to run the country. The issue has received much media attention due to the political and economic implications it will have in the near future. This problem could at least be partially solved by using technology that already exists, rather than relying heavily on ones that have yet to come to fruition. America’s energy woes – specifically its reliance on fossil fuels – can be solved by reviving nuclear energy with the use of politics to tackle perceived dangers, technological advancements to make them more feasible, and public outreach to promote acceptance.