Mills 1
Jordan Mills
English 151
Instructor: Mudd
9 November 2010
A Helping Hand: Good Idea or Bad?
“You can turn off the lights. You can buy a hybrid car. You can even heat your home with solar energy. But it's not enough. The best and most realistic way to combat Global Warming, and lessen the country's dependence on fossil fuels, is to influence the government to make smart choices and smart changes concerning Global Warming”
-John McCain
How much is too much? How far is too far? We live in a new age of America were the government is finding ways to control what Americans do on a daily basis. From Healthcare Reform also know as, “Obamacare” to even our freedom of speech being raised into question in certain aspects. Many Americans are not happy about the resent control that the current government is implementing. However, when it comes to global warming and environmental issues, should the government be whole heartedly involved? When our safety is in jeopardy in regards to acts of terrorism threatening our lives, national government should step in; when global warming is threatening the very existence of planet earth, which then in turn threatens our lives, the state government should step in and act appropriately to what affects them on a state level.
When it comes to fighting for the freedoms we enjoy every day in America, defending the red, white and blue, that job is solely relied on the United States
Mills 2
national government and for good reason. (1) States are not equipped to fight countries off (2) If terrorist attack a certain state, for exam New York on September 11, 2001, that becomes a national concern, not just a state concern. After September 11, you didn’t see just New York come together and comfort each other; you saw a whole country come together for the greater good of America. If you attack New York, you attack America.
This raises the questions, Should the United States national government be involved with climate change laws and regulations on a national scale? Or should the government step aside and let the states deal with their own issues in their own backyards? In the recent 2010 November elections Proposition 23 failed, this was also known as, “The Global Warming Solution Act”. The defeat of Proposition 23, which would have killed the climate change law, bucks this trend. The defeat of Proposition 23 allows continued movement at the state and regional level (Bookings). Voters in California are sending a clear message, this proposition failed by 21% of the vote. Californians are sending a message to Washington, that they want the local government to control the regulations and laws that affect them personally. They do not want big government just throwing money at the problem. If the government continues to just throw money at the issue for a “quick fix”, the very structure of the framework of the United States will begin to buckle. For example, what the national government is doing is buying new tires on a car that needs a new engine. No matter which way you look at, sure the new tires are going to look good, but the new tires are useless on a car that can’t run.
Mills 3
The Recent November elections brought a lot of attention to the issue of climate change. Many of the newly elected house members, mostly republicans, campaigned against climate action. And with the recent shift of power in the House of Representatives, the republicans now have 239 seats and the democrats now have 189 of the seats now putting the republicans in power of the house. Nearly all the newly elected republicans are against any government action at all in the issue of climate change. If this is the case, then the national government will get nowhere in regulating the laws for global warming which in turn will only be a state concern in the end.
More than half of the nation's 50 states, including populous California, Texas and New York, have joined together in regional coalitions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, boosting the use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency in regards to their own issues (New York Times). Judi Greenwald, who is the Vice President of Innovative Solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change recently said, "More and more, what the states are doing is environmentally significant"(Greenwald).
Some states choose to not hop on this recent trend of states banning together. In fact many states in the Midwest are not even considering it. Numerous states that are choosing not to participate are the states that house some of the nation's worst power plants for emitting greenhouse gases (New York Times). A multitude of these states rely on these plants as a major source of income for its residents and they do not want to see any harm come upon these plants that could jeopardize their existence. “That's why
Mills 4
Congress needs to pass legislation to reduce global warming emissions nationwide, environmentalists say” (Clauseen). Clauseen makes a good point; however, if congress makes an effort to pass laws and regulations regarding CO2 emissions, it needs to run parallel to the state for which it is being implemented, not just one big umbrella for the whole nation.
“Many states are motivated in part by their desire to create new economic development opportunities” (Ben Dunham). Creating jobs at home is an important part of state government. Many of the states that are involved in fixing the global warming problems in their own backyards have regulated new jobs for their own residents in relations to what the need is. Can the states implement their own policies on climate change and environmental issues in association with what affects them at home or should Washington put their foot in the door?
President Obama and his administration would disagree with letting just the States have full control of their own well being in regards to climate change. Obama made a huge stride in trying to fix the CO2 emissions and control the global warming crisis by pumping $80 Billion, with a B into the stimulus package. The $80 Billion was put into the stimulus to create clean energy jobs on a national scale and to help with the promotion of clean energy. This is the biggest investment of its kind in United States history. Obama also designated $8 billion to build nuclear reactors; they haven’t been built in nearly 30 years. (Garber). Why such the sudden interest? Garber goes on to say that, “The United States doesn’t have a coherent strategy for clean energy,
Mills 5
but it needs one to compete.” The question I raise is; Is the United States just throwing money at an issue that it is not fully educated on just to attempt to compete with other nations? The emerging metaphor in the energy world is that of a race, like the space race or the atomic race. Now there is an energy race. China is the main competitor, spending $9 billion a month on clean energy projects. There are other competitors, too: India, Europe, Japan, and Brazil. Everyone is angling for a spot that could bring supremacy, jobs, and wealth (Garber). There is only one problem, congress. A good deal of the energy and renewable resource bills are stuck on capital hill. Many people are for them and many people are against them. This could be the main problem for the United States in being the leader in this so-called race. Running a race requires a strategy. The U.S. strategy is something of an ill-defined mess”(Garber). Although many believe the United States does not truly have a legitimate strategy many believe that we can over come what we do not know. President Obama is putting forth effort in this energy race, though some believe he is not well advised he believes Americans can be victorious when it comes to making America a clean energy environment.
"Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs, but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors". (Obama).
Mills 6
President Obama certainly can sway a crowd with is likeable charm; the tone of how he delivers his message is second to none and the aforementioned quote did certainly just that. Obama is the first president in years to accomplish much of his set out agenda. Whether people disagree with what his agenda is, it is certainly admirable. Obama has put into motion, The Recovery Act Investments in Clean Energy, which is expanding manufacturing capacity for clean energy projects and would create more jobs. However, with this comes a negative impact on states. What we don’t see in this is the number of tax spending measures crafted to inject more aggregate demand into the sagging economy. This act is also supposed to provide relief to low-income families and to states facing serious budget shortfalls. With this, the states fiscal relief will lessen on the economy and the states will have to take budget cuts, resulting in tax increases (Clauseen). When the national government intervenes in state issues, it is a cause for concern.
The Clean Energy States Alliance is an example of what states can do without help from the national government. The Clean Energy States Alliance is a group of states that have chosen to partake in promoting clean energy in association with what affects them at home like previously mentioned. From the ice tundra’s of Alaska to the hilly greenside of Maine down to the swampland of Florida to sunny California, 21 states have banded together in an attempt to put their foot down when it comes to the national government having a say in what they can and cannot do to protect their own environment.
Mills 7
State actions that lead to increased energy efficiency through building codes and tax incentives and shifting from coal to gas or to nuclear for electric power generation will reduce greenhouse gas intensity. States should do what they can do well and not get involved with issues that clearly are the purview of the federal government (O’Keefe). States have their own government for a reason, to regulate laws in an appropriate manner to what affects them. States cannot rely on the national government and the national government cannot impose on what states can and cannot do. More can get accomplished on a state level among people that know the ends and outs of how their state runs. We the people must come together for the greater good of society and do what we think is best for what happens in our neighborhoods, our towns and our cities. After all, would you let a complete stranger in your house and let them tell you how to run it? I doubt it.
Mills 8
Work Cited
Garber, Kent. The Energy Race. 2010. Print
Garber, Kent. A Jolt for Energy Innovations. 2010. Print
Walsh, Kenneth. Changing America’s Energy Ways. United States News and World Report, 2009. Article
Bilgen, Seluk. Kamil, Ahmet. Renewable Energy for a Clean and Sustainable Future. Turkey, 2004. Print
Clauseen, Eileen. Key Roles for Feds and States. New York, 2009. Print
O’Keefe, William. EPA Ill-Suited to Address Climate Change. 2010. Article
Greenwall, Judi. Pew Center on Climate Crisis. The New York Times, New York, 2009. Web
Dunham, Ben. Economics for Clean Energy Efforts. 2010. Article.
Obama, Barack. The White House Daily Briefing on Climate Control. Washington D.C., 2010. Web
