Presidential Election in USA: Barack Obama Essay

Introduction

For many people, the choice of who to support for leadership in positions as important as the Presidency of the United States of America falls to one issue. While issues may vary from one individual to another or one group to another, one of the largest issues currently confronting the country is the issue of energy. The United States is currently embroiled in a war that centers around oil supplies while other countries in the world, such as Russia, are beginning to become more aggressive regarding oil supplies. How the next president addresses questions regarding oil and energy production will have a tremendous impact on the future of this country. In much of the previous century, oil was largely viewed worldwide as an economic asset and ever-expanding tool for increasing mobility needs. The dependence on oil now threatens many national economies, their security and the environment as well. Not only can the world not endure fossil fuels being pumped into the atmosphere at the current rate for the next 30 years, most experts agree that by then, the world’s supply of oil will be largely depleted. Understanding the two candidates’ approach to this issue reveals a fundamental difference in their understanding of where the nation stands today and suggests there is only one candidate who has a feasible plan for the future growth of the United States.

Main Text

Energy analysts worldwide cannot agree on the date that the production of oil will reach its peak. Some argue that the world is already at its peak production, others postulate this date to be no later than 10 years from now. The most optimistic of predictions give 2035 as the height of production followed by a steady decline from that point onward. To the ardently optimistic who believe that a problem that won’t occur for 20 years does not need to be addressed yet, industrialised countries are now using more oil per year than can be supplied and is somewhat unnoticeably operating by utilizing a small percentage of its reserves. If the supply has peaked and is on a steadily decline, as some evidence suggests, most all of the world’s economies will be depressed (Drum, 2005). In this event, countries such as Brazil and China will not be affected to the same extent and will likely prosper as these societies have made great strides in converting to alternative energy. Brazil began its conversion to bio-fuels 30 years ago and today imports no foreign oil. In other countries, the U.S. for example, “petroleum supplies more than 95 percent of the energy used in transportation and has done so for the past 40 years. Transportation has remained nearly totally dependent on petroleum, despite significant efforts to promote alternative fuels” (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2000).

There are numerous technologies now being developed in other countries that may help cut America’s dependence on oil, but only if the nation invests in development of them. Energy from hydrogen, an environmentally friendly gas is a much discussed energy source. Iceland is already well on its way to becoming the first nation to generate its power needs by means of hydrogen fuel-cells. Though hydrogen powered means of transport are not accessible to the public as yet, they are past the initial research and development phase and are presently being demonstrated for both heavy and light-duty load applications. Bio-fuels are derived from an easily replenished source and emit no pollutants into the air. The most common type, Ethanol, has the ability to be mixed with petrol and bio-diesel, a vegetable oil, can be burned in diesel engines without engine modification. This type of ‘green’ fuel can at least be a bridge to the future of energy production and consumption as it can, unlike hydrogen, be used in existing engines. Unfortunately, it takes considerably more energy (from high-grade petrol) to create ethanol than it produces. It takes about 70 percent more energy to make a liter of ethanol than is contained in a liter of ethanol. In addition, fossil fuel is used in the production of corn or any crop used for ethanol and by “increasing ethanol production will increase degradation of vital agricultural and water resources and will seriously contribute to the pollution of the environment. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed” (Pimentel, 1998: 5).

Understanding that alternative means of energy are not yet available and that numerous problems continue to exist even in those technologies that are currently under development, it will be our next president who will decide which direction our future energy policies will take – one focused on sustainability and global welfare or one focused on independent wealth building and shortest means without regard for global health. Looking at the two candidates’ records, it can be seen that Barak Obama generally supports the former while John McCain generally supports the latter. Obama supports legislation geared toward reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 and supports investment in electric batteries and other new technology geared toward sustainability. While he indicates he is willing to consider nuclear power as a part of that package, he emphasizes the necessity to provide protections against waste and terrorism (Barak Obama, 2008). John McCain, on the other hand, is fully in support of building nuclear power plants as the primary means of breaking America’s dependence on oil while also being in favor of big oil company’s plans to open up offshore drilling. He suggests that he is in support of other alternative forms of energy, such as wind and solar energy, but his voting record demonstrates much greater support for nuclear energy (John McCain, 2008).

Conclusion

By comparing Obama and McCain’s approaches to energy into the future, it can be seen that both candidates recognize the dangers of global warming as well as the quickly depleting supplies of oil. However, their records indicate that while McCain supports immediate, quick-fix solutions regardless of the future environmental costs, Obama supports more sustainable methods of energy production. Although there are a number of problems associated with the forms of energy Obama supports, there are many more lethal ramifications to McCain’s plan and little opportunity for the development of less dangerous possibilities. While Obama is willing to consider the possibility of nuclear power, with full recognition and emphasis given to the tremendous dangers such a path introduces, McCain seems careless of these possibilities. From this comparison, it seems clear Obama is the more practical candidate for a country that wishes to continue growing.

References

“Barak Obama.” (2008). On The Issues. 2008. Web.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2000). “Chapter 5: People, Energy and the Environment.” The Changing Face of Transportation. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. 2006. Web.

Drum, Kevin. (2005). “Political Animal.” Washington Monthly.

“John McCain.” (2008). On The Issues. Web.

Pimentel, D. (1998). “Energy and Dollar Costs of Ethanol Production with Corn.” Hubbert Center Newsletter. Vol. 98, I. 2. M, King Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies.