Good Morning, all. Amazing day, isn't it? I didn't watch any news or check the news sites after I voted yesterday, so while it wasn't a big surprise or anything, it was news to me when I woke to find out who our new president will be. I know a lot of my green friends are giddy with joy this morning, and I know that a lot of my conservative friends are probably rather disheartened. Me, I'm cautiously optomistic (talk about a middle of the road stance, huh?) See, for the first time in many elections, I didn't feel like I was voting simply for the lesser of two evils. I think they are both good men. I was undecided up until almost the last minute yesterday when I shut off my mind, got quiet, and listened to my heart. Then I went and voted. For John McCain. And I knew, that whatever the outcome of this election would be, it was going to be okay.
However else you might feel about our new president elect, one thing is clear, Senator Obama says he's going to try to make the environment a priority. And since I am clearly pro-environment, I'm excited about what he might be able to do (see - there's that cautious optimism rearing its ugly head again, I said "might.")
So here is my question to you, readers. What do you think is the most important environmental issue that our new president should tackle? You know what, let me ask a different question. Besides alternative energy, what do you think the most important environmental issue is that our new president should tackle? I think that most people would say alternative energy is paramount. What's next after that? Me, I'd like to see him tackle something having to do with food security or strengthening local, organic farmers and making their jobs easier.
4 comments:
I thought about this last night. I can't decide whether he should scrap ethanol subsidies (and thereby decreasing food prices) or put a ban on new drilling in Alaska.
On the other hand, the first thing Rudd did on being elected in Australia was sign Kyoto. It wouldn't mean much at this late stage, but it would be symbolic.
Please don't let his first environmental act be "symbolic." This man has promised the world change. The world is watching him. More importantly, my children are watching him. Doing something symbolic is not change.
As far as drilling in Alaska - I'm torn on this. Here's why. Of course, I think we need to drill less no matter where it is. We need to rely on alternatives to oil and we need to implement those alternatives asap.
But here's what I find interesting. When I speak to many conservatives, they want to drill in the U.S. They aren't too concerned about the environmental impact. When I speak to many liberals (those who aren't particularly concerned about the environment), they want to continue to drill in the Middle East because they don't want to touch our own supplies or make the landscape look ugly.
I think it is incredibly narcissistic of any person in any country to say "I want this, but I want the effects of what I want to impact somewhere really far away, not my backyard."
So if the government insists on drilling more, then as much as it pains me to say it, we should drill here.
Of course, the best thing to do would be to stop the dependence on drilling altogether. Am I making any sense?
Amen to your comments on drilling, Robin!!! That sums up how I've been feeling about it. If drilling is so bad, why do we have no problem with paying others for what they've drilled? We need to do whatever we can to reduce the need to drill at all. But knowing that we are ALWAYS (at least for the foreseeable future) going to need oil, which we have to drill for, let's get our own. We've made remarkable progress in figuring out how to protect the environment in the process.
Post a Comment