Obama

by

Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News: Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News: Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline. (2015, November 9). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/49141

Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline on November 9, 2015, stating that the oil pipeline was not in America’s best interests. There has been a fierce debate between business and environmentalists, with 2 million comments submitted to the State Department and thousands of rallies against the Keystone Pipeline throughout the nation. Obama believed that the environmental cost of the pipeline was too much. He stated that the cost to people and wildlife would be enormous, and that it would trump the potential profit. Environmentalists hope that his decision will mark a turning point in American history, where we start using sustainable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.

This article focuses on the political science aspect of environmental science. The debate about this pipeline has raged for years, and culminated with a win for the climate. However, the fossil fuel lobby isn’t done yet. In the coming years, they will attempt to impede substantial alternative energy legislation. While this is a major win, environmental advocacy groups may not fully grasp the fight ahead of them. Fossil fuels are deeply engrained in American society. It powers our cars, and provides billions of dollars in revenue every year. While our dependency on fossil fuels has been stopped from increasing, it will be an entirely different matter altogether to substitute alternative energy for already existing fossil fuel sources.

by

Bush says he’d repeal signature Obama environmental regulations

Feldscher, K. (2015, November 21). Bush says he’d repeal signature Obama environmental regulations. Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bush-says-hed-repeal-power-plant-water-rules/article/2576075

Former Florida Governor Jeb bush stated during the fourth Republican presidential primary debate that he would repeal both the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States regulations. The Clean Power Plan limited the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that power plants could produce. The Waters of the United States protects streams and wetlands that contribute to overall water quality and more precisely defines waters protected by the Clean Water Act. Critics of both plans state that they impede business by imposing bureaucracy and unneeded costs and fees on utilities. They call both laws an unconstitutional overreach by Obama and the EPA. Other Republicans have made similar promises to repeal Obama’s environmental legislation.

This is yet another example of the modern regulation conflict that is faced by environmentalists in the United States. There is a certain sect of American politicians that will refuse to vote for any environmental regulation. They believe that any regulation is an impediment to business, and therefore to the American economy. Many of them don’t believe in or are undecided about the existence of global warming. While they have a point that the United States must balance the interests of business with the health of the environment, these are common-sense regulations. Cutting carbon emissions and maintaining stream water quality are sensible goals. The Waters of the United States also makes it easier to define what is water, making the Clean Water Act easier to enforce. The effect on industry is minimal at best, and the effect on jobs is negligible. The United States should keep these laws on the books in order to preserve our environment and prevent pollution.

by

Senate Votes to Block Obama’s Climate Change Rules.

Davenport, C. (2015, November 17). Senate Votes to Block Obama’s Climate Change Rules. Retrieved November 18, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/senate-blocks-obamas-climate-change-rules.html?_r=0

The Senate voted Tuesday to block new environmental legislation that was supported by President Obama. They passed two resolutions: one to remove a rule that would cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and one to remove a rule halting construction of more coal-fired power plants. Both passed 52-46. Three Democrats from states with a strong coal industry broke party lines to vote for the resolutions. However, two Republicans voted for them. Obama has promised to veto the bills, citing environmental concerns. This move by the Senate weakens Obama’s negotiating power in Paris on November 30, where he will attempt to broker a historic climate change agreement between all nations. The President hopes to get all countries to commit to policies that would reduce global warming.

This article relates to the political aspect of environmental science. Scientists can identify all the environmental problems they want, but a strong political presence is needed in order to achieve solutions. Unfortunately, the coal industry has strong lobbying power and holds a lot of influence in Congress. Republicans don’t want an agreement to be reached, because if it is, the Republicans would look like they are behind the times. If all countries agree to stop climate change, that would validate its existence in the minds of the American public. The Republicans would probably be forced to validate the treaty, since they would look un-American if they didn’t. The American voter values patriotism in their politicians, and would be less inclined to vote Republican if the Party doesn’t support the President in an international agreement. While these current shenanigans are largely underreported, refusing to support the President internationally would make America look weak to the world, and a strong America is a key plank on the Republican platform.

by

Obama’s Climate Change Plan

Davenport, C. (2015, August 3). 5 Questions About Obama’s Climate Change Plan. Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/5-questions-about-obamas-climate-change-plan.html?_r=0

Following under the guidelines created by the Clean Air Act of 1970, Barack Obama has created a climate change plan. As carbon dioxide was labeled a dangerous contaminant, Obama is able to regulate carbon dioxide emissions without consent from Congress. This plan allows states flexibility in deciding how to reduce emissions, but requires that power plant emissions decrease by 32% by 2030. Opponents of the act are arguing that this plan takes advantage of the Clean Air Act.

This article is related to climate change as its results could decrease the repercussions of climate change and lead to other similar plans that will help further in the decrease of carbon dioxide emissions. While positive, there are many things the United States needs to do to reduce their carbon footprint and it will be necessary for the every day citizen to make the decision to help reduce their comsumption. The government can not do it all, but this is an important start in showing that climate change needs to be taken seriously.

 

by

Obamas visit to India on nuclear power

Liptak, Kevin. “On High-profile India Visit, Obama Says Progress Made on Nuclear Sticking Point.” CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/24/politics/obama-india/index.html>.

In this article we read about a visit that president Obama made to india in order to talk to Indian leaders about their nuclear programs. The US government along with the indian government, have began a cooperative program which will allow for US firms to work with the indian government in developing their civilian nuclear plants. They have ran into many issues due to the lack of cooperation by the indian lawmakers but president obama and the indian prime minister stated that they had discussed the issue and had made a few steps toward setting up the plan for sure. The US hopes that the improvements that they are making here will help them in gaining improvement from the indians and balance the level of support between russia and the US.

I feel that is is good that were are traveling to other nations in order to help them in securing their plants while also providing them with state of the art equipment so that they can produce nuclear energy more efficiently and in a safer way. I also feel that we should help other countries with the development of nuclear power plants so that they can begin to change from dirty resources to something that if correctly regulated could be effective.