Monday Editorial: Energy and the Environment

The words of the two candidates this year are not drastically different on the subject of energy. Both, for example, are talking about wind and solar, and about renewable energy. Both have even affirmed nuclear energy and clean coal technology. Their main difference has to do with drilling.

McCain has changed his position on off shore drilling in the light of gas prices. I don't remember if Obama has taken a strong position against it, but it would be hard for a Democrat to support it--one of those "don't go there" issues for the party. Meanwhile, Palin has offered Anwar to America. I'm not actually hard set against drilling in Anwar. I think McCain for the moment is still quietly resisting his party's platform on that one, despite Palin's position.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to drilling in itself on the presumption that it can be done without great damage to the local environment. And I suspect it can be done relatively cleanly if it is done right.

However, these are just stop gap measures--ones that won't last very long even at full speed ahead. I'm more afraid they will simply provide an excuse not to get down to business and do what we really need to be doing--weaning ourselves off of oil. Drilling won't make us energy independent--won't even get us close. And it's moving in the wrong direction. Science should be a lot further than it is on these issues and the reason it isn't are 1) big business and 2) Republicans.

The Republicans can talk about the future of energy, but they have resisted it tooth and nail and have in fact held us back from what every Star Trek geek has known since the late 60's. In short, a tie on energy goes to the Democrats, whom we know will actually do something about the long term goal of making us energy independent. All we have are promises from the Republicans on this one, and their record is too poor in this area to be trusted.

On the environment, sure, there are many hard core environmentalists out there with unreasonable demands of what you can and cannot do. I don't think Obama is one of them. The Republicans, meanwhile, have resisted the idea of global warming, once again, until recently when the issue could no longer be ignored. Now they finally acknowledge the warming but question its cause.

What is it about American culture that actually considers being an expert on a topic a sign that you don't know what you're talking about? Have you ever thought about it? A person who is good at math or science in America is a nerd, a geek--an uncool person who obviously should be ignored. Only in America would it be part of our unthinking paradigm that an uneducated moron has more authority to know the right position against the vast majority of those who actually know the evidence and the ins and outs of the issue! This is a sobering thought with huge implications to anyone who seriously ponders it.

The experts on energy and the environment seem to lean heavily in the direction of the Democrats on this particular issue. Of course I doubt the majority of Republicans have an intentional agenda to pollute and exploit the earth. But if we had to ask, on this issue, which party has the more Christian position, I would be hard pressed to see how the Democratic party is not the right answer on this one. The most Christian perspective on the earth sees it as God's earth and as something we should respect and be good stewards of.

So on this issue, as on education, I have to give the vote to Obama.