Research Paper 4
Liberty University
PLCY-704
Chris Grady
04/26/2020
The 2012 Election: Obama vs. Romney on the Environment
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are two presidential candidates who both differ greatly
on their economic stances on several issues such as military, foreign policy, healthcare, and the
nation’s budget and taxes. Each presidential candidate has their own reasoning and beliefs for
why their economic policy is correct and why theirs is going to benefit our great nation’s
economy the best. Even though Barack Obama won the 2012 presidential election, there are still
many who believe his economic plan is not to our nations benefit, with Romney’s potentially
being better. Each party has their own argument for their fiscal policy and to defend it to the
tooth, there are many major issues in our country that need refining and fixing, that both these
men believe they can improve greatly.
Mitt Romney has a very straightforward and efficient economic platform that covers all
the points and issues in our country. The first issue to be covered is his official view on the
United States military policy. Romney deems it necessary that our military continues to police
the world and help the world economy. He believes that our powerful military can help the world
economy and the global market tremendously. He believes that military cuts are not the right idea
and that the United States should actually increase military spending, expanding our military as a
whole. He sees potential military threats around the world such as the turmoil of the Middle East,
to the corrupt North Koreans and dangerously insolent Russians. He believes that we need to
neutralize these threats sooner rather than later, as they could become too problematic to possibly
contain and end up putting millions of people’s lives at risk. Romney desires to increase our
military by at least 100,000 troops (Roisman, Jonathon). He wants at least four percent of
spending of the United States Gross Domestic Product committed to the military alone. The
United States spent 711 billion dollars on solely the military in 2011 (which is greater than the
combined spending on military in next 13 countries in the world) and wants to even increase that
even more so (Roisman, Jonathon). He believes that the military is our nation’s backbone and
should not be taken lightly. Romney thinks that the United States Navy is also too small and
wants to increase the number of ships in it from 284 ships to 328 ships, reaching its full potential
of a world power and the dominating presence of our military on the world.
It had been 4 years since Barack Obama assumed office . It was time for the American
citizens to decide if he gets a second term .Obama’s tenure has been a roller coaster with some
highs – Auto industry turnaround and the capture and killing of Osama bin laden, and some lows
– unemployment being the highest since the great depression and the US debt rising beyond 14
trillion dollars. Recovery has been slow and painful. Obama inherited possibly the worst job in
2009, but has steadied the ship to a point where recovery in the next 4 years is a distinct
possibility.
Obama’s policies are typically pro-middle class. His anti outsourcing, anti business
stance sometimes cause more damage than good with large corporations struggling to find
qualified professionals for jobs they typically outsourced. This puts a burden on the company
bottom line, and eventually they do not have money to grow their business – which would have
created more jobs. So, In a sense, Obama’s enthusiasm to keep jobs in America actually lost jobs.
A more prudent approach would be to stem the flow of manufacturing jobs outside America, -
Manufacturing being the largest employment sector for American citizens.
The solar boondoggles are modest compared to the crony capitalist capers in the electric
vehicle (EV) sector. Here the Obama administration has guaranteed loans of $530 million for
Fisker Automotive and $465 million for Tesla Motors and provided $270 million in stimulus
money for a company called A123 that makes electric vehicle batteries (Stockman, 2013, 602).
Niebuhr recalled for his readers that the Christian gospel demanded care for the downtrodden. In
this, he acted as a prophet--the nation of Israel had been called to give aid to the widow and the
orphan (Isaiah 1.17), and America should likewise aid those who were most vulnerable and
oppressed by the society and its systems. But instead, America had accepted systems that
enshrined the ownership of property and the ethical problems that accompanied such idolatry
(Reinhold, 1953, 89).
The first two of these are essentially failing vanity projects of Silicon Valley billionaires
that are now being bailed out by the taxpayers for no discernible reason. The third has already
filed for bankruptcy, taking the taxpayers down the drain withthem.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney has a pro business stand. His plans to reduce the burden
on business, remove roadblocks to growth and jobs will be created automatically. His is a more
top down approach to the same problem. He believes that government spending should be
reduced to bring down the debt burden. This is a policy that may not go down well with the vast
populace that depends on government aid for housing, food, medical and education.
Every American needs to weigh each stance and decide which approach would take
America forward to prosperity. The world waits with bated breath.
resident Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have opposing policies on practically
everything (except international policy, arguably). However, apart from their policies on the
economy, another set of policies that greatly separates these two candidates is their policies on
energy. Nicknamed “Mr. Gas” after the second presidential debate, Romney’s policies surround
exploiting the nation’s rich oil, gas and coal reserves (“Complete Second Presidential Town Hall
Debate 2012: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney”). His main concern is with increasing job
opportunities for the American people, and he believes that funding the drilling of these
resources is the more effective and efficient way to create jobs in this economy. Obama’s energy
policies, however, are centered on reducing U.S. dependency on foreign energy resources and
being more environmentally friendly. Listed below is an overview of each candidate’s policies on
Renewable and Non-renewable energy.
Romney’s Plan: “Taking advantage of something we have right underneath our feet.” (Using Our
Energy Resources Will Create Jobs and Prosperity)
Mitt Romney plans on making “America an energy superpower” by collaborating with its
neighbors, Canada and Mexico, in order to increase production of oil and other energy resources
and to “achieve energy independence on this continent by 2020”
(Using Our Energy Resources Will Create Jobs and Prosperity). His plans consists of the
following:
Empower states to control onshore energy development
Open offshore areas for energy development
Pursue a North American Energy Partnership
Ensure accurate assessment of energy resources
Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation
Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies (Issues)
Although his strive to increase jobs in the energy sector is commendable, his plan seems too
idealistic and not specific. In an attempt to “embrace the nation’s abundant energy resources”,
Romney hasn’t taken into consideration that increasing American production of oil doesn’t soley
rely on “ared-back regulations and advances in drilling technology” (“Five things to know about
Mitt Romney’s energy plan”). Other factors need to be taken into consideration, such as CAFÉ
fuel economy standards that Romney has previously opposed. Questions that arise from these
policies are, How do you “empower states to control onshore energy development”? How do you
accurately asses energy resources in the nation when states such as California are yet to agree to
“open up its considerable oil resources in the Monterey shale for drilling”? (“Five things to know
about Mitt Romney’s energy plan”). Romney also places little or no significance on renewable
energy resources, which although less productive than non-renewable resources, would be the
most sustainable alternative.
Obama’s Plan: Create a “comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end
our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs”
(The Obama-Biden Plan).
The president believes that the only way to alleviate American dependence on foreign oil and
to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions in the nation is to promote a series of plans. The
Obama-Biden New Energy for America Plan consists of the following points:
Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next
ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and
Venezuela combined.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon on the
road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25
percent by 2025.
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions 80 percent by 2050. (The Obama-Biden Plan)
Obama’s policies can be seen as “pro-renewable energy”, as he has signed onto international
documents such as the Copenhagen Accord to “implement measures to
imit greenhouse gas emissions” and to push the nation towards clean energy (The White House).
However, with the all the objectives listed above, one has to ask how he plans on carrying
through with these promises? Job creation will not be an evitable result of switching to a “clean
energy future”. People who are presently within the energy sector may not be inadequately
trained to undertake the available jobs. Re-training must be done in order for there to be a
realistic increase in the number of jobs. Secondly, American dependence on Middle Eastern oil
cannot be resolved in just a decade. Ties with nations like Saudia Arabia and Lebanon are
founded on their oil producing capabilities. To reduce American reliance on oil in the Middle
East, would be to, in a way, sever these ties. When it comes to Obama’s fourth point, there is a
question of whether reliance on renewable energy for electricity will bring about a 15 percent
increase in electricity production by 2025. On our trip to the Conesville Power Plant, the
operator made the claim that renewable resources do not produce enough electricity to be a
reliable resource. Therefore, Obama’s goal by 2025 may not be attainable and could inevitably
result in a “bankrupt” America, as these policies will cost a lot of tax payer money (Power grab:
How Obama’s green policies will steal your free-
dom and bankrupt America).
All in all, though expensive, I believe that Obama’s plan is stronger than Romney’s
because it takes into consideration the sustainable effect of renewable resources and places
emphasis on improving upon the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions; whereas Romney’s plan to
increase the exploitation of America non-renewable resources could be beneficial for the next
decade or so, but eventually there will be diminishing marginal returns as the supply and
production of these resources decrease.
Climate change and other environmental issues are rapidly becoming more salient
concerns for the general public. Many politicians are beginning to include solutions to these
problems in their platforms as they run for office (Princen 2008). One of the reasons that Barack
Obama secured his second term as President is because he had support from environmentalists
and other voters concerned with environmental issues. Mitt Romney’s stance on the environment
flip-flopped throughout the 2012 election, making him a less desirable candidate for
environmentally concerned voters. Obama won the 2012 election because he provided a more
specific and definitive plan to try and solve current environmental issues. Environmentalists and
concerned citizens most likely voted for Obama because of his stance and platform issues
including climate change, renewable energy, oil and gas drilling, and EPA regulations.
Climate change is not only a growing issue, but also a controversial one. It is also an
issue that will be solved at both the national and international level. Obama’s platform supported
international collaboration and agreement between major world economies while Romney was
wary of any international climate negotiations (Montaigne 2012). Rather than creating a plan to
reduce greenhouse gas emission, Romney went on the offensive by stating that the majority of
emissions were coming from developing countries and by reducing emissions in the United
States, we would be putting our own economy at a great disadvantage. On the other side, one of
Obama’s main goals was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and carbon pollution coming from
many of the countries power plants. Obama advocated for stricter regulation and standards
associated with fossil-fuel burning power plants that will reduce the amount of carbon emissions,
which is the leading cause of the warming of the planet (Montaigne 2012). While Obama had a
definitive stance and plan regarding the issue of climate change, Romney was criticized for his
flip-flopping opinions. He has stated that climate change is occurring and that humans are a main
cause, and soon after stated that he does not know the main cause of climate change and whether
or not it is actually occurring (Montaigne 2012). This ambiguity was a gaping hole in Romney’s
platform as voters are typically unhappy with an undecided politician. Obama’s cohesive and
definite goals for the solution to climate change are among several reasons why
environmentalists favored his platform as opposed to Romney’s.
In our modern world, oil drilling is a clear concern for all of the American public because
of the rapidly increasing gas prices that result. This issue was an integral part of both Obama and
Romney platforms throughout the election as they tried to search for ways to reduce gas prices
and drill in less expensive and more sustainable places. Romney felt strongly that our country
should strive to achieve energy independence that would free us from depending on oil rich
countries thus becoming an economic and military power. To achieve energy independence,
Romney supported drilling on both the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. He criticized Obama’s desire to regulate the oil and gas industry saying that individual
states should control onshore energy development along with offshore drilling. Obama’s
regulations included limiting drilling off of the Alaskan coast, opposing drilling in the Artic
National Wildlife Refuge and forcing companies to disclose the contents of the drilling fluids
being used (Montaigne 2012).
Due to technological advances and progress, one of the most talked about current issues
is the search for renewable energy sources. Current president Barack Obama’s environmental
platform included ideas to make homes, and industrial and commercial buildings 20% more
efficient. He provided new efficiency plans for over one million multifamily as well as single-
family homes. Obama’s current energy efficiency plan has led to new standards and goals for
renewable energy sources in 35 states (President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change 2013).
During the election of 2012, Obama and Romney focused their platforms on whether
addition funding should be allocated toward energy efficiency and what types of energy should
be receiving this funding. Obama advocated for more funding for wind and solar energy while
Romney stated that these types of energy would not be enough to power the economy. Romney
wanted a level playing field, where energy sources including nuclear, biodiesel and ethanol could
compete equally rather than increasing funding for certain types of energy. He also opposed the
extension of tax credit for wind energy; something that Obama advocated for in his platform.
Where Romney wanted equality, Obama wanted funding for rural communities to commit to
more efficient energy solutions. By increasing spending by 30%, Obama stated that generation of
electricity from renewable sources would double. This funding would lead to approval of 25 new
utility-scale solar facilities that would provide both electricity and jobs for the American public.
Environmentalists supported President Obama because he provided concrete ways to create an
economy based off cleaner and more efficient energy sources (Montaigne 2012).
The Environmental Protection Agency has always been a huge player in the discussion of
the environment as they have the power to regulate the use of energy. Obama and Romney both
presented different views on how strong regulations should be regarding greenhouse gas
emissions, and other forms of air and water pollution. Obama opted to work closely with the EPA
and individual states, setting up new standards to reduce carbon pollution, which included
prohibiting the use of hydroflourocarbons. His platform acknowledged that currently the
transportation sector is exponentially increasing pollution. He is currently working toward fuel
economy standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses and vans that would greatly reduce greenhouse
emissions while also saving oil (“President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change” 2013).
While Obama advocated for these regulations, Romney stated that he felt the EPA was
getting out of control and that regulations would only hurt the economy of the country. Romney’s
platform stated that the federal government should not be working closely with the EPA, but
individual states should control their own regulations. Romney mainly spoke about regulations
regarding nuclear power plants stating that tighter regulations will place financial burden on
plant operators and discourage new power plants from being built. This issue is highly debated
because power plants not only emit carbon, but also mercury and other toxins that are polluting
the air of many cities. The argument about power plants also encompasses the question of
funding. Where Obama has advocated for less of American tax dollars to fund power plants,
Romney says that taxes should remain at this level because the high prices are here to stay
(Montaigne 2012).
Lastly, there remains the issue of regulations regarding oil and gas drilling. There was
another stark difference between the views of Romney and Obama where Romney supports gas
and drilling on federal lands and Obama again supports more regulation. Regulation may be the
answer to some of the current environmental issues and it is probable that many concerned
citizens supports Obama’s platform and cooperation with the EPA (Montaigne 2012).
The 2012 election was a close race and it was won with just a few votes. The saliency of
environmental issues is increasing because of the way the climate is changing and starting to
affect everyday life of many American citizens. As saliency of environmental issues increases, so
does the amount of people that are concerned about these issues, thus increasing the number of
people likely to vote for a candidate based on their position on the environment. Due to Obama’s
platform regarding the environment, he was able to get crucial votes from voters concerned
about the future of the planet, thus helping him to the win the 2012 election.
References
Bresswein, Kurt. “Presidential Race 2012: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney energy
Policies broken down”. Leighvalleylive.com, 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 22 Oct.
2012.
Bresswein, Kurt. “Presidential Race 2012: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney energy
Policies broken down”. Leighvalleylive.com, 14 Oct. 2012. Web. 22 Oct.
2012.
Finkle, V. (2012, October 19). Obama, Romney Housing Strategies Are MIA. American Banker,
177(F341). Retrieved from https://link-gale-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A305664700/AONE?
u=vic_liberty&sid=AONE&xid=de45f276
Holder, R. W., & Josephson, P. B. (2012). Obama, Romney, and Christian Realism. Society,
49(5), 439+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/A367075416/BIC?
u=vic_liberty&sid=BIC&xid=e746f924
Horner, Christopher C. Power grab: How Obama’s green policies will steal your free-
dom and bankrupt America. 2010. Denison Libraries. Web. 19 Oct. 2012.
Ibid
Montaigne, Fen. 2012. “Obama vs. Romney: A Stark Contrast on the Environment.” AlterNet.
Ranken, Tom. “Governor’s Race: Energy and Climate Issues”. Washington Clean
Technology Alliance, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.
Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Realism and Political Problems: Essays on Political, Social, Ethical,
and Theological Themes (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1953), 88-91.
“Rising To a New Generation of Global Challenges”. Myclob’s Mitt Romney
Encyclopedia. N.p, 2007. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.
Romney, Mitt. Using Our Energy Resources Will Create Jobs and Prosperity. 23 Aug.
2012. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.
Stockman, David. (2013). The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.
New York: Public Affairs
Plumer, Brad. “Five things to know about Mitt Romney’s energy plan”. The Washington
Post. 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.
Princen, Thomas. 2008. “Notes on the Theorizing of Global Environmental Politics.” Project
Muse. Vol. 8: 1-5
2013. “President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change” WhiteHouse.gov.
