Drill baby drill!

The candidates' attitude towards the environment in the US election is making it a case of opting fo

Back in May, Friends of the Earth endorsed Barack Obama. By August they were putting out statements attacking his decision to embrace a bill that would have allowed drilling in Alaska and slamming his support for 'dirty liquid coal'.

Such has been the pattern of this election. The environmental lobby get momentarily excited about the candidates on offer. Then someone asks a question about energy policy and their green credentials go out the window. Obama favours renewable energy targets, but is also a proud supporter of food-price boosting ethanol subsidies. John McCain says that tackling global warming will be one of the priorities of his presidency. Yet he wants to hand carbon permits to polluting industries, and has made a campaign slogan of 'drill baby drill'.

Americans are waking up to global warming. But cheap petrol and low taxes come first every time - and where voters lead, politicians will follow. "Most people want to do the right thing, but there's the big picture, and there's today," says Rich Bowden, a professor of environmental studies at Allegheny College, Pennsylvania. "If you ask if they care or would they spend money to protect the environment, they'll say yes. If you look at their actual behaviour you get a rather different answer."

Much of the nation's failure of will can be credited to its leaders' failure to actually lead. FDR called on the US to build 50,000 aeroplanes; JFK announced it would put a man on the moon before the decade was out. The best the environmental movement has found was Al Gore, and he lost.

Indeed, plenty of US politicians have done all they can to push the country in the other direction. George W. Bush has slashed environmental protections. Ronald Reagan cut funding for renewable energy, removed the solar panels from the White House, and appointed a secretary of the interior who believed it was okay to pillage the Earth because the Rapture
was coming.

Even Ted Kennedy drew pure green fury earlier this year when he tried to block a wind farm development off Cape Cod, for the marvellously patrician reason that it would ruin the view from his yacht.
("What right do people in Massachusetts have to do that?" fumes Bowden. "I live in a state where people are ripping the tops off mountains and pouring them into streams.")

This year's candidates are better - but only just. And the endorsements for Obama are as much a judgement against McCain as enthusiasm for the Democrat.

"It's a choice between 'drill baby drill' and change - but we don't know what that change will be," says Bowden. That's a worry. After all, environmental collapse is change too.

3 comments

sandy1's picture

Voting Deadlines

Most of the states require an absentee ballot request to be made by October 24th. You can click on this link and request your absentee ballot.

www.StateDemocracy.org

Check your States Deadline Date at http://bostonnewsdesk.blogspot.com/2008/10/apply-for-absentee-ballot.html

Nick Berning's picture

Barack Obama is not perfect, but anyone who argues he he is "only just" better than President Bush on environmental issues obviously has not spent a lot of time looking at the candidates' plans. Obama has a strong pro-environment voting record, he supports a serious cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and he favors new clean energy alternatives, such as wind and solar, over more drilling.

This article contains a number of factual inaccuracies. For example, Friends of the Earth did not criticize Obama for wanting to drill in Alaska.

Anyone interested in learning why Friends of the Earth Action strongly supports Obama can visit http://action.foe.org/t/4027/content.jsp?content_KEY=3339

Nick Berning
Friends of the Earth Action

earthlover's picture

Hmm, why DIDN'T Friends of the Earth Action criticize Obama for wanting to drill in Alaska? Wouldn't they have criticized McCain? I sure would have. And he is just slightly better... He constantly touts "clean coal" which does not exist as McCain does; is for nuclear as part of a solution to climate change when uranium pollution is killing our Southwest as McCain does (and allowed Exelon to police themselves regarding nuclear leaks in Illinois;) voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill which gave subsidies to oil companies and ethanol (which is now contributing to food shortages) ; is the member of Congress who has received the most in donations from the coal industry ( and you can verify that with the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets); and has an emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050 that even scientists say is not good enough now.

Besides that he is for cap and trade like McCain, clearly a corporate scheme as opposed to a carbon tax which is supported by Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmentalist Al Gore (whose endorsement of Obama is also then confusing as well,) Ralph Nader who is also a presidential candidate, and many economists as the truly quickest way to decrease emissions of GHGS.

So why are orgnanizations falling all over themselves to endorse Obama when this issue is so important that it requires a truly non partisan review to come to the conclusion that neither McCain or Obama has an adequate plan to lead us out of this? So sick of the political overtaking the moral imperative regarding this issue/crisis. Even from organizations that claim to care about this planet first.

Latest tweets