By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Whose political platform you favor in terms of green energy?

Tagged games:

 

Which stance do you favor?

Progressive 13 56.52%
 
Conservative 10 43.48%
 
Total:23

Ok, this is a succint comparison of two political ideologies view on renewable energy. I'd like to know what you netizens think of this matter as it will affect our lives more and more from now on. 

The Green Energy Views of Democrats Vs. Republicans

by Agatha Clark, Demand Media

Republicans and Democrats have divided opinions regarding renewable energy.

Over several decades, Americans have become increasingly aware of problems affecting the environment, such as pollution and the consumption of nonrenewable resources. As public understanding of human impact on the environment has grown, opinions on how to address these issues have become divided. The Republican and Democratic parties have each taken positions on renewable energy that represent many of the concerns that modern Americans share.

In their 2012 campaign platforms, both the Republican and Democratic parties advocated an "all of the above" energy policy. Both parties spoke in favor of ending American use of imported fuels and an increased use of domestic natural resources; however, their implementation plans were different. Democrats favored reducing reliance on oil by exploring natural gas and alternate fuel in addition to coal, promoting the development of new energy technologies and preserving the natural status of public lands. Republicans favored harvesting domestic oil and other resources and allowing public preference to dictate popular energy use.

Fossil Fuels

Both Republicans and Democrats favored the use of fossil fuels, but each party had varying degrees of support. The Democratic platform supported coal and natural gas, but was against the use of oil. The platform stated that Americans should cut their reliance on oil and preserve natural habitat. It also criticized "Big Oil" companies. The Republican platform supported coal, which it described as environmentally responsible and energy efficient. It also supported exploration of natural gas and oil reserves, including drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Alternative Energy

In addition to the use of fossil fuels, both parties' platforms expressed opinions about the exploration of alternative energy sources. Republicans advocated "cost-effective development of renewable energy," and favored aggressive development of renewable resources. They also stated, however, that taxpayers should not be required to pay for this. As an alternative, the party recommended that traditional energy companies partner with emerging alternative energy industries to create a solution. The Democratic party favored incentivizing the development of alternative fuel sources, increasing energy efficiency standards and promoting vehicles that use alternative fuels. Democrats also promoted selling renewable energy technology abroad.

Regulation

Democrats and Republicans disagreed regarding how best to regulate energy use to minimize environmental impact. Democrats supported enhanced safeguards to prevent carbon pollution in the air and water. They also advocated reducing emissions by regulating limits and expanding protection for natural areas. Republicans favored conservation through private ownership. The party's platform favored selling federally held lands to private parties, preventing new greenhouse gas regulations and reducing EPA regulations. In addition, the Republican party approved current regulation and use of hydraulic fracturing (popularly known as fracking) as a part of the oil-harvesting process.



Around the Network

The right side gets my vote since their more economically flexible ...



Well, we know that leaving things up to choice and the market isn't working, so there has to be some incentivising. Whether it's by subsidising the clean energy or taxing the dirty energy, or a bit of both is the big question. Consumers will by and large make their decisions on price, and if GHG producing systems are cheaper that's what consumers (including industrial consumers) will go for. There is a cost either way (subsidy or taxing) of making clean energy more attractive. Personally, I think the people who choose to use dirty energy should be required to pay for it directly, that way the burden of cost falls on the user of the dirty product, thus conversion to clean energy becomes more attractive by being relatively cheaper than dirty energy, but still being economically viable without the need for corporate welfare. However the tax collected from dirty energy users needs to be ring-fenced for use in helping out R&D to produce clean energy more cheaply.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

fatslob-:O said:
The right side gets my vote since their more economically flexible ...

Explain "economically flexible".



the-pi-guy said:
Definitely think that alternative energy sources should be incentivized.

And the current core ones not subsidized.

 

I think the Green Party has a more favorable position on "green" energy.  I'm surprised they aren't part of the poll.

 



Feel free to check out my stream on twitch 

Around the Network
Goatseye said:

Explain "economically flexible".

It falls on the choice of the market to create incentives for green energy rather than just coercing the whole population for using non-green energy with taxes ...



fatslob-:O said:
Goatseye said:

Explain "economically flexible".

It falls on the choice of the market to create incentives for green energy rather than just coercing the whole population for using non-green energy with taxes ...

I have a problem with that. The customers will follow the cheapest option for the moment instead of the better one on the long term.

Oil industry have the capacity to offer waaay cheaper energy products and services to the consumer than renewable energy ones. The market not only is ecologically irresponsible it also hinders the technology evolution with the power of political lobby.

Many industries are waiting for energy revolution to take the next technological and business leaps only attainable with more feasible renewable energy practices.



Goatseye said:

I have a problem with that. The customers will follow the cheapest option for the moment instead of the better one on the long term.

Oil industry have the capacity to offer waaay cheaper energy products and services to the consumer than renewable energy ones. The market not only is ecologically irresponsible it also hinders the technology evolution with the power of political lobby.

Many industries are waiting for energy revolution to take the next technological and business leaps only attainable with more feasible renewable energy practices.

How would you know that it would be better in the long term ? At least with the cheaper option, there'd be most likely a higher quality of life since there's more wealth to spend and invest on compared to not knowing whether or not it was worthwhile to invest in green energy since most of us are already dead ... 

Forcing green energy in developing countries is especially stupid since it raises barriers to generate economic prosperity ... 



fatslob-:O said:
Goatseye said:

I have a problem with that. The customers will follow the cheapest option for the moment instead of the better one on the long term.

Oil industry have the capacity to offer waaay cheaper energy products and services to the consumer than renewable energy ones. The market not only is ecologically irresponsible it also hinders the technology evolution with the power of political lobby.

Many industries are waiting for energy revolution to take the next technological and business leaps only attainable with more feasible renewable energy practices.

How would you know that it would be better in the long term ? At least with the cheaper option, there'd be most likely a higher quality of life since there's more wealth to spend and invest on compared to not knowing whether or not it was worthwhile to invest in green energy since most of us are already dead ... 

Forcing green energy in developing countries is especially stupid since it raises barriers to generate economic prosperity ... 

Is that your stance on the world and humanity? "I ain't gonna be here in couple of years, might as well use all my savings".

F*ck who comes next, right?



fatslob-:O said:
The right side gets my vote since their more economically flexible ...

i agree with the right on this. I rather us use our oil reserves and also sell some of that oil overseas instead of using foreign oil so much. It would boost the economy, provide/sustain plenty of jobs and the extra tax money coming in could be used to research a renewable green energy. 

 

Edited to correct mistake.