Obama: Economy or Environment?

Obama: Economy or Environment?
By: Sarah Miller


Breathe in. Ah, oxygen. What are you drinking? I hope it’s water or it completely ruins my example. There is nothing like drinking some refreshing H2O. These are things that we take for granted every day but would not be possible without a healthy environment. Shockingly, the environment cannot just stay this way without the support of our government. Who knew? It is up to our current administration to keep our environmental programs running, search for problems, find ways to aid these problems, and put these grand ideas into action. Recently, the United States has been in an economic crisis that could possibly hinder the amount of funding that goes towards environmental protection, which could ultimately delay our progress towards a more environmentally friendly world. Is our President, Barack Obama, keeping us “green”? According to the editorial, “A pale shade of green”, Obama is letting the failing economy dictate the amount of funding that goes toward the environment, ultimately hurting our environment from the lack of progress. On the other hand, an article on Democrats.Org suggests that Obama is instilling programs that help the environment, while boosting the economy.

I recently read an editorial entitled, “A pale shade of green”, from the weekly journal Nature. This article claims, “The Obama administration should reject the false dichotomy between environmental protection and the economy”. The unnamed author believes that since our economy is failing, President Barack Obama is not regarding the environment as a prominent issue. The article states that Obama did not bring up global warming or clean energy in a recent speech about economic recovery. While these topics were not mentioned, I find it hard to believe that Obama does not consider these critical problems. The author also believes that the “world of US politics” perceives environmental protection as optional. I find that statement a little ridiculous. The United States government has put the environment on a pedestal for the past decade. “Going green”, recycling organic foods, clean air, etc., have been trending topics across the nation. The editorial brings up the issue of Obama opting out on the current operation to tighten standards for ozone pollution but then states that Obama promises it will be pushed back again in 2013. The author of the editorial finds this preposterous. The world is ending this year anyways, so it won’t matter. But seriously, will a year off from working on it hurt us detrimentally? You tell me.The author then comments about how we need a policy that will address the climate threat and how Obama is being cautious about extending his powers for the issue. The article concludes with a statement in an address to Congress from President Obama. Obama said, “We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards”. After this quote, the author concludes the editorial by saying: “Obama and his administration still have the opportunity to live up to those words.” The author of “A pale shade of green” makes some interesting points and requests, but has Obama really lost focus on the environment?

I found an article written for Democrats.Org that would say otherwise. This article claims that the environment is something the Obama administration “stands for”. They begin their article with a quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt, “A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people.” The quote has an intriguing font and was said by a President that was very appealing to the masses. Are they trying to sway the readers with their captivating presentation of the web page? Probably. But the information within the article is what convinces me that the “pale shade of green” editorial is not entirely true. The Democrat’s article on the environment begins by stating, “From protecting endangered species to restoring our ecosystems and investing in clean-energy solutions, the Obama Administration and Democrats are working to address our biggest environmental challenges”. Now, this claim is the polar opposite of what the other editorial suggested. This article then lists out a few of the accomplishments for the environment under the Obama administration thus far. These included the Department of Transportation issuing new fuel-economy standards, the first mandated increases in fuel economy for cars in decades, the EPA taking steps toward regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the U.S. sorting greenhouse gas emissions from large emission sources (for the first time ever). It doesn’t sound like the declining economy is making Obama cut too much from the environmental fund. This article even recognizes America’s faults by pointing our “our addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels”. It claims that we are not only putting our environment at risk, but also our economy. This means that these programs are actually helping our economy. The article even mentions, “Democrats are working to develop comprehensive energy and climate legislation to protect our environment and grow our economy”. Obama is trying to instill programs that will result in a healthier environment and result in economic growth at the same time.

Each argument is put together well. While I agree more with the Democrat.Org article, I thought that the Nature editorial proposed a better argument. I found this to be the case due to the number of facts and the amount of emotion put into the editorial. However, I did find some of the emotion to be a little over dramatic. Clearly, the “pale shade of green” author believes that Obama is not considering the environment to be a prominent issue, especially during this bad economic crisis. On the other hand, the Democrats article claims that Obama has been doing numerous things to help the environment, in spite of the failing economy. Is Obama not paying enough attention to our environment? I don’t think so. Has the budget been lowered for the environment due to the bad economic situation in the United States? I would think to a small extent. Does our government think environmental protection is optional? I highly doubt it. You may believe that the Obama administration is slacking on environmental preservation or you may think that they are doing a substantial amount for the environment. Either way, most of us can agree that our environment keeps us alive and we must preserve it!

"What We Stand For: Environment." Democrats.org. Web. 04 Feb. 2012. <http://www.democrats.org/issues/environment>.

"A Pale Shade of Green" Nature Publishing Group. 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7364/full/477249a.html>.