Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to contrast the policy positions of President Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney on energy development. In the 2012 US presidential campaigns, these leaders have promised to implement various policies in the energy sector if elected as the next president.
Following his election in 2008, President Obama focused on developing clean energy. This strategy was meant to reduce the use of oil in the US and to improve the quality of the environment.
In 2011, Obama developed a master plan that will enable the US to double its production of renewable energy. According to this master plan, 80% of the country’s electricity will be produced through clean energy sources such as nuclear and natural gas (Jindal, 2012).
The president has also offered grants and tax credits to support the development and use of alternative energy. In early 2012, Obama modified his energy policy by opting to exploit all sources of energy.
Romney’s policy, on the other hand, focuses on reforming regulations in the energy sector. Furthermore, he advocates for increased production of energy at the local level. Romney has promised to streamline rules that are used to control pollution in the fossil fuel industry.
Unlike Obama, Romney has called for increased production and use of oil and gas. He argues that the fossil fuel industry has the potential of creating more jobs (Murray, 2012). Despite these differences, the two candidates agree that dependence on oil imports should be reduced.
Additionally, they agree that the energy sector should be expanded in order to facilitate economic growth. Since energy development is a broad topic, this paper will focus on the candidates’ positions on the Keystone pipeline project and ANWR.
The Keystone Pipeline Project
The Keystone pipeline is a transport system through which crude oil will be transported from Canada to various locations in the United States. The oil will be transported through a pipeline that connects the two countries. The transport system will cover approximately 3,461 kilometers.
Figure 1 shows the proposed route of the pipeline, whereas figure 2 shows a section of the completed phase. The project was adopted in 2010 by the government of the US and Canada to facilitate economic growth through expansion of the energy sector.
Concisely, Canada will benefit by increasing its oil exports to the United States (Jindal, 2012). Additionally, it will be able to use various ports in the US to export its oil to other countries. The United States, on the other hand, will benefit by accessing enough oil to satisfy its growing energy needs.
Furthermore, transporting oil through the pipeline is considered to be relatively safe. The project is also expected to create jobs in both countries.
In the United States, the project has temporarily been stopped due to economic, political and environmental concerns. The policy positions of the two presidential candidates on the project are summarized in table 1.
Table 1: Positions on Keystone Pipeline.
President Obama’s Position
President Obama has postponed the implementation of the project due to rising concerns about its potential impacts to the environment. Environmentalists believe that the project is likely to cause air and water pollution.
Additionally, the construction of the pipeline will lead to the destruction of wildlife and their migratory routes. According to the original plan, the pipeline will pass through wetlands such as the Sand-hills in Nebraska.
It will also cross important reservoirs such as the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies water to more than two million citizens. Thus, any oil spills will lead to massive water pollution. These fears are exacerbated by the fact that the pipeline will pass through regions which are susceptible to high intensity earthquakes.
An oil spill is likely to occur if the pipeline is destroyed by earthquake or seismic activities. The process of mining tar sands will also lead to the destruction of ancient forests. Besides, the process will create large pits which are health hazards.
Empirical studies indicate that using the oil is likely to cause acidic rain which is harmful to both wildlife and the human population. Moreover, acidic rain will affect fisheries if it finds its way into lakes and oceans.
Obama and his fellow democrats believe that the project will only serve the interest of Canada. In a nutshell, transporting the oil to the Gulf Coast will lead to its exportation to Asian markets. Consequently, it will not help the United States to improve its fuel independence.
Selling the oil in the United States is expected to increase the country’s dependence on fossil fuel. This contradicts Obama’s initial energy policy which focuses on replacing the use of fossil fuels with clean energy.
Consequently, Obama believes that alternative programs such as implementing the new automobile mileage standards will be desirable. These programs will not only reduce carbon emission, but will also create more job opportunities in the automobile industry.
According to Obama, a thriving alternative energy sector is likely to create more jobs than the Keystone project. Additionally, developing the clean energy sector is the best way of ensuring reliable energy supply.
Fuel price is not expected to reduce after the construction of the pipeline since oil prices are controlled by forces of demand and supply in the global market. In this regard, the project will have little contribution in the process of economic growth and job creation.
Engineers in the energy sector have warned that the project can lead to over capacity in the oil industry. After completing the project, most pipelines in the United States are expected to operate at half capacity.
Constructing a pipeline that is expected to be underutilized is a sign of resource misallocation. Consequently, the country’s scarce resources should be used for other viable projects rather than the Keystone pipeline system.
Romney’s Position
Romney acknowledges the fact that the project is likely to cause environmental pollution. However, he argues that the best solution is to find ways of addressing the pollution rather than abandoning the project.
In this context, he has promised to streamline regulation in the oil industry in order to promote safe production and use of fossil fuels (WSJ, 2012).
The communities which are likely to be affected by the project will be compensated. For instance, land owners will receive compensations for their properties. Thus, the project will not cause losses to the affected communities.
According to Romney, abandoning the project will expose the United States to higher environmental risks. More oil has to be imported in order to meet the growing demand. However, the existing pipelines are facing capacity constraints.
Thus, abandoning the project will necessitate transportation of oil through trains and trucks. These alternative transportation methods are likely to cause high pollution through greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, transporting oil by road or railway systems is likely to cause more accidents than the pipeline.
Transport economists argue that transporting oil through a pipeline costs less than using trains and trucks. Hence, the project will lead to significant cost savings which will promote economic growth. Romney’s support for the project is also based on the premise that Canada is the most reliable supplier of oil to the United States.
Oil supplies from Venezuela, Mexico, as well as, Nigeria is expected to reduce in the next decade due to declining production. However, oil production in Canada is expected to increase in the next decade.
Consequently, it will be in the interest of the United States to secure oil supply from Canada. This will help in avoiding future oil shocks.
Romney and his fellow republicans have dismissed claims that the pipeline will serve the interest of Canada at the expense of the United States. The project is expected to create more construction jobs than any project in the energy industry (Murray, 2012).
Given the current economic decline, the jobs will help thousands of Americans and businesses to fulfill their financial dreams. Romney argues that the oil from Canada will still be exported to Asian markets even if the project is abandoned. Canada has the potential of using alternative routes to export its oil to overseas markets.
Thus, constructing the pipeline will enable the US to generate revenue by allowing Canada to export oil through the Gulf Coast. The revenue will be generated through the fees that Canada will pay for the use of USA’s portion of the pipeline and other facilities such as ports.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
ANWR is located in the northern part of Alaska. It is a protected wildlife refuge that supports thousands of plant and animal species. Figure 3 shows part of the refuge. Some of the most common animal species in the refuge include polar bears, lemmings and caribou.
The refuge is one of the most important tourist attractions in America. Apart from providing habitats for wildlife, the refuge also holds large amounts of oil deposits. Over two billion barrels of crude oil can be obtained in this region.
The presence of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has generated debate on the future use of the land in which it is located. Some industrialists and political leaders believe that the oil should be drilled in order to meet the country’s energy demands.
However, drilling oil in the refuge will lead to destruction of wildlife and environmental pollution. It is against this backdrop that most environmentalists oppose any attempts to drill oil in the region. The positions of President Obama and Romney on ANWR are summarized in table 2.
Table 2: Positions on ANWR.
Obama’s Position
President Obama has always opposed oil exploration at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to the following reasons. The president supports the view that drilling oil in the refuge will cause serious environmental problems such as air pollution and destruction of the ecosystem.
It is apparent that oil exploration activities in the refuge will cause destruction to wildlife and their habitats. Environmental studies have revealed that oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will cause irreversible damage.
This means that rehabilitating the refuge after the depletion of the oil deposits will not be possible. Thus, stopping the exploration is the best way to protect the refuge.
According to Obama, oil production in the ANWR has little economic value. The refuge can not produce enough oil to support economic activities in the United States for a long time. Besides, the oil will not have any effects on the international oil prices.
Thus, the United States will still experience difficulties in production due to high oil prices. In this regard, drilling oil in the ANWR will not help in solving America’s energy problems. Whereas the economic benefits of the oil are expected to be little, the cost of the exploration is expected to be very high.
The government will spend billions of dollars to extract the oil. Additionally, the damage costs resulting from the pollution that will be caused by the exploration are expected to be high. Hence, drilling oil at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be a net loss to the society.
Obama has always proposed the use of alternative energy sources instead of drilling oil at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Since 2008, the president has promoted the use of ethanol, as well as, liquid coal.
The president has been implementing policies that facilitate conservation of the environment such as using energy efficient cars. These measures are expected to help the US to manage the effects of global warming such as climate change.
According to Obama, America can only sustain its economic prosperity if it focuses on the use of sustainable energy sources. Thus, his opposition to short term solutions such as drilling oil at the ANWR becomes apparent. Energy economists argue that short term solutions will worsen the country’s energy problem.
This argument is based on the premise that short term solutions enable the country to solve its current energy problems. However, they deny the country the opportunity to focus on long term solutions which are commercially viable and sustainable.
Romney’s Position
Romney’s support for oil exploration in the ANWR is underpinned by his ‘no regret’ policy on energy development. According to Romney, reliable and adequate supply of energy can be achieved if all energy sources are exploited.
Thus, his energy plan focuses on the development of both renewable and non-renewable energy. Additionally, he argues that dependence on oil imports can be reduced or eliminated by increasing investments in domestic energy production.
Importing oil is undesirable since the government has little control over the supply. Besides, Americans can be exploited through high prices if the country continues to depend on imported oil. It is against this backdrop that Romney argues for the oil exploration in the refuge.
According to Romney, most states are grappling with unreliable and inadequate oil supply. In the last decade, industrial activities have increased in most states. Additionally, the growth in population has led to an increase in the number of vehicles in the United States.
These trends are partly responsible for the limited availability of oil in America. Oil supply from the refuge will, at least, help in meeting the current demand.
He also points out that most states, especially, in the northern part of America have been unable to use alternative energy sources such as wind due to legal, political and economic reasons. Hence, it will be in the interest of such states to access oil from domestic sources such as the ANWR.
Romney has promised to streamline regulations in the energy sector in order to facilitate oil drilling in the ANWR and any other part of the country. His regulatory reforms include fast-tracking the process of issuing permits to oil companies. This will help in reducing any delays in oil production.
He is intending to repeal legislations that hamper oil production in various parts of the country (Murray, 2012). The targeted legislations include the Clean Air Act, as well as, the Clean Water Act.
Finally, Romney agrees with environmentalists on the environmental impacts of drilling oil in the ANWR. However, he argues that the exploration should be done in a safe and responsible manner in order to avoid the expected negative effects (Murray, 2012).
According to Romney, protecting the environment should not jeopardize economic development. Hence, the government should focus on drilling oil at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The expected effects on the environment can be addressed through policies that encourage safe production and use of oil. For instance, only accredited companies should be allowed to drill the oil in order to minimize pollution.
Conclusion
President Obama’s policy on energy development focuses on the production of clean energy. Obama supports the production and use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. His position has been informed by the need to protect the environment from the adverse effects of energy production (Jindal, 2012).
Consequently, he has opposed the construction of the Keystone pipeline. He has also opposed oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Romney, on the other hand, focuses on promoting energy independence in the United States. His energy development policy advocates for the exploitation of all energy sources.
This strategy will help in increasing access to cheap and reliable energy. Consequently, he supports the construction of the Keystone pipeline and oil exploration in the ANWR.
Despite these differences, the two leaders agree that energy production in the US should be increased. Moreover, reliance on imported oil should be reduced.
References
Baumeister, C., & Peersman, G. (2008). Time-Varying Effects of Oil Supply Shocks on the US Economy. Economic Review, 3(4), 56-59.
Datta, A., Gautam, B., & Saha, H. (2011). Green Energy Sources Selection based on Multi-Creteria Decision Analysis. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 5(2), 271-286.
Freund, F., Walmsley, D., & Wreesmann, J. (2012). Sustainable Plant Oil Production for Aviation Fuels. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 3(2), 37-42.
Jindal, B. 2012. Obama’s Politicized Energy Policy. Web.
Mohanty, M. (2012). New Renewable Enrgy Sources, Green Energy Development and Climate Change. International Journal of Environmental Quality Management, 23(3), 264-274.
Murray, R. 2012. Rommey Oulines His Energy Policy. Web.
Omar, A. (2012). Clean Energies Development in Built Environment. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 9(1), 45-63.
Reza, M., & Parvar, J. (2012). US Industry Level Returns and Oil Prices. International Review of Economics and Finance, 22(1), 112-128.
Solari, P., & Minervini, G. (2004). Exploitation of Renewable Energy Sources and Sustainable Management of Territory. International Journal of Environmental Quality Management, 15(1), 41-47.
Wilkerson, C. (2000). Can US Oil Production Survive the 20th Century? Economic Review, 1(1), 51-62.
Yanes, J., & Grosse, R. (2007). US Oil Import Dependence: Which Way Out? International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 1(2), 195-202.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.