Sarah Too

While listening to NPR this morning, I finally snapped over this year's Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the political party he represents. Every election season, I try to stay out it. I avoid the talking heads, the opinion pieces, and the political ads. I do what I can to find each candidate's position on the issues that matter to me, particularly women's health and the environment, using all available resources.

Now, this is my blog, so if you're reading along and you don't agree with my position, realize that this is my opinion. It is shaped by many experiences, and of course, is subject to change. I don't think my position on this particular issue is likely to change as I spent most of my career working on it: Climate Change and "THE ENVIRONMENT." My position on the environment is shaped by the following ideas:

1) Natural resources are a common good -- they belong to each and every BEING (not just humans) EQUALLY.

2) As a common good, we have a RESPONSIBILITY to EACH OTHER and to FUTURE GENERATIONS to manage (i.e., CONSERVE) natural resources appropriately and judiciously. (There is NOT unlimited juice at this Earth party.)

3) Even if you don't agree with the above bullet points, I also think energy should be produced efficiently. Ergo, if energy can be produced using renewable resources, such as the sun, the wind, or water, then we (as society) should encourage innovation and development of new, efficient technologies. Further, if existing means of energy production and supply can be made safer, cleaner, and more efficient, then we (as society) should encourage innovation and development of technology that makes this possible.

4) Energy costs should reflect the true cost to society. Pricing finite resources cheaply seems very counter intuitive. If there is only so much to go around, then shouldn't it be priced as if it was rare? If it is costly and difficult to extract, refine, and transport fossil fuels, then shouldn't the users bear the brunt of that cost? And if it costs too damn much, then start walking, cut off the cable TV, and find ways to make your USAGE more efficient. For additional details on how I feel about current energy resources, read What I Learned At Summer Camp.

5) CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING, Y'ALL. Did you forget the Earth is a living, breathing, biological and ecological SYSTEM? There is a whole mess of energy moving around this 3rd rock from the sun -- electromagnetic, wind, water, solar, chemical, thermal ENERGY. Does that sound like a STATIC, STABLE situation? If you said yes, then please stop reading now. Additionally, please stop reading if you do not believe in evolutionary science. If you said no, then what did you think would happen? Earth would stay the same forever? This Earth has seen ice ages with growing and receding glaciers. This Earth has seen dinosaurs and woolly mammoths thrive, then perish from existence, and it wasn't due to human activity. Our Earth is constantly changing and we are here to witness it. What IS a matter of debate is the extent to which HUMANS have stepped on the accelerator of climate change. Some say "No way, Jose. NOT US." Some say, "It's ALL us. We did it." And some say, "We definitely have a role in what's happening." That last statement IS SUPPORTED BY REAMS OF SCIENCE. Good science. Peer-reviewed science. I don't even have the energy to provide literature citations to you. So let's all just accept that a) climate change is happening, and b) humans (with their greenhouse gas emitting activities from farming to energy production and usage) ARE NOT HELPING the situation.



Now that there is some background on where I stand on natural resources, their use, and climate change, let's get to the reasons why I am so pissed off at Mitt Romney (and hint, it's not his binders full of women).


Here is the story from NPR, which I heard this morning. Here's the the shit that REALLY made my face turn red (and made me shout at the windshield):

The Romney "campaign's domestic policy adviser, Oren Cass, did address these issues at a debate at MIT, which was webcast by E&ETV.

'Gov. Romney's position on climate change is very straightforward, which is that the United States taking action unilaterally is not able to address what is a global problem,' Cass said.

And since China is still building more coal-fired power plants every week, Cass argues that having the U.S. cut emissions is a waste of effort".

What the, what the, WHAAAAAT?!?!?!? OH. MY. GOD. Basically, what you are saying, MITT, is that you are big effing pussy who thinks the problem is "TOO BIG TO SOLVE." What kind of effing AMERICAN are you??? What kind of hope for the future is that? Our greatest Americans are those that invented, innovated, and said "Eff YOU" to big problems. Our bravado is what makes us OBNOXIOUS to foreigners, and attractive to those with big ideas. We are a country of railways, highways, skyscrapers, Westward expansion, individualism, and most of all WINNING (for reference on winning, see media focus on medal output during the Olympics). And you're saying, dear Mitt, that the single-largest issue affecting the globe (ahem, food production and water availability) is TOO BIG. So let's ignore it. Let's not take the lead and show the effing world how to use our collective brains for something other than creating the next Kardashian. Let's leave it to....CHINA? Japan? France? Who the eff do you want to take care of this, Mitt? If the U.S. shrugs it's shoulders at climate change, so too will the rest of the world. I say this not because I think everyone else in the world blindly follows whatever the U.S. does, I say this because the U.S. is the developed country with the highest percentage of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. We are the second-largest GHG emitter after China.

As the old adage says, Mitt, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Because you stand on the WRONG side of that phrase, you are not getting my vote. You stand on the side of inaction, of making due with the status quo, of standing still while others move forward, and of hindering the creative scientific minds of this generation and of the next who are searching for solutions to the worlds biggest problems. The U.S. will never be a leader in math and science if it ignores the greatest challenges. The U.S. will not remain a superpower (if that is even still a concept) if no one can trust us to pull our weight on global issues or act as a leader on the world stage. This craptastic attitude toward environmental issues is unacceptable and selfish. I can only imagine how this attitude bleeds into other issues requiring compromise, forward thinking, and dare I say, compassion for others and for future generations.

One last thing, caring for the environment IS tied to economic growth. A clean environment fosters healthier populations (i.e., the available WORKFORCE). A clean environment ensures a safer food and water supply. Innovation is big business (just ask Google, or Apple, or Microsoft). Therefore, ignoring the environment and climate change as issues in this election IS ignoring key components of economic growth, which is your whole effing platform! By shrugging your shoulders and WHINING that climate change is "too big," Mitt, you leave out a significant opportunity for economic growth. I want a leader that is unafraid of the biggest challenges. I want a leader that sees a huge challenge and asks, "How can we work TOGETHER to solve it?" I want someone who will volunteer to take charge and make the tough decisions because that is what leaders do. Decisions concerning climate change never made anyone popular; however, this issue is not going away any time soon. So the U.S. can either sit and watch it happen, or jump in and AT LEAST ADAPT.