Securing the Environment and Energy
In protecting the environment and securing energy independence, the Democrats and Republicans have widely contradicting opinions. The democrats often score highly. The Republicans support the idea to let companies expand activities such as drilling oil at the expense of a safe and conducive environment for both human and animals. The type of energy, the Republicans insist, should be determined by the market prices and conditions of the time. Democrats, on the other hand, focus their efforts and plans on preserving the environment by insisting on the use of renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind power in industries.
/>
The electorate is always inclined to the preserving the environment to secure the safety of the future generation by minimizing the already high rate of global warming.
The Republicans' point of view is reasonable in terms of prioritizing choices according to cost and convenience. However, the goals are short term as the impact may be turn negative (White & Duram, 2013). In contrast to affordable and achievable priorities, the democrats plan to develop safe, clean and reliable energy sources is too costly for the country at the moment. Although the long term outcome of renewable energy is desirable, the initial cost (that the tax-payers should finance) is draining (Klyzer & Sousa, 2013).
I believe that both parties have the interest of the nation at heart and intend to squeeze profits from their plans. However, I agree with the democrats view on the issue of securing the future since we owe the on-coming generation a conducive environment even as we live in one regardless of the cost. Both parties agree to favor the use of fossil fuel and encourage the American public to cut their dependence on oil in ensuring our natural habitat is maintained as natural as possible. However, the Republicans still insist on exploring natural gas and oil reserves.
The Australian Labor Party is committed to protecting the continents environment at a high cost. By initiating an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to halt pollution's high rates, the party's plan is expected to cut 150million tonnes of pollution by 2020 and involves every household to increase to 20% use of renewable sources of energy (Fried, 2008).
Although the public supports the idea of drilling both offshore and in the arctic due to the employment and national income it offers, the fear of destroying the environment to unmanageable extents is a concern that they have gradually appreciated. Rallying human rights, and environmental ambassadors had, over time, immersed popularity and convinced the public to reject environment-destructive policies.
References
Fried, J. (2008). Democrats and Republicans--rhetoric and reality: Comparing the voters in statistics and anecdotes. New York: Algora Pub.
Klyza, C. M. G., & Sousa, D. J. (2013). American environmental policy: Beyond gridlock.
White, K. K., & Duram, L. A. (2013). America goes green: An encyclopedia of eco-friendly culture in the United States. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
