Can we talk about energy for a moment here? It seems to be at the crux of all things political this season. The energy of America’s youth pushing Obama to the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton. The energy of the conservative movement in response to Sarah Palin, earning 1 million in donations for the GOP after her selection. (The reactive energy from the Obama people, racking up 10 million in donations after the same Palin speech.)
Then energy independence. The McCain campaign is touting Palin’s energy experience because of her pervue over one of our biggest oil-producing states. But of course, the Democrat’s idea of energy independence looks a lot different, focusing on wind, solar, etc that McCain voted against extending tax credits for.
So we’ve got a whole lot of energy flying in different directions. Which is always good. Or is it?
If we think about it further, energy issues become downright creepy. The fossil fuels that this world depends on is no less than the decomposed organic matter of all lifeforms that have ever lived on this planet. We are sucking liquified dinosaurs out of the Earth and burning them up, destroying our environment. Who thought this was a good idea?
Of course, for younger and/or more liberal folks, we instantly equate energy independence with the environment and the fight against global warming. We see solar panels and spinning wind farms on every building, energy from renewable sources. The Republicans have picked up the refrain, but for them it means natural gas (which is working well in Utah), nuclear energy, and of course more drilling for oil. McCain and Palin did both mention clean coal (as do the Dems), but is the solution really capturing a whole bunch of dirty smoke and shoving it underground, hoping we’ll never hear from it again?
The future of our country may well rely on which party is right on energy and which one can capture more of it this political season.
Tags: alternative, coal, election, energy, McCain, Obama, Palin