Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Monday, September 8, 2008

Barack Obama and the Environment(al Economy)

After a pleasant debate with a friend and fellow Adelphi University alumnus regarding the environment, I decided to do a bit of research into Barack Obama's official position on offshore drilling. He, a proud supporter of Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney (who stands as much chance at winning the presidency as Libertarian Bob Barr and write-in candidate Howard Stern) lampooned Obama's flop-flipping and centrist shift when it came to this pressing issue. I supported Obama's call for environmental bipartisanship, but he kept up the assault, saying, "You're saying Obama doesn't support offshore drilling, but that he's just willing to let it happen. That's still unacceptable considering the urgency of the climate crisis." I agreed with his comment in theory, but I wanted to find out more. Truthfully, I was less than satisfied with the theories and articles that covered his stances, and found videos of Sen. Obama making promises that he will not drill offshore and then acquiescing to doing just that. With nowhere else to turn, I wrote the campaign, something I did before regarding the FISA Bill. After receiving an adequate answer pertaining to the latter topic, I expect a similar response to the former. My correspondence is below and when I receive an answer to my query, I will post it and hope that it adequately addresses the concerns I and many other Americans have.


Senator Obama and Vested Members of the Campaign,
I wrote once before regarding the issue of the FISA bill and received an answer that I believe to be most satisfactory, though without the stronger language I would have liked. That's okay, though, I understand that in a campaign season, heated rhetoric must be tempered with a more rational vernacular.

This time, however, I am deeply concerned about the seeming shift to the center when it comes to our energy efficiency and offshore drilling. Back in July of 2008, Sen. Obama lambasted Sen. McCain over his assertion that the answer to our environmental woes lay with drilling offshore. In August, Sen. Obama seemed to be more open to offshore drilling, telling reporters that his interest is in "...making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." (Source: CNN, 8/3/2008) Again, although I don't agree with the drilling aspect, I think showing flexibility is necessary to win major elections.

Still, one month later, the official answer from the "Q&A" page is borderline self-parody when juxtaposed with Obama's rhetoric on the environment under the "Issues" tab.

Under the Q&A section: He (Obama) has strongly opposed efforts by the Bush Administration to gut environmental laws and open pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Under the Environmental issues tab: An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

With all offshore drilling destined to destroy the natural flora and fauna of the area, and with Sen. Obama's position on drilling creeping from rigid refusal to gentle acquiescence to subtle promotion, my question is two-fold: 1. What is Senator Obama's official stance on offshore drilling? 2. How or will this be tempered with a more rational and friendlier energy policy?

Thank you for your expedient reply to my earlier query. I expect nothing less regarding this pressing issue.

Sincerely,
Sean McGrath

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

A Call to Action from.. Disney?

Movies have long been an acceptable and appropriate form of entertainment; of ignoring the realities of the time and immersing oneself in the actions and words played out by characters on a screen. They are the modern-day scripted stage plays, providing revelry (or consternation) for those in attendance. Indeed, from Buster Keaton and Al Jolson to Brad Pitt and Will Smith, people tend to flock to the big screen to see larger-than-life actors portray diverse and disparate characters so they can disregard the fact that their homes are being foreclosed or that the choice between dinner and gas is a familiar reality for a few laughs or Michael Bay-esque explosions. Indeed, it is why movies like Stop Loss, Charlie Wilson's War, War Inc., and The Love Guru have proven to be unsuccessful box-office flops - people do not want to spend two hours and $11 getting depressed about the current state of affairs when they can simply flip on any dignified (read: non-Fox News) media outlet and do the same. That, and no one wants to see Mike Myers trying his same, tired schtick that stopped being funny somewhere after the 35th installment of Austin Powers.

Tangents aside, when I first saw the trailer for Wall-E, Disney/Pixar's latest vehicle, I was probably the only person in the theatre who was underwhelmed. While women, men, children, and two seeing-eye dogs alike ooh-ed and ahh-ed over what is possibly the cutest CGI character to be created this millenium, (after, of course, the human Princess Fiona from the Shrek trilogies - vavavavoom!) I saw it as nothing more than pandering to the children who are notably going to scream and cry for every robot-based action figure, video game, and cereal box toy that is inevitably going to come out, with subtle nods to parents in the audience who would have to sit through another humdrum animated movie (think The Incredibles or Shark Tale). Still, with a Rotten Tomatoes average of 97% and rave reviews from friends who already spent Hamiltons, my girlfriend and I decided that it would be endlessly better than the abovementioned War Inc. or the forced You Don't Mess With the Zohan. No, sir, I did not.

In short, Wall-E was the best movie I have seen since V for Vendetta, and although packaged as a movie for kids (indeed, the new Wall-E video game for XBox, Wii, and PS3 all but attests to its marketing) it most certainly is not. For at the heart of Wall-E is not just an adorable love story between two robots - the neurotic, magpie, almost Woody Allen-esque protagonist and the courageous, eco-seeking EVE (Earth Vegetation Excavator) - but a call to arms for anyone who ignores the ominous warning about the synthetic end of civilization. Seven hundred years into the future, humans have not only brought about the extinction of an inhabitable Earth, but spend their time plugged into a computerized viewing screen controlled by the Buy N Large corporation, which has become one with the global government. Because they spend all day plugged into their devices, humans have become fat, indolent, lazy, and have forgotten how to walk. Indeed, movies like Wall-E and books like Feed postulate a future that at one time seemed to be ludicrous - humans forcing themselves off of Earth because of wasteful habits, becoming dumber because of increased specialization, and creating an uninhabitable environments for themselves. Sure, seven hundred years into the future means absolutely nothing to us now, because all of us - with the exception of Keith Richards and Joan Rivers - will be long dead, but at a time when Earth is simply becoming too small - or, rather, people are becoming too plentiful - to handle the transience and disposability of our species, the time for action should be now.

We hear the mantra, "reduce, reuse, recycle" so much that it has lost all meaning. We think of "going green" and "sustainability" as corporate buzzwords because that's what they've become. Our dependency on foreign oil is such that we are fighting wars against our fellow humans for the black gold so that people here can use what once belonged to someone else. And we chastise kids for stealing. Be that as it may, our wasteful habits have gotten to the point where overpollution is literally destroying the Chinese landscape as it attempts to prepare for the Olympics. Now that we've filled many of our landfills to capacity, it is all but certain that the next venue for garbage disposal is outer space. Oh, wait...

It is considerably telling that in a world where conservation and environmental protection has become the new black, that companies that promote the reduce, reuse, recycle, rethink mentality simultaneously advocate a conspicuous consumption far beyong anything ever imagined. It's like selling snow to eskimoes. Now is the time where we have to take a look at our habits and ask, "Do I really need to be driving around in an all-terrain vehicle designed for the US Army?" "Is that disposable plastic dinnerware set from China really on my grocery list?" "Do I always talk to myself outloud?" For it is up to this generation, our generation, my generation, to not only fix what our predecessors broke, but to ensure that future members of our race, the human race, are not forced to imagine what a plant looks like or what clean water feels like. We need to conserve: buy local foods, walk or bike instead of driving, think durabilty over convenience - sure, no one wants to wash dishes, but where do you think your styofoam plate is going to end up? These may be small suggestions, but anything is better than spending a future wondering exactly why we didn't do anything when we could. Many people think that our planet is doomed and that our time may be running out, but it is never too late to slow down the clock. My suggestion is that you do so now. The only thing you have to lose is your celestial home.

By the way, go see Wall-E, it's an excellent film.