On Tuesday, Obama supported the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which has been under attack by Republicans in Congress who declare that the EPA regulations are crippling the economy and killing jobs. In his first time visit to the EPA agency, Obama stated that he did not believe that one must choose between having clear air or clean water or a flourishing economy. Instead he called the EPA’s mission “vital.” According to Obama, protecting the environment is the right thing to do and it can in fact put people back to work. Obama reminds people of the years before EPA was established in 1970 as a time where rivers caught fires and were empty of life.
“When I hear folks grumbling about environmental policy, you almost want to do a ‘Back to the Future’ reminder of folks of what happened when we didn’t have a strong EPA,” Obama said, adding, “You have a president who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way.”
During the Obama administration, the EPA has raised fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks, applied rules to curb mercury from coal fired plants, and even started regulating the heat trapping gases. Just last year Obama delayed the decision to build pipelines to bring tar sands oil from Canada and finalized the first standards to control toxic mercury pollution from power plants. However, Obama has had a lot of pressure from Republicans and industry groups to scale back his goal on the environment. There has been lots of political resistance from the GOP which was seen on the House of Representatives when the Republicans took over. The House has passed numerous bills to stop EPA rules, but all have failed in the Senate led by the Democrats. Faced by critics, Obama decided last September to go against strengthening the standard for the main ingredient in a lung damaging smog which went against what the EPA administration, Lisa Jackson, had advised.
Now that Obama is trying to get himself reelected, many of the Republican candidates have attacked Obama for the agency’s actions that are burdensome to business and diminish the chances of economic growth. Newt Gingrich has already proposed abolishing the EPA agency and replacing it with an “environmental solutions agency.” Rick Perry has also criticized the EPA for taking over the Texas air pollution program. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has stated that he plans to remove carbon dioxide from the pollutant’s list and has proposed amending the environmental laws.
Will Obama continue defending the EPA mission even if it looks bad in a weak economy? Can Obama achieve courting both environmentalist and independents who share the GOP concerns without alienating one or the other?
4 comments:
In my opinion, Obama is right in supporting the EPA, now more than ever. By taking a stand, he shows Democrats and liberals that he does uphold his party's ideals and is willing to alienate some conservatives to do what is best for the country, which liberals and moderates should appreciate and support.
Of course Republicans will be upset, but at this point, when the only thing all GOP candidates and conservative voters can agree on is that Obama must go, the president can do nothing to get their support and should therefore stop attempting to appease them. Keeping true to his words, beliefs, and policies should please his coalition of voters, and their strong support is more valuable than the satisfaction of those who will always dislike him.
Sadly, I think it's nearly impossible to court both the independents and the environmentalists; they both have fundamentally different priorities and views, which suits our government system fine. I agree with Allyson: why try and assuage a group of people (GOP) who does not really want to be persuaded in the first place? Obama is right in supporting the EPA. Not because it is true to his party's belief, but because it is what is best for the country and world. I don't think supporting the EPA is a question of will it garner more votes for Obama. I think we should look at it as...is this preventing the race to the bottom? By supporting the EPA, I think Obama is creating a better and more livable future, which to me, is more important that attracting both the independents and GOP voters.
I agree with Allison. Overall, it is a good thing that Obama supports the EPA. However, like Allison also said, I don't think he's supporting the EPA to please his own party/ independents in general. Not everyone will agree with Obama's actions to support the EPA, but the ones that do will realize he wants to support it to try and better our environment as opposed to gaining support.
I definitely agree that Obama is right in supporting the EPA. I think it's excellent that he's chosen to oppose the GOP on this issue, because it sends a clear message about the importance of the environment. Obama summed it up well with his belief that one should not have to "choose between having clear air or clean water or a flourishing economy." In fact, I think the two are even quite reconcilable. Stricter environmental regulation will require short term changes and cuts, but they can be regained with new opportunities in new sectors, such as renewable energy, clean manufacturing, and fuel-efficiency design, among others. It's important that a President be willing to forego some groups' support in order to do what's right for the country, and I'm glad that Obama is taking a stand and doing just that.
Post a Comment