Maybe Obama's Just as Confused as Us

After reading this NYT article, I am left completely confused with the Obama administration's efforts to reduce our ecological impact from energy use. The policies seem to contradict themselves. As Washington lobbyists say, the industry actually subsidies the government, not the other way around, because of all the control the industry holds in the political realm and daily life. Obama says he wants to rid us of fossil fuels, but his policies say otherwise. He gives billions of dollars in subsidies to coal, nuclear, and other fuel sources that have proved incredibly detrimental to the environment; yet he has also openly supported solar power and funded research into such alternative energy sources. He claims to support research in alternative energy forms, but yet has givent 50 billion to constructing nuclear power plants. We must ask then, what is Obama's overall plan?

In this year's Sate of the Union address, Obama stated that he aims to double the amount of "cleaner" technology produced by 2035--but I have to say that 25 years from now is much too late. If the fossil fuel industry is subsidized practically 90$ billion per day, as the article suggests, and a vast amount of statistics show us the alarming rate in which fossil fuel emission enter the atmosphere per day, how can we imagine what it will look line in 25 years?? At this rate, the world we be in even more of a mess by 2035 than it is now. Therefore, Obama must become more clear in his policies and change around the projects he supports. The article raises the question of should the govt completely stop funding all forms of energy production, even if that means slowing production of alternative, cleaner sources? I'd have to say that policies MUST become stricter and limit day-by-day carbon emissions, and yes, more funding must absolutely go into research and production of alternative, cleaner energy forms. Much research and knowledge of such forms already exists, but lack political support and funding (as I have discussed in previous posts).
If the administration enacted serious limits on carbon emissions, such as limits in how often one could drive a car,or developing environmental incentives for city-dwellers to use public transportation, perhaps the environmental degradation we are currently imposing would decrease as more attention turns to producing solar, wind, or biomass energy.