Oh how fast we have come to the last five days until election day, when either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain will become the new President of the United States. Although some Texan’s have exercised the use of early voting, some registered voters prefer the sense of excitement and comradely that comes with voting on election day. These are not the people that I seek to sway in support of Barack Obama before ballots are submitted November 4th , however, I do wish shed some greater insight into Barack Obama and John McCain’s policy plans regarding America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Similar to the different views that each one holds on such issues as healthcare reform and the economy, Obama and McCain approach the issue of our dependence on foreign oil differently. First, McCain has encouraged the consumers to purchase a more environmentally friendly automobiles, “He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car…” John McCain’s strategy is indeed a step in the right direction, however it is sub par to Obama’s commitment to, “create a new $7000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles”. His method adheres to less strict requirements, expanding profitability to lower income families who cannot afford zero-carbon emissions automobiles. You might think that Obama’s avoiding the opportunity to improve carbon emissions by lenient vehicular requirements, but “ Obama and vice-presidential candidate Biden will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama and Biden will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030”. Despite John McCain‘s proposal for “a $300 million prize to improve to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles”, he fails to do much else. The rest of McCain’s plans to reduce our foreign oil dependency are limited to promises, non-vital promises. “John McCain has long supported CAFÉ standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers’ cars must meet”, although it compels auto manufacturer’s to produce fuel-efficient cars it is merely a promise. He believes in alcohol based fuels but doesn’t offer any incentives or financial compensation for its manufacturers’.
The section which expresses John McCain’s stance on flex fuel vehicles deceives readers who are first confronted by statistics, “In just three years, Brazil went from new car sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs”.
This tactic is aimed to persuade readers that a foreign country is benefiting from increased FFV sales, so we need to do that too. What it fails to do, is inform the readers of John McCain's full fledged commitment to attain the same statistics He is merely suggesting that he will pursue the means to attain those statistics for the U.S, “John McCain calls on automaker to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs”.
If actions speak louder that words, then Obama projects volumes over McCain’s whispers, “Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on”. By insuring that millions of acres of land get used, resulting in the correction of profit-making scandals from corrupt oil companies, Obama achieves far greater feats than McCain’s supportive nature would achieve.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#oil
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Although the time to change minds has passed, there are some things that need to be mentioned about my classmate’s article, “McCain’s Supportive Nature.” So let’s start with the first two plans mentioned. First there is McCain’s idea of the five thousand dollar tax credit to those who buy zero carbon emission cars. The other option is Obama’s seven thousand dollar tax credit to those who buy “progressive cars.” Now at first glance Obama’s idea sounds better, the problem is that is only at first glance. Let’s start looking at demographics. The entire reason for Obama’s plan is to help those who are not as privileged to buy better cars. Let’s take a basic car that you see everywhere, a Ford Mustang. Its starting price is around $20,000. Now assuming this is a progressive car you can now take off the $7,000 in tax credit. You are still left with a $13,000 car. I don’t know about you but at that price I will still be looking at old used cars for half the price. So tell me how does that get more fuel efficient cars out of lots and into consumers’ hands? However we need to now take a look at McCain’s plan to give a tax credit to people looking at a zero-carbon emitting car. As stated in the article not everyone could afford these cars. This would be geared to the upper class, those who buy new cars. Now let’s say that Donald Trump is looking to buy a new car. Then for the sake of argument say that he is trying to decide between two fairly equal priced cars. One a brand new zero carbon emitting car and a Porsche. Now everyone would go for the Porsche but say we give him a $5,000 tax credit on the zero carbon car. Suddenly he is buying a fuel efficient car instead of the Porsche. Now like many other higher class car buyers when the new model comes out he will want to buy it instead and sell his old one back. The used car like all the others gets trickled down to the lower classes. Thus more fuel efficient cars are put into the economy. We help our environment and lessen our dependence on foreign oil with less cost to the tax payers. So even though when you first read about the two proposed plans it looks like one is better, only by completely thinking about them can you truly decide which one is actually better for our economy and environment.
As suggested from the title of our classmate's post "McCain's Supportive Nature," there are many aspects of McCain’s motives that have been observed through the many presidential debates that we've seen so far this year. But when it comes down to following through, actions speaks more than words.
McCain encourages the purchase of "more environmentally friendly automobiles." His idea is to insert a five thousand dollar tax credit to participants who purchase these zero carbon emission cars. Though Obama had proposed a seven thousand dollar tax credit to those who purchase even more advanced cars, McCain's theory will help benefit the people, whether financially set or going paycheck to paycheck just to support their family. His method adheres to less strict requirements, expanding profitability to lower income families who cannot afford zero-carbon emissions automobiles. Sounds good, right? But is he actually doing anything to reduce carbon emission? What if the people do not cooperate in the purchasing of these vehicles? Only Obama has an answer. I definitely agree with this assertion of the difference between the two presidential candidates. Even though Obama's plan did not involve having the people purchasing "zero carbon blah blah blah vehicles," he instead had a plan to reduce carbon in our fuels permanently. Instead of depending on a so-called "tax exemption," Obama took initiative and ordered for the lowering of carbon. McCain did in fact wanted to focus a lot of government spending on improving the battery and a lower dependency on foreign fuel, but these topics are not vitally promising. Even if the battery were to improve, would our economy be great enough to have it standard in every car? Can the middle class even afford a "hybrid" car? What happens if our "new fuel resources" aren't as large as we thought? Wouldn't the foreign fuel companies raise their prices as a result of the U.S.' failure to commit to them?
After reading this post by Cynthia, I am even more assured that our nation has smartly chosen soon to be seated President. I agree with her focus on "McCain's Supportive Nature" and that even though he can talk the talk, he barely even walk the walk. His views were deceiving. Obama's were very straightforward, making him the better candidate of a presidential election that is most important in a time of disparity.
Post a Comment