Where Is The Green Candidate?

(Published in the Connecticut College Voice September 19, 2008)

Though campaigns tend to be full of rhetoric, and less focused on specific policy proposals, energy policy has been one of the few issues actually discussed on the campaign trail. Both candidates agree that America has an energy crisis, and that our reliance on foreign oil makes us less energy secure. (For the record, we get most of our imported oil and natural gas from Canada, not the Middle East.) And both candidates talk of petroleum alternatives. "Ah, yes," many Americans say to themselves, "oil does seem to be running in short supply, and I suppose we can't ‘drill, baby, drill’ forever, so hooray for petroleum alternatives!"

"Alternative energy," does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it? It conjures images of happy polar bears lounging on Arctic ice, of industrial smoke stacks being dismantled, and of smog-free skies. But does it make you think of enormous, indisposable piles of nuclear waste? Does it make you think of cancer epidemics, poisoned water supplies, and irreparable damage? Does it make you think of dammed rivers without salmon, of millions of acres of corn where tall grass prairies used to stand? Does it make you think of unprotected, poorly paid workers mining toxic chemicals? If it doesn’t, it should.

I don't think I would be surprising anyone by saying most students at Connecticut College support Barack Obama, at least as the lesser of two evils. Obama has created a wildly successful campaign, and has appealed to the youth vote much more effectively than John McCain, or other past presidential nominees. He appeals to the more socially conscious idealists of this country. He appeals to those who worry about our global image; to those who worry that because they make less than "$5 million a year," "more of the same" will not provide economic security. He appeals to the less-hawkish constituencies, to those who do not see engaging in diplomacy with President Ahmadinejad as a moral abomination. But most of all, his appeal seems to be in his promises of "change."

Well, I'm skeptical. Call me a cynic, call me disillusioned, call me whatever you would like, but I don't see Obama really reducing our environmental problems, let alone saving the environment—whatever that means. (I also don't think John McCain would do much good either.) Are more nuclear power plants the type of change we really want? Are solar panels and hydroelectric dams going to prevent environmental damage? Will Obama find a way to suddenly make coal clean? For me, the answer is rather obvious: no.

We currently know of no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, nor do we currently have the technical know-how to prevent the escape of radioactive material into the water supplies and bodies of those living near nuclear power plants. Mining and enriching uranium and plutonium are highly dangerous and costly processes, though the Federal Government already heavily subsidizes them. The cancer caused by radioactive isotopes can take years to materialize, nor can it be traced; we have probably only seen the beginning of the long-term effects of disasters like Chernobyl. But the candidates want to build more nuclear power plants. Why?

Hydroelectric dams may not produce nuclear waste or greenhouse gases, but they prevent salmon from spawning, substantially alter the landscape, contribute to erosion, and sometimes fail and cause major catastrophes—just to name a few side effects.

Clean coal is an oxymoron, and mountain top removal is an egregious practice. Mining coal is a dangerous, unhealthy job, not to mention that it takes a lot of energy to transport coal around the country.

Solar panel construction requires the use of toxic chemicals and natural resources, and these resources must come from somewhere. Solar power may not emit pollution the same way as oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy do, but what happens when it’s time to dispose of a panel? Where do all of those chemicals go? Perhaps to electronic junkyards—excuse me, recycling centers in China. I am not saying solar panels are not worth investing in, so please do not misunderstand me. But I do find it important to highlight that this alternative technology, like the other choices, is not really all that laudable in the long run.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day telling me to vote for the environment. This confused me; who are they suggesting I vote for? Certainly not Obama or McCain. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties have adopted the slogan "change," but if I am voting for the environment, or at least as an environmentally conscious global citizen, then I am left without a candidate. Where is the candidate I want? Where is the candidate who will say that the change we need is bigger than issues about where we get our energy; the change we need is a lifestyle change. We need to change how we view progress and development; we most certainly need to change how we think of our role on this earth. We can build all the green buildings and hybrid cars we want, but it is not going to change the fact that a global economy reliant on nonrenewables cannot, by definition, be sustainable. Materials, whether they are petroleum-based, highly radioactive, or inert as certain ores are not in endless supply, and so far, unable to be recycled to regain their initial capacity. Maybe we need to change our conception about global development; is it really such a good thing that more and more people on the earth drive cars, work in fancy buildings, find more ways to sell and buy useless junk? The only thing we are really developing is the fastest route to destruction.

I suppose I can find some comfort in the fact that long after we have destroyed the atmosphere and melted the polar ice caps, and long after we have caused the extinction of ourselves and of most other organisms, the earth will live on—the world, after all, was once a highly radioactive and seemingly inhospitable environment, yet life grew. But this does little to inform my choice in candidates, and is not really the “change” I am looking for from a new administration.