Romney’s platform anti-environmental
By Colton Darger
The cold, industrious Republican machine has begun to creak and groan as the incessantly grinding gears thirst for the oil on which they depend. The insatiable desire — that will inevitably result in the contamination of the water and air on which we rely — will be indulged by the business tycoon Mitt Romney. No longer will groveling and pleading at the feet of the oil industry secure the monetary donations that perpetuate his anti-environmental campaign; Romney must now prove to the global elite that he is willing to take action. The announcement of Romney’s guised “drill, baby, drill” policy has satisfied the puppeteers, who have rewarded the governor by contributing millions of dollars to ensure a presidential victory. If Romney is elected as President of the United States, the future of alternative and renewable energies will become a bleak one as big oil gains massive swathes of land for their disposal.
The announcement of Romney’s new energy plan has made his lack of concern toward environmentalism evident to voters. Overall, the entire plan centers on tearing down the flood gates and inundating the U.S. with unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels. The key elements making the oil torrent a reality include the rapid approval of the hazardous route of the Keystone XL pipeline, expanding the drilling operation in an already porous and tattered Gulf and the ubiquitous dismantlement of federal regulations that preserve the American landscape. The Republican Party has unanimously praised Romney for his plan, despite the overwhelming evidence of the devastating consequences his policies could create.
In order to better comprehend how much more Romney is concerned with his oil money than the safety of the American population, consider how easily he would speed up the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. While Romney argues the pipeline is necessary because it will contribute millions of dollars to the American economy and create jobs, he seems to show no consideration for the dangers associated with its construction. The path of the pipeline the governor so eagerly endorses is one crossing an enormous extent of the Midwest, and would come extraordinarily close to the Ogallala Aquifer. According to the United States Geological Survey, this particular aquifer supplies approximately 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the United States, and provides drinking water for millions of Americans. This means, in the event of an oil spill, one of the world’s most critical aquifers would be contaminated, and would result in an international catastrophe.
Although the presumptive environmental degradation and disaster resulting from the approval of the Keystone pipeline would likely deter a moderately rational person from supporting such a hazardous project, Romney still yearns for a society even more conducive to the absolute destruction of the environment as we know it. Romney’s solution to the “issue” of too little drilling in America is to give states the authority to decide if oil companies can drill on federal land; this deregulation of federal lands protected in an effort to preserve the natural environment will ensure the surmounting of greed and corruption at the state level, despite the influence of even the most predominant environmental protection groups.
While some are quick to contend a lackluster performance review for the Obama administration in regards the conservation of the environment, no one could logically argue Romney’s administration would be more environmentally conscientious. I suggest the conservatives who propagate the destruction of the natural world in return for “job creation” consider the consequences of their actions, and whether economic stimulus is a worthy exchange for the water we drink and the air we breathe.