(12n) President Obama making a wrong decision - obvious to everyone
President Obama, receiving little if any respect from opponents (what may be understandable) but also often loosing any respect from his initial supporters due to wrong decisions so people sometimes wonder on whose side he really stands.
|Ship guiding an oil platform between floating ice|
But then he should have refused the Arctic drilling during his final one and a half years as president while it can be expected that it is much harder for a new president to resist the pressure from the fossil fuel industry. He could have argued that refusing drilling in that region will make clear governments are serious about a direction away from fossil fuels while the license promises more oil and gas use and thus doesn't force a change towards renewables while it is more difficult to reverse this decision. Indeed, as long as new oil and gas wells are allowed to be exploited and thus as long as fossil fuels are available there is no urgent need to change.
In addition, one of the last unspoiled places on our planet should be kept and protected from exploitation for future generations. Now Mr Obama will travel to Alaska to show us the already visible effects of climate change. Indeed, it seems that at the same region where the oil company wants to drill, walruses are coming ashore on a small island as the places where they normally rest are gone because of an extreme Arctic sea ice melt. And thus one spill and Obama's legacy will be remembered as that of a president who allowed the destruction of the Arctic, including a population of walruses. But going to Alaska is often fun. Companies do their business and thus oil companies try to get oil and gas wherever they can get it while governments should defend the general interests and thus sometimes oppose companies although stimulate alternatives that provide new jobs and thus stimulate the economy.
Nevertheless, changes are coming: while in the past mainly higher governments promoted the use of renewables, today local governments such as in Australia and the UK are starting to turn away from fossil fuels while many higher governments (including Australia and the UK) are now choosing the side of the old industries by reducing investments in renewables and promotion of new ways to get fossil fuels with the argument the economy needs to be promoted. But those governments that are now supporting divestment away from old energy towards renewables may be in future the leading centres to sell renewables. In addition, if people choose not to use more fossil fuels than this should be accepted, even when the economy may suffer - that is called democracy.
PS: The irony is: the initials of my name are "LPG" that can also stand for "Liquified petroleum gas" or "Liquid petroleum gas" and thus is a fossil fuel.