When I read McCain’s short commentary on the environment, I was very disappointed. While I am liberal, I would hope that each politician would still show enthusiasm for protecting the environment because this is not a bipartisan issue. But his brief, vague “plan” was less than promising.
McCain can be classified as a market liberal because he stressed the symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. His goals to lessen impact is to limit carbon emissions by “harnessing market forces,” making advancements in technology, and investing in nuclear energy. These policies coincide with market liberals’ “faith in the ability of modern science and technology to help societies” (Clapp 6).
Obama, on the other hand, has an impressive plan that should give anyone hope for the future. I would classify his as being between an institutionalist and bioenvironmentalist. He emphasizes changes to national institutions in the form of a cap-and-trade system to limit pollution, incentives for farmers and forest owners, and limits use of harmful energy while funding energy initiatives in the U.S. These efforts are more bioenvironmentalist than institutionalist because they do not include foreign affairs. They focus on national policies. But institutionalist policies come forth in his plan to create an international energy forum and limit dependence on foreign oil since these involve international institutions.
I feel that Obama’s policies out-do McCain’s by far. He has very specific, straight-forward goals, and if they are actually implemented, I think they will create significant change. His policies extend further than parks and open space, as McCain refers to. They include efforts to change the way we live and our position on the environment, like his job and education goals. Changing our way of thinking is the key to a change for the future.