The presidential candidates’ eco-policies
Addison Jacoby is a Senior at Lafayette Jefferson High School and a Director of YEPT. This story appeared in print in LJHS’s The Booster.
With Nov. 5 rapidly approaching, voters have been sifting through information, trying to decode policies of both major parties, attempting to determine exactly what is authentic, what is misinformation or blatant lies, or what are just weak proposals. With damage from Hurricane Helene still being assessed, the past ten warmest years in the historical record all having occurred in the past decade (NOAA), and extreme climate events frequency increasing (NASA), it is vital to understand what the presidential candidates propose. In fact, as we publish this story, another hurricane Milton, is poised to strike Florida, just days after Helene.
“Drill, baby, drill,” was a slogan originally spread by Michael Steele, who was the first Black lieutenant governor of Maryland and chair of the Republican National Committee, back in 2008. Now, former president Donald Trump has altered the original meaning, with Steele even expressing regret that the phrase is now being used for the former president’s campaign. Originally, the phrase was to promote US independence from Middle Eastern oil, but this was during a time of high fuel prices that was linked to conflict with the Middle East (less than a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks).
Now, it has been more than twenty years, and the United States is no longer at war in Iraq. Therefore, the United States has the option to wean off oil and gas production. However, according to the New York Times, during Trump’s presidency he opened, “… more than 18 million acres of land for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,” yet the Obama Administration had carefully, “… designated about half of the reserve as a conservation area.”
On the other hand, Vice President Kamala Harris is uncharacteristically promoting domestic oil drilling while also promoting clean energy jobs at the exact same time. During the Trump-Harris debate, Harris had even gone as far as to brag about how the Biden-Harris administration had overseen, “… the largest increase in domestic oil production in history because of an approach that recognizes that we cannot over rely on foreign oil.”
Voters, naturally, were confused with Harris’ words because she had been an avid supporter of the original Green New Deal, and overall, a long-time climate hawk. President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute Mike Sommers discussed his views on Harris’ statements in the debate in an article on PBS, and he stated that she cannot win Pennsylvania without supporting one of its biggest industries, fracking. Even with her conflicting statements, not much information about her specific plans is available. While Harris has not gone into much depth as to her climate policy, many are hopeful due to her expressing how, “… the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water and live free from pollution that fuels the climate crisis,” is one of the most “fundamental freedoms.”
Former president Donald Trump has made promises to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During his first term, he successfully attacked the EPA’s budget and staff, while rolling back over 100 environmental rules. Now, for his possible second term, cuts will likely become harsher and more worrisome. In the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which has some ties to the Trump campaign (yet Trump denies this), it outlines how exactly the Trump administration will address the “unjust” EPA. Their plans outline a scheme to dissolve the Environmental Justice and Civil Rights office, the offices of Public Engagement and Tribal Affairs, and the International and Tribal Affairs. All of this is problematic knowing what is in store for humans as earth’s temperatures continue to rise.
As young voters take into account what the presidential candidates claim they will do in office, it has become a trend to become more and more worried for the future state of the planet. Cora Powell, an alumna of Lafayette Jefferson High School and current student at the State University of New York’s college of Environmental Science and Forestry, states the “…future of our planet is not the major concern of either candidate during this campaign season.” However, “… both candidates are far from ideal in terms of environmental policy, but there is a clear choice to be made when determining which candidate would cause less harm to the planet we call home.”
Yet, some are opting out of even trying to vote. Senior at Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana, Samanty Manzanero has decided that she will sit this one out, waiting for the next election. Her reasoning is that she feels as if, “my voice matters less as a minority in a red state. My views are not being represented in office.” Also, Manzanero notes the sheer amount of bias in the news, and how “draining” it is to try and figure out “what is real and what is not.” Therefore, she has decided that it is not “worth her energy to try and decode the media.”
For this election, independent voters may be the deciding factor. Voters who are undecided might have the biggest impact, especially in swing states. Both parties hope the vice-presidential debate of Oct. 2 may sway some. Currently, according to projections, Kamala Harris has 226 electoral votes and Donald Trump has 219 electoral votes. Harris may be in the lead, but a candidate needs 270 votes in the electoral college to win. Pennsylvania is the state that is predicted to make or break this election according to NPR. This nail-biting election could go either way, and the only way to guarantee that every American voice is heard is to vote on Nov. 5.
