Comments on: Second Presidential Debate and VP debate http://macaulay.cuny.edu/seminars/lubell08/?p=28 Science and Technology in New York City Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:06:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: zspanos http://macaulay.cuny.edu/seminars/lubell08/?p=28#comment-20 zspanos Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:33:49 +0000 http://macaulay.cuny.edu/seminars/lubell08/?p=28#comment-20 I tuned into Tuesday's debate overly excited to hear some interesting energy plans debated by these candidates, but as with most expectations, I was pretty disappointed. For the first half, energy was solely mentioned in fragments as the candidates answered questions centered around issues with the economy. It surfaced as a topic well into the debate only to be addressed with some general standpoints and a few contentions over past legislation. Had it not been for the research presented during the press conference in class, I would have remained far less informed after listening to them. However, two issues seemed to stand out as particularly interesting for a McKinney supporter, drilling and nuclear power, which after some accusations both candidates supported in varying degrees. Thanks to the research in class, This is where my candidate was kind of unique. What set McKinney out particularly from other Green Party candidates, was her desire to take both drilling and nuclear off the table. Drilling was an absolute no, whether off-shore or in ANWR. Secondly, she believed nuclear energy to be an unclean, unsustainable, expensive, and carbon intensive method of producing energy, that should not be considered. Nonetheless, I really think it comes down to one point Obama made during the debate, who can the people trust when the campaign is finally over? I highly doubt as Obama said, it will be the Senator who has admitted for 26 years that something has to be done to improve our energy efficiency and conservation, yet has voted against alternative fuels 23 times. I tuned into Tuesday’s debate overly excited to hear some interesting energy plans debated by these candidates, but as with most expectations, I was pretty disappointed. For the first half, energy was solely mentioned in fragments as the candidates answered questions centered around issues with the economy. It surfaced as a topic well into the debate only to be addressed with some general standpoints and a few contentions over past legislation. Had it not been for the research presented during the press conference in class, I would have remained far less informed after listening to them. However, two issues seemed to stand out as particularly interesting for a McKinney supporter, drilling and nuclear power, which after some accusations both candidates supported in varying degrees.

Thanks to the research in class, This is where my candidate was kind of unique. What set McKinney out particularly from other Green Party candidates, was her desire to take both drilling and nuclear off the table. Drilling was an absolute no, whether off-shore or in ANWR. Secondly, she believed nuclear energy to be an unclean, unsustainable, expensive, and carbon intensive method of producing energy, that should not be considered.

Nonetheless, I really think it comes down to one point Obama made during the debate, who can the people trust when the campaign is finally over? I highly doubt as Obama said, it will be the Senator who has admitted for 26 years that something has to be done to improve our energy efficiency and conservation, yet has voted against alternative fuels 23 times.

]]>