The Great Green Debate

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each hold distinct views on the environment in their campaigns for the upcoming election. However, while many liberals in the media would like to focus on “climate-change,” not enough coverage is devoted to the economic consequences of these views.

Hillary Clinton characterizes coal and natural gas as nefarious energy sources that must inevitably be replaced by renewables. Yet, her myopic view fails to recognize the fate of millions of Americans who depend on coal and natural gas for energy, as well as occupations.

In contrast, Donald Trump advocates for the potential economic prosperity that comes with keeping natural resources. His avid dedication to keeping these resources for energy and jobs will maintain economic stability for the U.S.

The future president should strive to complete the Keystone XL pipeline. This energy project will help to lower oil prices and be a significant source of economic activity, due to the large construction costs associated with building it. However, this does not mean that investments in renewable energies are without use.

The ideal solution proves to be an energy platform that takes into account the interests of both parties in the debate. By investing in both nonrenewable and renewable sources of energy, the majority of Americans will have even more abundant sources of energy. Both coal and gas, as well as renewables, can be sources of energy security and lead to a broadened economic future for the U.S.