On the night of Nov. 6, when we are all glued to our televisions and computers, waiting for the election results, we will not only be deciding our next president, but also the environmental policies that could make or break the future of our species.
This is a feverishly partisan election season, but we have to recognize political rhetoric isn’t the only thing heating up: [16 of the last 17 years](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13) have been the hottest on record, [July was the hottest month in recorded history](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120808115055.htm) and there is a [consensus among the scientific community](http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html) that man-made global warming is well underway. Early signs of a changing climate are becoming more observable as well — devastating drought, hellish wildfires and a general upsurge in severe weather all hit this summer.
The vast majority of climate scientists agree [this is what climate change looks like](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/climate-change-us-heat-wave-wildfire-flooding_n_1645616.html). Without significant policy to combat global warming enacted [very, very soon](http://grist.org/climate-energy/yikes-avoiding-dangerous-climate-change-is-still-possible-but-just-barely/), we might see the worst Mother Nature has to offer.
As students, this understanding should raise some glaring red flags in our politically-active minds, and rightfully so — it’s imperative we factor each candidate’s environmental policy into our vote this November. It’s only just that we vote accordingly for the candidate whose policies would best protect our environment.
Let’s first look at our current administration. With regard to fossil fuels, under President Obama, domestic oil and gas have [reached their highest production levels in eight years](http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/gasprices), imports have fallen to their lowest levels since 1996, and safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico have been [raised substantially](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf).
President Obama has also called on Congress to [end oil subsidies and increase clean energy investments](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/17/weekly-address-ending-subsidies-big-oil-companies); started the Better Buildings Initiative, which will make commercial facilities [20 percent more efficient](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/12/facts-gas-prices-infographic) by 2020; and established new standards for automobiles to achieve an average fuel economy rating of [54.5 miles per gallon by 2025](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/politics/obama-announces-backing-for-energy-efficiency-initiative.html?_r=1).
What’s more, President Obama announced he “[will not walk away from the promise of clean energy](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/state-of-the-union-2012-video-transcript.html),” and so far, his statement holds true. Obama’s policies have ushered in an unprecedented amount of green jobs, evolving a previously underdeveloped sector into one in which more than [3 million Americans are employed](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/green-jobs-report-americans-employed_n_1373022.html).
Obama has accepted donations from the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $772,000, but that’s less than half of what ol’ Willard has received. One of Romney’s major campaign contributors has been the fossil fuel industry. He’s received [$2.3 million so far](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?id=N00000286), with oil magnates Charles and David Koch [having reportedly pledged](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/right-wing-billionaires-behind-mitt-romney-20120524) $60 million in untraceable super PAC donations as well.
So how does Romney’s environmental policy compare? Mitt Romney’s platform consists of a plan to [accelerate oil drilling permits](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BSnTyRVBUYMJ:www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj-L8-ys3GUaixmRCQ3o7n48Pe5GRfB-AfF10t5FzNaisIExT2ZDNMYmD8KYcOpEf6EvCsliK1UOTH0tOdwWaxvHUf8RrDwDaPUlkTHbOaxgaiY4zwruzrQQ_68lV6KHYd1pM7F&sig=AHIEtbTiCcgVJQyehg_R3joCOqeimz549A) in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and public lands in general, toward which he [holds](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/16/139050/santorums-plan-for-federal-lands.html) a clumsy and eerily ambiguous stance. A Romney presidency would also [increase federal subsidization of the fossil fuel industry](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/03/20/11341/ryan-budget-pads-big-oils-pockets-with-senseless-subsidies/), [cut funding for renewable energy sources](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75269.html) and [end federal loan programs](http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/jobs-323475-obama-president.html) that help companies develop more efficient automobiles. It doesn’t take an environmental scientist to recognize how abhorrent these environmental views are.
Above all else, President Obama’s environmental policy bears one huge advantage to all rationally-minded voters: It is rooted in logic. The Obama administration [understands the fact that climate change is underway due to our overproduction of greenhouse gases](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address), and it plans to invest in more clean and efficient forms of energy. Romney, on the other hand, [rejects this notion entirely](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59313.html) despite the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it.
To some of the environmentally conscious among us, though, the Obama administration has not done nearly enough to combat global warming. Obama’s policies are certainly not acting swiftly or aggressively enough as most climate scientists say is necessary to avoid the dangerous effects of global warming.
However, due to our political system and the duopoly it enables, we are provided with only two viable parties, and thus two viable candidates. By now, the message should be clear: A vote for Mitt Romney this November is a vote for unprecedented, rapacious environmental destruction. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a future plagued by the worst-case scenarios of climate change. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote against our generation and the planet we will inherit. A Romney presidency is something no environmentally-conscious student should support. Of course, though, the choice is yours.
