Energy Independence

                        Obama's and Rick Perry's plans on energy independence are complete opposites (in the sense of improving the environment/ being environmental-friendly) which try to achieve the same thing: being energy independent from other countries, specifically ones from the Middle East. Rick Perry focuses on Machiavelli's "Ends justify the means" idea by attempting to create jobs anyway possible, even if it means the environment will get further destroyed and the natural resources further depleted. He says getting the industry "back to work" will be the "quickest" way to create millions of jobs and begins completely dismantling the EPA in order to drill oil in Alaska and other places. While, Obama for the most part supported a cleaner way of becoming energy independent, by cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent, investing billions of dollars into renewable "coal", supporting incandescent light bulbs and so on. Basically, both candidates attempt to reach their goals in different ways, Obama makes the better choice (in my opinion) and wants to convert America into clean energy in order not to completely stop importing oil from the Middle East, while Perry tries to find other places to deplete oil from, which will eventually run out and force America to be energy/oil dependent.
                     I lean towards Obama's plan because I believe the best way to be energy independent is to convert to clean energy which will benefit the environment as well. Although most people believe that humans didn't cause Global Warming and such, they undermine the fact that (if they really didn't cause Global Warming) humans are only making it worse through the burning of fossil fuel. So, the underlining fact is cleaner energy will have a much more environmental-friendly and beneficial long-term affect than Perry's creation of jobs through drilling oil in Alaska and other offshore and onshore drilling.
                    Hydroelectric power is an alternative energy source which employs water turbines and generators from dammed water; although an alternative energy source, hydroelectricity has has its pros and cons. Some negative aspects are that energy production depends on the volume of the water and the height between the source and the outflow of the water and can have lasting negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems. On the other hand, hydroelectricity totally eliminates fuel, doesn't cause pollution in water and air, they are more durable (last 50 to 100 years) and the cost of labor is very low since the plan is normally automated.
                                                                                                                                        -Denis