question 2

Mike Huckabee's stand environmental issues centers around energy independence, and this means that he is probably more of a market liberal. He believes that if the US did not have to rely on foreign oil and had the ability to produce its own energy, it would help the economy. It didn't even seem that he cared about the environmental crisis that much, but instead wanted to make the country more green to reap economic benefits.

Senator Obama on the other hand, seems to care actually care about climate change and the environment, as opposed to just caring about the economic benefits that would result from environmentalism (although he does believe that it would also help the economy).
I guess he's somewhere between a market liberal and an institutionalist. In his speech, he mentioned that the world thought the White House's view on the issue was "isolated," and that the US should be a leader in the world's struggle to become more green. However, he also believes in technology and hopes that it can improve the economy as well.

I agree with what everyone else has said, and think that Senator Obama's plan is definitely the way to go. He seems to really care and has actually put a lot of thought into the issue. I agree with Tai because as evidenced by his quite specific plan, which is much more comprehensive than Huckabee's (or anyone else's), he knows what he wants to do.
Also, he mentioned that the US has to set an example that the rest of the world can follow, and this is definitely true. A lot of countries see the US as hypocritical because they're talking the talk but not walking the walk. I remember in some other class, we talked about how the US was telling some other country (i don't remember what it is) not to cut down their rainforests, but the other country was like "hey, you messed up all your resources to get where you are now, so why can't we do our thing with our resources so we can have what you have?" It'd definitely improve international relations if the US would try harder and go green.