Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the leading Democratic candidate for the 2016 US presidency, has asserted that the United States could become “the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.”
Clinton, speaking at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, also emphasized that clean energy development will have a positive effect on jobs and the national economy. She maintained that the “whole false choice debate” in relation to climate change “has been going on way too long, and that “we are leaving money and jobs behind” because of it.
“We are leaving money behind, because I have no doubt that our commitment to a clean energy future will make America more competitive, will give us back an export edge on taking a lot of the technology that we either invent, or that we make more readily usable, as a key part of our global economic position,” Ms Clinton said. It can happen if America is willing to “make the hard choices” to address climate change, at the same time as investing in advanced clean energy infrastructure, she maintained.
Senator Rand Paul, a possible contender to oppose Hillary Clinton for the presidency, seized upon her comments on climate change: “For her to be out there saying that the biggest threat to our safety and to our well-being is climate change, I think, goes to the heart of the matter of whether or not she has the wisdom to lead the country, which I think it’s obvious that she doesn’t… I don think we really want a commander-in-chief who’s battling climate change instead of terrorism.”
Do you think Hillary Clinton is correct in suggesting that the United States is currently missing a big opportunity to become a global clean energy superpower? Is it something the United States should strive for in the 21st century?