Senator John McCain's proposal to rectify the energy crisis and create energy self sufficiency in the United States consists of short-term remedies to a long-term problem. His plans to increase offshore drilling are in direct conflict with his desire to decrease emissions by offering incentives to create more environmentally friendly vehicles.
McCain, who was initially opposed to offshore drilling, is now in favor of it as a means of decreasing American's reliance on foriegn oil. He is also a proponent of constructing numerous nuclear power plants to supply the growing population of the United States with the energy they need to sustain themselves. Ironically, McCain is interested in the development of a battery powered vehicle and in using flex-fuel, such as ethanol, instead of gas. If he is so interested in decreasing emissions with innovative and environmentally friendly vehicles, then why is he an advocate of offshore drilling?
There is not an infinate supply of oil to be drilled; the supply will run out. It may take a relatively long time, but we will only continue to damage the planet as we continue using oil to power our vehicles. As the population increases the consumption of oil will increase. Flex fuel is a great alternative to gas; however, there is no current supply available that would meet the needs of the United States.
Like offshore drilling, the nuclear power plants McCain proposes be built present a potential, but very serious risk to people and the environment. Senator McCain's views on energy seem short sighted and confusing. He should look at some alternate energy sources that are safer, practical and more environmentally friendly. First however, McCain needs to make up his mind on where he really stands on the issue of energy and the environment.
Fiona Bowie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I tend to think there is another reason to support alternative energy industry: Economic growth. The US currently has an opportunity to establish itself as the world leader in alternative energy industry. If the next President implements policies which will encourage the growth of an alternative energy sector, to get it going, I think you could see the development of an industry as economically viable as the prescription drug industry, which we all know does quite well. Why? Because, like with prescription drugs, and other technologies, there is always room for innovation, and therefore always the conditions for the obsolescence that keeps the industry fresh... If we don't take the lead, someone else will...
At the same time, just like with prescription drugs (and health care as a whole), there is a risk of a system developing in which advocates of a certain type of alternative energy will put forth massive resources to force it into the market, regardles of the existence of better, perhaps simpler solutions. This is what has happened in health care. However, unlike health care, "better" in energy will inherently mean "cheaper", since this is one of the primary reasons consumers believe we need energy innovation.
Heather Wegan
I agree that a good reason to support the alternative energy industry is economic growth, however; I feel the primary reason to support such an industry should first and foremost be the preservation of our planet's health. Economic growth does no good if there is no global infrastructure to support industry of any kind because the planet is in peril.
The prescription drug industry does well, not only because there is innovation, but because drug companies have patents (monopolies) on their newly discovered drugs which allows them to charge large amounts of money (for a set time)for a particular drug before it becomes generic.
Is it not possible that the energy industry will turn the way of the prescription drug industry? Though alternative forms of energy may be cheap to produce how do we know they won't be expensive for the consumer?
That we as a people should be focusing on more eco-friendly ways of living for the sake of the health of our planet, and thereby our own basic preservation, may be true (personally, I feel wholeheartedly that it is), but as a reason for action, it isn't nearly as universally understood and valued as an economic one. Some still think that global warming is a farce, and that we are being bullied by tree huggers into making changes in our consumption and production of energy unnecessarily. Others believe it exists, but is merely the result of cyclic climatic forces, not human activity. And not everyone believes our oil supply is limited, either - Or not so much that a little offshore/Alaska drilling here at home won't fix.
But everyone wants the U.S. to be an economic leader. We all want something to export to the world, I think, and what better than a commodity which has as its side effect the benefit of our planet? Green, renewable energy could well be that product - But we will have to act fast.
China is considered the world leader today. Copy and paste this into your browser: http://chinadaily.cn/bizchina/2008-08/04/content_6900750.htm
It is a link to a China Daily article from earlier this year which points to a recent determination by an independent non-profit that is dedicating to the the cause of getting the private and public sectors to become leaders on the issue of climate change. The determination? China is the world's burgeoning green energy leader. But we are not at a stage yet in the development of green energy where the leaders are set in stone - The U.S. is well poised to compete, if we make that choice. Under the right leadership, I believe our country could move to the forefront.
Conversely, if we do not make that choice, what does that mean for the U.S.? It may well be that we find ourselves becoming less dependent on the Middle East for oil only at the same rate that we become more dependent on China for renewable energy. Aren't we already importing enough from China? How's that been working for job creation in our country?
As far as the cost of green energy, I think that by making an economic argument for its development, there is, inherent in that, the assumption that for any venture to be successful, it must beat the traditional competition. That is, people will buy green energy when it is either cheaper than the energy they have been buying, or when it is a little more expensive, but they have been convinced that the extra cost is "worth" it. I think U.S. consumers could find that worth in the job creation, economic growth, and favorable view of us from afar that becoming the world's new, green energy leader would likely encourage.
Heather Wegan
Because it will reduce dependence on oil by...how much was that? Oh yeah, basically nothing: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2127/85/
Post a Comment