Last week you were given 3 different articles focusing on the aspects of energy consumption/independence.
What aspects/arguments presented in the articles do you agree with? What aspects/arguments do you disagree with? Justify your reasoning.
You need to post a response no later than Saturday 11:59 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
first
The articles focused on the United States' dependence on foreign energy sources. Each presents a viable solution to solve this problem. As "Free at Last" states, "As the world population rises, our demand for energy will skyrocket too. We'll need new fuel sources that are abundant, cheap and don't have hidden costs." I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, with the condition that these energy sources are green. "In the Great Ship Titanic" concludes that if we do not dramatically reduce emissions immediately, global warming will progress beyond repair. Recent research is backing up this assumption.One of the articles also discusses the idea that we would not be at war in the middle east if it were not for their abundance of oil. This is a very possible accusation. There would be no benefit for the United States to fight for "Iraqi Freedom" if they did not have oil. If we had a source of energy that could be relied upon in the US, there would be no reason for us to protect our oil assets overseas.
After reading the three articles, I agreed with Fareed Zakaria's article. I agree with his article because he starts off with an explanation of how we denounce foreign governments for their policies and rules, yet we strike deals with them for our crude oil supplies. It is really odd to announce that a certain government is an "Enemy of America", yet what do we do? Buy their oil for a hideous cost per barrel? We are funding terrorist organizations that have attacked our homeland, and all because we are dependant on the fossil fuels that those countries sell at said high price. Well, it's easy to say that we are not hooked on oil in today's economy; that's a false statement. We, as a country, are addicted to oil because it allows us to go places faster than it would take to walk or ride a bike. We are a victim as well as the benefactor of consumerism and its crooked ways.
Secondly, we are so focused on new products that we never think ill of throwing away things that we no longer need. However, these items end up in landfills, hardly biodegrading as the years pass by. Dangerous chemicals might not have any effect in our lifetimes, but in the future these things can wreak havoc on the environment, which is already becoming weaker every moment as a result of human interests. Zakaria calls for the need of recyclable materials that can be reused. Only when we can use recycled materials for just about everything we use, then we will have achieved true energy independence and will thus effect the environment less.
The article I disagreed with was Newt Gingrich's opinion. He mentions that the fuel crisis is a hoax meant to keep the people of the country under control of foreign oil imports. Gingrich states that there is plenty of oil here in the United states that has yet to be tapped, and that it will fill our needs for years to come. However, he fails to realize that a rise in population will cause the oil supply, if collected here in the U.S., to last for less time, and there will eventually be a fuel crisis in the future, when there will be less chance for a change to be made. We have many years before that happens to make changes to our infrastructure to provide for recycled materials, and waiting will only make the problem worse when we are forced to make changes. Gingrich is just trying to delay the inevitable; the world's crude oil reserves are being sucked dry, and without alternaive energy sources, we as a race will be stranded without our precious vehicles and other modes of propelled transportation.
Steven Chu's interview is also something that I agree with. He believes that global warming is inevitable, given our current energy usage and lack of alternative sources to power our vehicles and appliances. When the global temperature raises several degrees, the planet is in considerable danger, and the only way to prevent this from happening is to make energy usage changes and change the types of energy we use. Although any form of change will be difficult to achieve, we must do something now, or else the future will be very bleak.
All three articles centered around the themes of energy dependence and how we as a nation need to become independent from foreign oil. Those were mostly the statements that I agreed with; that we are using up all our current resources to the point that the demand is now more than the supply.
The Article "Our Tanks are on Full" states, "what America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all of our homegrown energy resources while protecting the environment". In other words we need to find a domestic energy resouce that we can use.And as nice as that sounds, finding an energy source that we can just use rather than sustainably use is not a good idea, we'll just find ourselves in the same situation that we are currently in only put it off a few more years. This article also states; "we should change our federal law to give all states with off shore oil and gas the same share of federal royalities that other states get for land based resources". That, once agian, just sounds like someones desire to use our domestic resources to satisfy a momentary need rather than look at the big picture and think about using more sustainable resources.
I agree with the statement made in the "Free At Last" article that said, "The problem with the energy revolution as it stands now is that we are essentially offering the same product-electricity, a hybrid car, a fancy new light bulb-at a higher cost." I think that if we are really going to try to start an energy revolution, then we need to try to lower the cost of these new products so that everyone is able to buy them. If you can only get a few people rich enough to buy your product, then the energy crisis will stil be there because most people would rather buy something that is not energy efficient if it costs less than something that is energy efficient but is really expensive. I think that the government does need to step in try to encourage people to cut back on the amount of energy that they use. I think that if there was some sort of encentive for people who use low amounts of energy, then it will be easier for people to do that. I think it will make people a lot more willing to cut back on their energy use.
I feel that it is necesary to start switching from fossil fuels to more energy efficeint practices such as solar and nuclear. The issue with nuclear however is what to do with the waste that is produced as a biproduct of the nuclear process. Other countries have found uses for this waste but in America we are forbidden from doing anything with it, so instead we want to fill a mountain with it... If we could fina practical thing to do with the waste, nuclear energy would be one of the most practical and efficient energy strategies out there.
When it comes to electric cars, the fact of the matter is that yes, they are an improvement, but it's still no where near to a solution. If we are plugging the cars in to charge them they are using electricity, and while we don't see the pollution that the cars give off, getting that energy does create pollution somewhere else. Most electricity is powered by coal which gives off a lot of pollution so electric cars aren't completely pracitcal until we start hanessing electricity solely from solar or something like that.
If we don't start reshaping the way we live drastically and soon, our world is not going to make it too much further. The temperature is rising already as the ozone depletes. We need to take drastic steps if we want any hope of salvaging the earth we once had.
One of the main points I agreed with in the articles was that we have to become energy independent and begin to produce our own sources of energy; we don't have the best relationships with the countries who are supplying us with energy, and these sources are finite. To become energy independent, I agree that we should create and continue to use technology and energy sources that are available to us; also, incentives should be given to those who use or develop clean energy. Using hybrid and fuel efficient cars would greatly reduce our need for oil; consequently, our dependence upon other countries. Another thing mentioned in the articles was the Obama administration's plan for cap and trade. I agree with the author in that implementing this plan would not be the best option right now, because of the current condition the economy is in. Creating new job opportunities for renewable energy instead would bring money into our economy while providing our country with our own energy.
Each of these articles showcased interesting and varies stances on energy efficiency. I think its important to expose oneself to various schools of thought and be aware of the basis of thoughts opposing your own. The first of the three articles highlights the dangers of a skyrocketing world population and the greater extremes to which we will pressure our already depleting resources and that we must begin an immediate and swift shift to other, renewable sources. The second article discusses the political and social conflicts that greatly reflect our dependency on foreign oil. The first two articles I find easier to accept than the third, written by Gingrich, who criticizes Obama's proposed "cap and trade regime". As we discussed in a past blog, I see many benefits to such a program.
I honestly agree with every single argument in these three articles. Sometimes I felt like the articles were taking the words right out of my mouth. One of these instances were in the end of the "Free at last" article. To quote it said, "The real revolution that must take place is one of attitudes and ideas. We have many of the technologies we need. If we put them to work and create systems that allow for all the growth we want without running out of energy or harming the earth, we will have achieved true energy independence." That perfectly sums up how I feel about the worlds, or governments positions as of now. We completley have the ability to create sustainable lifestyles, the problem is that we are all so used to, and have been raised to consume, and waste, and continue the cycle without a thought about what goes on behind our comfortable lives. The ways in which we raise our children, and the policies and the promotion of governments need to change. We must start to hold the care of our planet as a primary concern and responsibility of humans and the institutions that govern our nations. Speaking of governments, this leads to another point I agreed with. "America is suffering from an artificial energy crisis, one that is the product of our government's policies, not despite them." I fully agree that in most instances governments policies are pro oil continuation, thusly holding us back from energy independence. Also, the fact that we have all the ability in the world to become fully sustainable, but we continue not to be, making this an artificial energy crisis. It's time to tap in to our amazing abilities, and make this world a cleaner, greener place that we can enjoy for millions of years to come. If we don't, the future will be much more dismal.
I read all four articles, and they were quite interesting. They presented three radically different perspectives – a status quo model, a full sustainability model, and a middle ground. Yet, if we are to read them like adults, then we must not simply accept that anyone article is a “magic bullet”, and if we only do everything that article prescribes, all will magically work out. That is simply not true. An astute reader judges all that he reads, and only accepts as true those parts which makes sense. Therefore, as I did not wholeheartedly agree with anyone article, I will describe the portions of each article that I agree with, and the portions which I disagree with.
Out of the four articles, one general statement that I would make, is that I agree that the status quo is untenable and that change is necessary. For far too long, the statement that the status quo is fine has been spouted off to prevent the much needed real changes. Zakaria is correct when he states that many of the technologies we need are already available, but I fear that a literal interpretation of his article may suggest that no further research is needed. With regards to Chu, I agree that we must tackle global warming, and that the government should not try to pick winners and losers among. I agree with Gingrich's view that the federal government should fund massive investments in renewable energy, and create permanent wind- and solar-tax credits. Finally, I agree with Chu's second article, that we need to focus on curbing the usage of oil in cars. There are a lot of positive arguments, and there is much wisdom that, which we can and must glean from it.
Unfortunately, as with all things, to balance the light, there must be darkness. Therefore, there are some arguments which I disagree with. Starting with Chu's second article, I disagree with the implication that every American has an obligation to “buy fuel-efficient cars, take public transit, or join a carpool”. While this is a laudable goal, in all honesty, for many people, this simply is not realistic, especially in the current economic situation. In addition, this almost implies that there is only one right way to help the environment, which is simply untrue. Each of us has our own part to play, and it is counter-productive to demand that all play the same part. With regard to Zakaria, his insistence on the need for oil, if not considered carefully, may well be seen as giving a carte blanche to the current overdependence on oil. This is not something that we should encourage. In addition, with regard to Chu's first article, I don't agree that nuclear energy is a part of any solution. There is no such thing as a fail-safe nuclear power plant, and compared with the consequences of a meltdown, global warming is nothing. However, by far the most disagreeable article was Gingrich's article.
First of all, Gingrich's article is self-contradictory. It is not possible to protect the environment, while simultaneously endorsing off-shore drilling, and mining for coal, which on the scale that Gingrich proposes, would most likely require strip mining. In addition, there is only enough oil in the US to last us 11 years, which is only prolonging the inevitable peak oil. To top it all off, Gingrich wants to convert Colorado and Utah entirely into sites for extracting oil shale. In all seriousness, Gingrich's ideas are mainly worth considering, if we want to see what a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland US will look like. Being that I am not interested in such a scenario, I think I will pass. Therefore, to sum it all up, if we are to move forward, we need to make use of technologies that currently exist, take action now, and each play the part that has been assigned unto us.
I agree with the article stating we need to become power independent and saying to companies its saving the earth isn't good enough we need insentive.
Also electric cars are great but the way they get their energy is what we have to work on remember, most electricity is generated by coal which is not good. to improve this we have to make changes soon.
The Obama administration article was enlightening and I agree with the cap and trade method. At least the government is getting started just hope its not too late
There are obviously very different views on this issue---all expressed differently in the different article. One discussed a status quo, one about full sustainability, and one took the middle stance. I'm definately in support of full sustainability. We need to give back to the world what we've taken from it. As we continue to grow as a global population we must take into consideration the impatc we are continuing have and how wer are continuing to increase our global impact instead of minimize it...which is what we need to do!
I agree with 2 of the essays, but not "our Tanks are on Full". That essay proposes that the main problem is that legislation is preventing us from mining coal and oil (both normal offshore and shale) in the US. Bad policies are indeed keeping us down, but not those ones. The United states needs to be free to pursue completely renewable energy like wind, solar, hydro (make it more efficient), and perhaps biofuel. The policies that are killing us are the ones that give tax breaks to oil and coal companies and put MPG and MPC (miles per charge) on hybrid and electric cars from foreign countries to protect our crappy auto industry.
We need to go to energy sources that are completely free of or produce very little emissions. Biofuel is a questionable source. It not only uses a food source that could deal with hunger problems around the world, but burning it produces cleaner but similiar results to burning fossil fuels. Based on the article "In the Great Ship Titanic", huge steps need to be taken now in order to slow down the global temperature change. While it might not seem like much at 1 or two or three degrees, the results are unimaginable. Current environments depend on the normalcy of certain temperature ranges. Entire areas will change due to the new temperature variation. While "Pulling the plug on oil" is a good thing in terms of switching to hybrids, those cars still use gas. The technology to create electric cars that can go farther than gas powered cars is there. It's just that there isn't a market yet. To be as effective as possible in slowing down the temperature change, electric cars need to be the new light of the way rather than the hybrids. Transitional methods are good, but it has been too long, and we need to get our asses in gear.
In "Free at Last", our fossil fuel dependency is seen to have gotten us stuck in the middle East and inadvertantly supporting and funding terrorists. There is no way that all the billions and trillions of dollars that are poured into the Middle East remain in the hands of the pure. As can be seen, groups are being fueled by our own resources. In addition, the US is stuck in the region because we depend so much on oil from there. If we only used solar, wind, and hydro power, then we wouldn't be over there. There were no WMDs in Afganistan or Iraq. These "mysterious" weapons were created by the Bush administration, who have heavy debts to the oil and war industries, to make money for these institutions. If we stop using fossil fuels, the US pulls out of the Middle East faster because we care that much less. We are a selfish nation, mostly looking out for ourselves. If there wasn't any oil in Iraq or Afganistan, even more high schoolers would not know were they were on the world map.
I wouldn't say I 100% agreed or disagreed with any one article, and some of the things in the articles that I agreed with contradicted each other. The one I most disagreed with was Newt Gingrich's. Not only is it contradictory, but it tries to downplay the fuel crisis, essentially saying it isn't happening. I think Gingrich might be operating on political motivations, as he advocates off-shore drilling, coal mining and so on. It doesn't seem that environmental concerns are first and foremost for him.
I agreed with both Zakaria and Chu's articles for the most part. Zakaria's was more insightful for me; energy independence and less reliance on other countries is worth talking about and working on as much as recyling, turning off the lights, driving less, and so on are. We shouldn't depend on foreign countries that are supposedly "Enemies of America" for their oil.
I like Chu's thoughts, but they weren't new to me. GLobal warming is a serious threat, we need to change the kinds of energy we use, not use so much oil for driving...good stuff, but nothing we don't already know, and for the most part, ideas that seem to be generally agreed upon.
Post a Comment