Politics, News & Issues >
Energy Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs conservation or increased domestic production the key to reducing foreign oil dependence?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Produce | 50% | 112 votes | Total: 224 votes | |
| Conserve | 50% | 112 votes |
Produce
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesDue to environmental extremists with government sway, drilling for domestic oil remains on our national to-do list. Though blessed with abundant resources, we continue to perplex-and sometimes please-various countries of the world by acting as if our energy never existed. Consequently, America bears the brunt of a crisis that could ultimately end in destruction.
Though it may seem rather elementary that Congress enacts policies that reflect public sentiment, perhaps the opposite has proven true. When it comes to energy, our leaders have sought to please environmental radicals and ignore the majority of their constituents. In a mere thirty years, we have transformed from the energy superpower that won the Cold War into a dependent beggar for the resources we own but don't produce.
Activists often find it easier to enact their agendas when the world is in a panic. For this reason, they announce the coming depletion of oil and scold America for being too greedy (oh and then charter a private jet). Though this tactic doesn't win them any compassion points, it's extremely effective in furthering their anti-energy ambitions.
No other place on earth is as blessed with energy resources as the United States of America! The misconception that America has hit a glass ceiling and doesn't have the energy to break through is absolutely ludicrous. Even more devastating than the effects of an Obama speech on the stock market is government bureaucracy on oil production! "Uhhhh...well look," as government regulation has grown, domestic production has taken a serious nose dive!
Because gravel roads and gravel drilling pads are relatively permanent, environmentalists claim that they scar the land's natural beauty. And all this time I was led to believe that gravel came from nature. How could I have been so badly mistaken?
Regardless, in order to appease this unproved claim, oil companies including British Petroleum and Shell have constructed ice roads and drilling pads that disappear after they've been utilized. Also, significant reductions in drill-site acreage and advances in drilling technology work to lessen the environmental impact of oil extraction. For many years, these companies have rightly invested millions of dollars into eco-friendly innovation yet are continually portrayed by many left-wing groups as the heartless rapists of the untamed wilderness.
In a blatant attempt to downplay the significance of energy exploration, opponents of oil drilling claim that it will take years for the new supplies to reach American markets. Late-night comedian, Jay Leno, put it best. "Democrats said [drilling for oil] wouldn't do any good, because it wouldn't produce oil for ten years. You know-the same thing they said ten years ago." Which brings up the age-old question: Why would anyone do anything that didn't incur instant gratification? Sadly it takes most politicians years to scrounge up an answer. (Why can't I get Bill Clinton out of my head?)
The United States is a storehouse of abundant fuel and the secret envy of most nations. Sadly our government stands in the way of our success. Claiming to protect the environment, Congress has enacted anti-energy legislation that stifles the American dream. However, all is not lost! In order to free ourselves from this bondage, we must come to a collective realization that American progressivism trumps environmental extremism. Then-and only then-are we promised a brighter future!
Learn more about this author, Austin Cooper.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Conserve
Oil, its supply, demand, and price, has the uncanny ability to make markets rise and fall very quickly and very drastically. The economies of entire nations depend upon a ready, affordable supply of oil. Without oil machinery doesn't operate, employees don't drive to work; in short, the energy is sucked out of the economy - literally and figuratively. Not only is oil of economic concern, but it is also a national security concern because of its economic impact and because of the volatility in the governments of foreign oil producers on whom the U.S. relies. Because of its ability to cause drastic, volatile change, it is in the best interest of the United States to reduce its dependence of foreign oil with the ultimate goal of ending oil dependence altogether. Conservation is the only effective long-term way to do this because only conservation will reduce the need for oil while producing a new, long-term replacement for oil-based industries.
Increasin g domestic production is proposed by many as the quickest and cheapest method of immediately reducing the need for foreign oil. And while doing so would, in fact, reduce somewhat the need to import oil, doing so is not a long-term, final solution to the foreign oil problem. At some point, domestic oil production will decrease, whether temporarily or permanently, and would cause an upswing in oil imports. Instead, the U.S. must seek ways to begin eliminating oil altogether as the primary source of energy.
Investing in greener, non-oil energy technology is a sustainable, long-term solution to the problem of oil importation. Oil is a finite, depletable fossil fuel. It will not last forever, and the more oil used, the less there will be to use in the future. The energy consumption of the U.S., China, India, and other large nations consistently increases from year to year. Therefore, the reduction of oil supplies begins to increase exponentially as the years go on. The United States possesses the technological and capital resources to innovate and improve on new technologies for energy production that do not require oil and other fossil fuels. These new technologies would not only reduce American demand for oil, but would also act to ease pressures on developing nations that have large demand for oil as they industrialize.
New green-energy technologies would also provide a replacement labor market in the U.S. energy sector. As the demand for oil decreases with new technology, the need for oil specific labor would also decrease. Green energy supplies a new market for workers in this sector. Thus, the argument that the oil industry is of great import because of the large number of workers employed by it is ineffective. Just as the U.S. economy adjusted to changes in manufacturing, technology and other developments, it can also adapt to non-oil industry. Workers can be retrained or begin applying their energy expertise in newer green technology. Additionally, the need to increase domestic oil production would also exist. As green technology is developed, if it is coupled with increased domestic production, will aid in eliminating foreign oil during the transition period into a non-oil economy. So, the need for oil-based labor would not cease to exist overnight.
Conservati on, as energy policy, is criticized for being near-sighted and mislead. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Conservation as energy policy is not proposed simply for environmental reasons. On the contrary, the environmental benefits of green technology would be beneficial byproducts of new technologies. The primary reasons for insisting on a conservationist energy policy are economic and security based. Renewable green energy is energy that is beneficial to the American economy and national security. Cleaning up the earth is just an added bonus.
Learn more about this author, Roger Prather.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Energy Issues
- Does protecting the environment have to come at the expense of jobs?
- Should oil subsidies be eliminated in the US?
- Should Americans be forced to use public transportation?
- Can interstate highways be converted to electric power grids serving electric cars?
- Is increasing nuclear power's share of our power generation worth the risks?
- Should the government stop providing subsidies to all energy sources, eg, coal, oil, solar and wind?
