by Morgan Carlson

Created on: October 13, 2009   Last Updated: October 17, 2009

Energy independence in the U.S. should be a high priority no matter what the opposing side says. Apart from money, energy is the life blood of the country, and just like blood, it should be produced within the body. It wouldn't make sense having a body that only lived with the help of perpetual transfusions. In terms of both health and practicality, that is not desirable. Why would it make sense to run a country in the same manner?

There is no shortage of energy solutions within the United States that could deny the ideal domestic production of energy based on a logical point of view. With a large surface area that could facilitate many wind and solar farms, coastlines that could facilitate wave generators and undersea turbines, other forms of hydroelectric, geothermal, and even nuclear energy, why should there be a dependence on foreign energy that comes in the form of fossil fuels.

Already two thirds of the oil and natural gases used are produced in North America, so why not go the extra step and skip the fossil fuels for favor of the saturating energy produced daily?

Without going into the details of the structure of how we use energy within the country and why; the importance of domestic energy is as simple as having the resources as we need it, and being able to turn around and use that energy as an export for extra financial stability. Unfortunately that bit of logic seems too much to ask for.

Right now choosing a domestic supply is not in the common interests of those who wish to either: 1) Use up all the foreign supplies first so the other countries are out of options, or 2) we are so set in our ways it is easier to go halfway around the world in order to have someone else do the work. Frankly speaking, it also serves as a perfect motivator when considering military movement - something energy independence would destroy.

Another problem with common energy production besides the source and remaining quantities of fuel is that the fossil fuels have a large negative influence on the environment by significantly contributing to global warming. Besides the many consequences of the warming is the other build up of pollutants that lead to the formation of acid rain and brown clouds (mainly seen around China and India), both factors that only help accelerate the warming process by destroying carbon siphoning plants and melting mountain glaciers (the brown clouds only).

Although the U.S. only sees acid rain, there is no need to increase fuel burning and encourage the development of brown clouds in this country. A future of renewable energies would eliminate this possible outcome.

As for other priorities in the nation that may outrank the desire of energy independence due to high initial construction costs to satisfy the new energy infrastructure, such as stabilizing the economy, providing jobs, or supporting our foreign endeavors, energy independence would solve all that. More than just energy systems, such as power plants, transmission lines, and connections to the various homes and industries, weatherization projects that improve home efficiency would create a wide number of jobs.

When energy is plentiful in the U.S., then vehicles that run on fuel cell technology or electricity can create a domestic industry for cars that other countries can't use effectively. With the research aided by the increased economy, plentiful energy and positive attitude, then new portable energy technologies will help to aid our foreign troops and businesses by using the same benefits as enjoyed back home without pouring money into potentially dangerous foreign suppliers.

With so many advantages to energy independence, why shouldn't it be a high priority?

Learn more about this author, Morgan Carlson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.