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)
15 comments:
Let me start off by saying that I can see at least some validity in all 3 of the articles. All three of them share the common idea that we need to fix both global cimate change and our energy crisis. The differences can be seen, however, in the ways in which we plan to solve these problems and how we define them. I agree with Gingrich's argument that our energy crisis is self perpetuated. He is correct in saying that government has not put enough effort into defending the environment and coming up with positive solutions that bolster our economy and protect our resources. One president cannot be blamed for this, because the majority of them have either created policy that worsens or ignores the problem. I think we need to find a good balance between helping to protect the earth and reources that we depend on, and keeping our businesses afloat. Some environmentatlists are too quick to point the finger of blame at the government and lage corporations for our environmental problems. Yes, there have been a variety of cases in which we have made bad policy regarding this topic, but people need to look at both sides. The environment should be protected and the economy should too. There were some great suggestions in the articles for positive solutions. One idea I strongly support is the government setting up a $1 billion dollar tax-free prize for the first hydrogen car that can be massed produced at a reasonable price. I think we can solve this situtation if people are willing to put down their preconceived bias for either side, and look towards a more sustainable, common goal.
I agree with the first article, "Free at Last", the most. The main point that this article raises is that energy independence and the "green revolution" are aiming at the wrong goal- a perfect solution. Regardless of what the source of energy is, there will always be problems. Therefore I agree with Zakaria that what we need is to begin to embrace all clean options and implement them into our economy. With a multitude of energy sources, we may just be able to sustain our growing population without ruining the Earth.
The second article, "Pulling the Plug on Oil" also raises many good points. It places the emphasis on conservation. This is an aspect of the energy revolution missed by the first article. We cannot expect new technologies to lead us to a cleaner world. We have to work for it ourselves as well. If we want to make a change, conservation is a crucial step.
The third article, "Our Tanks are on Full", takes a very different perspective on the energy crisis. I disagree with this general idea. Gingrich places too much emphasis on reserves of oil that are not being utilized. That is not the point. The point is that we can't continue relying on oil, because at some point it will run out. He mentions that energy and financial benefits need to be targeted to help develop cleaner energy. His ideas on this point are very valid and substantial. However, the idea that the energy crisis is artificial is not. We cannot ignore the future.
I think that all 3 articles are about the same general subject of the U.S. working on creating an independent energy source so we are not as dependent on OPEC and other oil-controlling nations, which is something I completely agree with. This way we could create a more independent economy and we will be less affected by the situation happening in the middle east. I also agree with the article "Our Tanks are Full" that says that the federal government should develop a package of incentives to encourage alternative energy use. This way people will be more motivated to use cleaner energy and will save money in the long run. As the comment said before, I don't agree with the statement that says that we should finance in offshore oil drilling, because it contradicts the point that we should wean ourselves off of oil. Reducing our use of oil won't be easy, but it will probably be the most affective change we can create.
Of all the ideas mentioned in the articles, one of the most relevant seemed to be the idea that we have neglected to take initiative with the environment and now we are feeling the repurcussions.
We have to cut our ties with the past, which is only filled with unsustainable policies of energy use. Generally I disagree with most of the things Newt Gingrich says, although he did raise some valid points such as the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, the problem was made by us and will continue until we make an effort to change something. Currently we rely far too much on oil and natural gases to fuel our planet, which is a very narrow and short term perspective.
The government needs to step in and put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions because the environmentalist groups are ineffective and often only aggravate the situation with their indignation. With cap and trade policies we might be able to successfully reduce our consumption and eventually completely phase out the use of unsustainable resources.
Each of the three articles presented relevant information, but the truth is that none of it will make a difference unless some sort of government intervention is initiated. Oil companies are not going to willingly transition to other forms of energy, so we need some sort of regulation or monetary punishment. Hopefully with a new administration this will happen in the near future, otherwise the problem will continue to worsen.
All of the articles make good points. The common theme is that we need to wean off of our dependence on foreign oil. I liked the point made in "OUR TANKS ARE ON FULL" that we aren't short on oil, just working government policies. I strongly agree with this statement. If our government would care more about the big picture than getting oil from the middle east, we wouldn't be in many of our problems. What i didn't agree with is their statement that Obama needs to spend less money. Doesn't anyone remember F.D.R? To get us out of the depression he spent money. That's the only way to get it back in the hands of our citizens. And if we want to solve this energy crisis we're going to have to spend money.
The main problem in my opinion of the whole situation is that people are thinking about what is going on now, not about the future as a whole. They are trying to solve problems that are longterm issues that if not attended to will spiral out of control. They think they are correcting them with quick fixes because they know that if they were to fully solve the longter problem, that would mean that we would fully have to change our lifestyle which is what they have an issue with.
I agree that we need to start utilizing nuclear power in addition to building up our other sources of power. I don't agree with Newt Gingrich that we should be drilling for more and more oil, because oil is not renewable, it is bad for the environment, and the only places we would be drilling are not even guarenteed to give us enough oil. We would just be stretching how long we could survive on oil, not stopping the overall problem. I believe that the cap and trade system will act as a catalyst towards companies to develop alternative fuel technologies. Higher standards for the auto industry is also a good idea in my opinion as right now we are far behind other countries. I also agree that right now it is extremely important to focus on reducing our consumption through better utilization such as smart grids, and better highway systems. The sooner we do that, the easier transition to other fuels we will have. I also think it is a good point that there might not be a perfect alternative. I agree with all these ideas because they seem like the most reasonable ways to improve our energy use. I disagree with most of what Gingrich said as it would involve destroying an enormous amount of American land and tourist revenue for oil shale which requires massive processing, and would do nothing to help alleviate global warming.
***This is Rachel Dana's response:
In the article by Fareed Zakaria I agree that we won't be able to support the rising demand in energy, especially if the global population is on its way to the 9 billion mark. However, I think it would be more productive to focus efforts on finding ways to control and maintain the human population rather than looking for ways to support another 2.3 billion people (which would invariably create more issues than with just energy). I feel like her saying we need to find more ways to access energy to support 9 billion people is like her saying we're supposed accept the inevitable; that there is nothing we can do about the population so we should do whatever we can to adapt to a large amount of people. As we've talked about in class, overpopulation is essentially the root of the energy crisis we're soon to face (and are currently facing in some respects), as well as other issues like scarcity of water, civil wars, competition for food, land, etc. with energy being one of the most important conflicts dealt with today. There are already enough problems we have to face with there being six billion people in the world and although research has resulted in some great alternative energies, it will not be able to keep up with the massive population increase that's supposed to reach it's peak in only thirty short years.
All three of the articles focus on solving the same problem: the energy crisis. The first article favors making our current fuel usage more efficient with more advanced technology. To me this is a realistic goal because it doesn't involve cutting down on our current fuel usage, which isn't going to happen. The author (Fareed Zakaria) found that our energy usage will have to increase due to the rising population, so we will be forced to continue using current fuel sources at least for the short term. The second article, in which physicist Steven Chu is interviewed by Zakaria, takes a much different stance on the issue. Chu believes that global warming will be such a disaster that we absolutely have to switch to green energy as soon as possible, and that this is a realistic option. Unfortunately, I think Chu is too much of an optimist and his plans are never going to happen, at least not for a long time. If global warming does turn out to be as bad as they say, then we may gravitate towards what Chu wants, but with our growing population and energy usage, we couldn't possibly switch to green energy. The third article takes a different approach, one that I disagree with. Newt Gingrich wants to simply use the resources we have, despite the effects on the environment. I believe that what will end up happening is a combination of articles 1 and 3, with increased usage of our resources as well as development of more fuel efficient technology. And maybe once our fossil fuels run dry or the earth is so polluted that it starts to become uninhabitable, we may switch completely to green energy.
Out of the three articles, i definately agree with "Free at last" the most. it talks of valid ways to conserve our earth in the proper ways that also allow our society to keep functioning. of course everyone will have to make sacrifices and consider the change that they'll have to make in order for it to become a reality, or else we'll be where he have been for a hundred years. we suck up the resources that we claim is ours without thinking about the consequences and even now we've realized and are taking action too late.
The second article "Our Tanks are Full" in my opinion has the wrong idea and what we as a whole of one people need to acomplish. off shore drilling will damage the ecosystem of the ocean, endangering species, and cause sickness which is the last thing we would need to deal with. even the slight consideration of drilling in Alaska is the same idea, putting us four steps back than the two steps forward that we are striving to make happen. If money is what moves the world than we need to start fractioning in the money that could help move along the progression of a cleaner earth. There are so many things that should be done, but who knows if it will be too late.
I agree most with the views expressed in the first article (Free at last). I think that it really is a matter of changing our attitudes and ideas. We already have the technology required for the transition. I was sort of confused about the position that Gingrich took in Our Tanks are Full. He spent a great deal of time talking about the amount of off shore resources that have still be left untapped, opening up the ANWR, and the shale-oil deposits in Colorado and Utah. None of this would have a positive impact on the environment. Off shore drilling and opening up the ANWR both involve tampering with delicate habitats, and using shale-oil would reqire a ridiculous amount of processing that uses more fuel than it would yield.I think the most efficient change would be in our attitudes and putting the technology to use.
There are aspects of each article that I agree with. The basic idea of all of them is that the U.S. needs to find ways to consume less and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. In “Free At Last” by Fareed Zakaria I agree with the idea that energy independence will come through applications of existing technologies rather than introducing a completely new system of energy use. In “Our Tanks Are on Full” by Newt Gingrich there are a few things I agree with and a few that I don’t. His general idea of there being a lot of unused oil reserves that should be put into use isn’t the best way to approach the energy crisis. I think it’s a matter of changing/improving already existing use patterns than opening up new reserves that will only increase our dependence on oil. However I definitely agree with Gingrich in that the government should develop economic incentives for clean-energy use. For example, the tax-free prize for the first hydrogen car that can be mass produced at a reasonable price would be a very good way of promoting production of a clean-energy product. In the third article, “Pulling the Plug on Oil” I mostly agree with the concept that we should depend more on America’s resources, such as Midwestern farm fields and wind and solar power rather than oil reserves in the Middle East- which have clearly caused some problems for us in the past few years. Ultimately, I think we should put forth Obama’s down payment for a clean-energy future and develop economic incentives for clean-energy production.
"Our Tanks Are Full" brings up some strong points, but the author falls victim to exactly what he is preaching against. Newt preaches that we need to be more enviornmentally conscious, even misquoting Obama to make his point stronger. I agree with him that we need to focus on using "homegrown energies", such as the Great Plains harnessing wind and solar energy. However, he also suggests that we use our tiny amount of available money of pushing "flex fuels", which is essentially just turning things that shouldn't be oil, into oil. We need to lay off the oil. He suggests opening up off-shore drilling for oil and using Alaskan Tundra lands for finding more oil, which isn't being environmentally conscious at all. In the middle of this recession, we are all in a mad cash-grab-scramble. Money is our God, money is our goal and continuing to find more things to take from the Earth to get money is all Newt seems to care about. People like him kind of irritate me; they pretend to care and throw buzz words all around to rally support, but in reality, they don't care at all. Sustainability is a nice goal, but it is essentially impossible to acchieve. Nothing gold can stay, nothing last forever, and there is no exception to that rule. Oil is not an exception, though it is treated as such because of it's huge monetary value. The real "sustainable" solution is to move on. There are better technologies out there right now, but there is so much legal mumbo jumbo and red tape to cross, that no real positive change can occur. Newt is aware of this, as he says "What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources while protecting the environment" and also "America is suffering from an artificial energy crisis, one that is the product of our governments policies, not despite them." However, what Newt decides is that we need to open up drilling in wildlife habitats and continue using our gasoline powered cars. How will this, at all, protect our environment? How is our oil shortage "artificial?" We litteraly are running out of places to drill, because if we drilled anywhere else, we would staggeringly hurt what little wildlife area we have left. He wants the money from oil, and to support his party's agendas. I don't know if they realize, though, how close we are to total Earth destruction. You cannot make money, or spend money if the human race is destroyed. Global warming is happening far faster then we have predicted, and the small window of opportunity we have to start to fix our wrongs is quickly passing us by. Arguments against switching to a better fuel source are long since gone logical. The cost to manufacture a new source of car and find new energies is far, far less then what it would take to repair a broken Earth. Sure, we have the infrastructure set up, and people are used to using gasoline cars, but we seriously need to change. No one said it would be easy, but then again, think of all of the people who are taken wild advantage of by the current energy infrastructure. The solution lies within ourselves. WE have to ask our selves and our peers if we really are doing what's right. We need to focus through all the legal fikas and do what is right for our home, the Earth. We do not own the Earth, and humans are not it's only inhabitants.
Complete energy independence isn't a good idea. Like every other commodity in the world today, we need to sell and trade on a global scale for us to be the most successful. Most of the problems the U.S. is dealing with today with energy comes from problems with OPEC oil. About 30% of our oil comes from them, the other 30% of imports coming mostly from Canada and Mexico. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but that seems like something we can make up. The U.S. needs to focus more on building infrastructure for alternative energy. Yes, it's expensive, but like the New Deal plans, it will create a lot of jobs, and make us much better prepared for a future in which we can't rely so much on the current status quo of energy dependence. I think nuclear energy is very underrated too; a much higher percentage of European energy comes from that, and there's no reason why that can't be the case for the United States. Also, hydrogen powered cars are, frankly, a long time away, especially with the big automakers dragging their feet about it. Even if the government offers a billion dollar award for the first company to market it, that's a small amount compared to the revenue that comes from gas guzzling SUVs, not to mention the fact that car companies would have no incentive to do anything anyway when the government will bail them out regardless.
Although an interesting idea, I don't think the government setting up a "prize" for automobile advances away from oil is practical. It's just too controversial of a move; it's basically anti-war (which might be the right thing to do, but it won't happen).
The big change needs to be made by companies and individuals, not by the government. As far as the government role is, the first article has a great solution: making current fuel compatible with future technologies.
Until a fool-proof alternative is avaliable (electical and hydrogen aren't at the point yet where they don't have major problems that prevent them from being possible for everyone), oil will remain the main energy source for vehicles in America. It's up to GM and others to change this.
Post a Comment