On the other hand, many of the environmental problems the world faces today – including climate change, air pollution, oil spills, and acid rain – result from our dependence on fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels produces heat-trapping gases that are the main cause of the ongoing rise in global atmospheric temperatures. Therefore, as a result of the "shale revolution" Americans seem to have a hard time to say “goodbye” to the stereotypes of the past century. Barack Obama declared "comprehensive" energy strategy increasingly takes on the character of selective policy, concentrating not on a wide range of energy, but only on shale gas and oil. America is increasingly dependent on oil and gas consumption. This situation does not seem to cause any rejections. Scientists call this phenomenon a "cognitive dissonance"; which White House initiatives inherently possess. It is the inability to reach a consensus between the populist slogans and theoretical developments, while there is a need for pragmatic economic decision-making. We have to admit that for Obama’s two-parent term, the Democrats couldn’t precisely highlight key points, and build a hierarchy of integrated energy policy. US hegemony is almost not valid in renewable energy. On a number of key areas of alternative energy, China and some EU countries are ahead of the United States and the Americans have to compete to maintain leadership or even to catch up with countries that have been recently perceived as developing
Once upon a time there was a boy living in Hawaii, this boy would one day become one of the most powerful leaders in the world.
But so has population, which means per capita energy use is unchanged. And per capita GDP has risen substantially, so we are using 40 percent less energy per dollar output. Which is one reason there is no energy crisis…” (Will, par. 3). Will gives another example of a so called environmentally friendly decision when he says “…in 1996 President Clinton put 68 billion tons of America's cleanest-burning coal, located in Utah, off-limits for mining, ostensibly for environmental reasons…” (Will, par. 5). This, Will says, was really all about political and financial kickbacks “Now power companies must import clean-burning coal, some from mines owned by Indonesia's Lippo Group, the heavy contributor to Clinton, whose decision about Utah's coal vastly increased the value of Lippo's coal” (Will, par. 5). Will then gave us facts about how much energy is really out there waiting to be harnessed in our own backyard, “The government estimates that beneath the U.S. outer continental shelf, which the government owns, there are at least 46 billion barrels
Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The
With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally
The following paper is a comprehensive energy policy platform for a candidate running the 2020 presidential election. This candidate is considered to be a centrist when it comes to energy policy. They have liberal and conservative ideas depending on the issues. Overall, the candidate would like to instate a plan that preserve American energy independence while also becoming a leader in the international green energy market. Cutting taxes for green energy companies, instituting a carbon tax, revitalizing the nuclear energy market and raising CAFE standards for the automotive industry are the cornerstone pieces of this policy. Long term goals include phasing out all coal plants, reducing dependence on natural gas, developing affordable
Coal and natural gas are the United States’ main fossil fuels used as energy sources. These fossil fuels both contain mixtures of hydrocarbons, which is a chemical compound of carbon and hydrogen (Olah, 2005). Currently, fossil fuels provide eighty-five percent of commercial energy, such as businesses, worldwide and this eighty-five percent does not even account for residential use. Imagine if the residential energy use was accounted for in that eighty-five percent (Davison, 2007). According to Goodell (2006), “Between 1950 and 2000, the world population increased by 140 percent and fossil fuel consumption increased by 400 percent. By 2030, the world’s demand for energy is expected to more than double,” with most of the electricity
Officials in the Obama administration are nearly ready to unveil their unprecedented regulation of the oil and gas industries by ordering the reduction of methane emissions in the United States by 40 to 45 percent within the next ten years. Such a drastic alteration would significantly change how natural gas is produced and consumed and transform the entire electric industry in the country, potentially shifting its reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. Though methane constitutes only nine percent of emissions, far less than carbon dioxide, it has over twenty times the effect toward global warming as carbon dioxide has and is therefore important to regulate. Also, the Obama administration has initiated reductions in emission
The United States refused to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, basically letting the market drive CO2 reductions to mitigate global warming, which will require CO2 emission taxation. The administration of Barack Obama has proposed an aggressive energy policy reform, including the need for a reduction of CO2 emissions, with a cap and trade program, which could help encourage more clean renewable, sustainable energy development. Thanks to new technologies such as fracking, the United States has in 2014 resumed its former role as the top oil producer in the world. In terms of oil the Keystone XL Pipeline is not in the national interest of te United States due to the large ecological impacts, as well as it being in the United States best interests to
The U.S obtains more than 84% of its energy from fossil fuels including oil, coal and natural gas. This is because people rely on it to heat their homes, power industries, run vehicles, manufacturing, and provision of electricity. It is apparent that the country’s transportation industry highly depends on conventional petroleum oil, which is responsible for global warming, thus threatening economic opulence and national security. Apart from that, increasing consumption of fossil fuels have elevated health problems in the state, destroyed wild places, and polluted the environment. After conducting Environmental Impact Assessment, projections showed that the world energy consumption would increase by more than 56% between 2010 and 2040. However, fossil fuels will cater for more than 80% of the total energy used in 2040. Sadly, it will be a trajectory to alter the world’s climate, as well as, weaken the global security environment. Importantly, the rate at which the US relies on fossil fuels needs to reduce since it has adverse effects on the planet’s supplies. The society needs to realize that fossil fuels are nonrenewable, thus taking millions of years to form (Huebner, 2003). Notably, the country can reduce dependency on fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation and efficiency,
In fact, Jimmy Carter stated, “[America] is the most wasteful nation … use twice as much energy per person [than] Germany, Japan, and Sweden” (Carter, Primary Resources: Proposed Energy Policy, 1977). It was certainly a double-edged sword to many Americans since the environmental crisis was occurring at the same time were focused on conservations and cleanup efforts and to reduce oil drilling, meanwhile oil supply was almost nonexistent and being used so carelessly that it became an inevitable to drill for more oil. The dependence on oil is evident in a graph where in the late 1970s, petroleum energy consumption is nearly at 40 quadrillion Btu, and natural gas was at 20 quadrillion Btu (07 Environment-Oil Crisis Readings.pdf). Alternative energy sources were considered, but these sources were just as dangerous, if not worse to produce, due to their cost and power per unit. In fact, it was a talking point in Carter’s televised speech to seek for more alternative resources, use the most of what was left, and “apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy” after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (Carter, Primary Resources: Proposed Energy Policy,
The United States is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, and yet is doing very little to fix this startling statistic (Dennis). The US’ reliance upon outdated energy sources continues to harm both the environment and the economy by producing millions of tonnes of pollution every year and costing the government billions of dollars (“Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan”). Fossil fuels have been the main energy sources in America since the industrial revolution, and it is time to make a change. Renewable energy is energy harnessed from sources like the sun, wind, or water, and has little to no negative effects on the environment (“Renewable Energy Technology Basics”). The United States needs to integrate and increase the use of these types of energy across the country, as well as implement positive environmental policies, to prevent further pollution of the earth and combat the effects of climate change.
Since, fossil fuels have been a part of our environment for some time now, they have been the main resource we’ve needed and used to keep our country running. The truth of the matter is, since we obtain fossil fuels from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago they will soon be gone. As indicated by Eric McLamb, founder, chief executive officer, and president of the ecology communications group, “The problem is fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They are limited in supply and will one day be depleted.” People realize that the crisis of running out of fossil fuels is upon us; however, these same people are timid about moving on to renewable energy. One main reason is because individuals do not believe renewable energy is cost efficient. For instance, solar energy is known to be fairly expensive, particularly more expensive than the conventional energy used now, which makes people uncertain about changing to renewable energy.
The U.S. should replace fossil fuel with renewable energy. There are many reasons that the U.S. can use renewable energy to improve the economy. First of all, renewable energy can have a more stable price. Unlike fossil fuel, renewable energy is a continual source of energy that will not be as demanded, and will not cause inflation. Next, using renewable energy is a key to having a clean and green environment. It will not cause pollution to the environment and will keep cities clean. Finally, the United States can provide more efficient jobs for unemployed workers. People will have more opportunities for jobs like installing or building any source of renewable energy. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy can be more efficient because it will have a stable expense, it is a clean way to help the environment, and it can provide several jobs.
In “Our Energy Challenge” by Bill Mckibben explains energy is crucial part of our economy, and development and energy-using have connected each other very tight since 18th century when people discovered coal to generate power. The author goes on to say energy using of individuals has doubled because of the industrial evolution, also problems caused by coal-fired power plants became more evident. He mentions the greatest example of it now is Beijing, China. He further states that peak oil and global warning are the biggest threat to our economy because our energy sources, including oils and coal, are limited and it has been declining very fast, so there would have enormous recession to bring the oil price down. In his last argument, he sites
The United States must realize the trend, and act accordingly to maintain soft power. With the “Go Green” campaign, many corporations actively try shifting towards renewable technologies with enhanced innovation. Kearns, a current director of Domestic Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress, cites how “technological progress often helps create opportunities for emissions reductions and economic growth”, which “have created opportunities for customers to reduce energy use while saving money”. Reducing energy leads to better allocation of energy, to increase energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is key to the success of the program, because the system provides safe economic landing for a radical change from oil-market to the renewables-market. As time progresses in the next five to ten years, the shift of fossil fuel based economy to renewables will in many ways damage the international oil market, but the plan provides gradual develop to act as safe cushion for next future generations to come. Combination of privatization of renewable companies like Exxon and BP through the public voluntary programs, the United States can better produce affordable, and effective distribution for citizens to access.