December 10, 2007

The Oil Plan, Part 1: The Short Term

It is abundantly clear that at this stage in history oil as an energy source is in immediate danger. A policy proposal needs to be implemented quickly that accomplishes these three primary goals (in order):

1. Reduce American consumption to the point where there will be minimal dependence on foreign oil from overseas.
2. Reduce consumption of oil and other fossil fuels to the point where they do not threaten global warming.
3. Reduce consumption in such a way that countries that export oil and other fossil fuels do not economically implode.

With those concerns in mind, here are some possible suggestions for courses of action in the short term that would accomplish the aim of reducing oil consumption:

1. Immediately raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg.
2. Subsidize ethanol while simultaneously remove other agricultural subsidies.
3. Increase direct investment in solar and other alternative technologies.
4. Agree to international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol.
5. Mandate that all coal fire plants use clean coal technologies.
6. Show consumers that they don't have a right to unlimited consumption of natural resources.
7. Developing tar sands (Canada) and other similar forms of oil closer to home (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.) and making them cleaner.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous10:27 PM

    1. Immediately raise fuel economy standards to 35 mpg.
    2. Subsidize ethanol while simultaneously remove other agricultural subsidies.
    3. Increase direct investment in solar and other alternative technologies.
    4. Agree to international treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol.
    5. Mandate that all coal fire plants use clean coal technologies.
    6. Show consumers that they don't have a right to unlimited consumption of natural resources.
    7. Developing tar sands (Canada) and other similar forms of oil closer to home (Montana, the Dakotas, etc.) and making them cleaner.

    -- A Response --

    1. Yeah, good luck with this one. Here's exactly how this will go down. So, no consumer vehicles can be produced with a MPG below 35? Well, obviously there are trucks and equipment vehicles that will not be able to meet these standards, so by doing that we risk putting an entire part of our society out of buisness. Ah, but we'll allow vehicles that meet a "certain specification" to be designated "trucks" or something like that (does this sound familiar? It should). Oooh, wait, what's this? The auto industry begins to manufacture "trucks" for consumer use that match the neccessary requirements. Whoops, we're all still buying SUV's only now they're called something else and are somehow slightly different to correspond with the law now. This is the outcome, of course, if you can even GET legal action in this direction; the auto industry no doubt has a significant hold on our government. Oh, and if you feel that the above is an unlikely scenario, it's exactly what happened when legistlation along the same vein as you're talking about passed. Thus, Sports Utility Vehicles, classified as TRUCKS, were invented. Very successful, agreed?

    2. What? Why? What makes you so sure "ethanol" is the way to go? I'm not going into it here, but ethanol is not the wonder answer to our problems. I'd reconsider on that one; sort of heading in the right direction, maybe, but you're settling too quickly. Also, I personally don't think ethanol needs any government subsidizing; just, it's not worth it to the major energy companies. If they pick it up, it will do fine...but it's not the panacea to our energy issues, so they won't.

    3. How? Government investment? Ok...so just increase investment in "other" alternative energies? ...ok, thanks, very innovative.

    4. Again, very sweeping. Just international treaties, SUCH AS the kyoto protocol? Seems kind of casual remark. Maybe some more specific ones, and ones that will actually do some good...

    5. Yeah...ok, I guess. Easier said than done, man, much easier said than done. And will almost definitely temporarily rise energy prices...

    6. Ok, this one, I'm sorry, it's just retarded. I don't even know what you mean by this. Show people? What the hell does that mean? We going to bring every member of the american public into a back room and threaten to take the ol'base-ball bat to the knee-caps if they don't cut back on their energy use? Or are we actually going to pass some law? Of course, that wouldn't show, it'd dictate. Oh, maybe you mean government propaganda? That's some effective shit. Just look at health classes. Yeah, this one was just ridiculous.

    7. Alright...sure. I guess there's no real harm I can immedietly see in this one, except for the argument of preserving national land marks, forests, land in general, etc...although, I personally have never been too bothered by that when the return is no longer being dependent on foreign oil. I guess I'm neutral on this one.

    Yeah...little idealistic with no plan but definite "goals", although they are mostly impossible to achieve. You should probably consider running for president.

    Later.

    ReplyDelete