GOP Wants America To Continue With Fossil Fuels As Major Source of Energy
GOP Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, has said that the United States must tap all oil and coal resources available domestically for energy production as relying on renewable sources will not fulfill the energy needs of the country.
Noting that there are vast untapped reserves of oil in coastal areas as well as the Outer Continental Shelf, the Senator said that if the goal of energy independence is to be achieved these resources along with clean coal technology and nuclear power must be used. While pointing to domestic oil fields he said there was enough oil to quench the demand.
“There’s enough oil shale in the Rocky Mountain West alone to power America for the next hundred years. As a nation, we need to be more energy independent. It is a matter of energy security, as well as national security.”
Even if the United States replaces all its foreign oil supplies with domestic supplies how will it tackle the problem of increased carbon emissions as the country would comfortably fall back on the cushion of ‘energy independence’ and would become even more addicted to oil. The price of cutting carbon emissions after that would be too high and would be comparable to, if not greater than, the price America pays to import oil.
The Senator also pointed out that since the renewable energy sources contribute only one percent to the entire energy basket the emphasis must continue to be on oil and nuclear energy. Here are some tough questions for the Senator: Why shouldn’t renewable sources be developed at a faster pace? Why shouldn’t there be aggressive investment in developing affordable and sustainable renewable energy? Why shouldn’t America try to increase the contribution of renewable energy in total energy production?
United States is the second largest greenhouse gas producer in the world, in addition, it has the historical responsibility to cut it carbon emissions and switch to cleaner energy sources much more aggressively. It refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which would have required it to reduce its carbon emissions by a minimum of 5 percent and it remains the only major industrialized nations not to agree to the protocol’s terms. Now, when the world stands at a crucial juncture with countries, especially China, willing to cooperate on the next climate treaty a move by the United States to move back to fossil fuels instead of switching to renewable energy would be disastrous.
In addition, returning to fossil fuels would set a wrong precedent for rest of the world which is looking for leadership from the United States in renewable energy investments. All the hard work done in convincing the Chinese to limit their industrial carbon emissions would be lost to such careless policy shifts, if they are undertaken in the US Congress.
The Senator’s remarks only contradict the scientific studies which found out that renewable sources can easily fulfill all power needs of the United States. The Department of Interior released a report according to which wind energy could meet 100 percent US electricity supply. According to an Ernst & Young report, United States took over Germany in becoming the most attractive market for renewable energy investment.
With so much potential to tap and substantial amounts of credit waiting to enter the renewable energy sector, it would be unfortunate, environmentally and economically, to switch back to fossil fuels. American policy makers must understand that energy independence does not only meet independence from strategic claws that America often finds itself in leading it to use its armed forces to secure energy resources but also independence from greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide which has been declared a health hazard.
Recession and the improved negotiations scenario with respect to the next climate treaty is a chance to move forward and adopt technologies that result in improvements in economic as well as environmental conditions and thus policy makers must carry on and accelerate on the path to build a country and an economy based around renewable energy sources.
Image: biggunben (Creative Commons)
Another article more interested in attacking the GOP than in preserving the environment or the US. Just a couple of points come to mind in reading. It is quite a leap from Sen. Barrasso making a realistic assesment of the energy picture, to the authors assertion that he wants the US to continue with fossil fuels as a major fuel source. I can make a similiar leap and from the authors opposition to the senator say that the author wants the US to continue with hostile foreign supplied fossil fuel as a major fuel source. Developing fossil fuel at home instead of abroad does not change ones desire to leave fossil fuels behind as soon as it can be done without destroying american prosperity. I can answer the questions “tough” questions Mr. Chadha woul ask Sen. Barrasso.
Q - Why shouldn’t renewable sources be developed at a faster pace?
A - They should be, However, with current technology it is cost prohibitive to scale up to a point where we shouldn;t develop other domestic energy as well. Americans simply cannot afford increased cost for energy of thousands of dollars a year per family that going fully renewable today would cost. Even if cost was no object, the time lag when it would be physically possible to impliment neccitates a need for more fossil fuels as bridge.
Q- Why shouldn’t there be aggressive investment in developing affordable and sustainable renewable energy?
A - There is agressive investiment in affordable and sustainable renewables. Much of the most effective developement has been done in the private sector, while the government has support losers like corn ethanol and hydrogen with big tax dollars. Lifting the regulation that currently stops America from effectively utilizing its own oil and gas would no way reduce investement in alternatives. In fact revenue generated from royalties could improve the governments fiscal situation allowing more support of renewable R&D.
Q - Why shouldn’t America try to increase the contribution of renewable energy in total energy production?
A - It should and is. However, even if the 20% and 30% growth rates of renewables we have seen over the past eight years continue it will be a fairly long time before they can contribute enough to the overall energy picture to negate the need for fossil fuels.
Let’s try work on solutions instead of twisting statements into things that they are not for cheap political gain.
Thanks for your interest.
The United States will have to undertake the transition to renewable energy sources at a much larger scale since it will have to reduce its carbon emissions under the next climate treaty.
I agree that fossil fuels will be the major source of energy for few decades but that does not mean that we ignore the potential of renewable sources. Wind and tidal energy have the potential of fulfilling 100% energy needs of the nation.
The President has no choice but to take some bold decisions since he recognizes America’s historical responsibility as far as generation of carbon emissions is concerned, that answers whether American people can afford the bold measures or not.
We must invest in improving the power grid since wind and solar energy is the future and we need to ready our power grids for the future. Investing in improving the power grids would also generate jobs, that’s why it is important to take act now.
Replacing the imported oil with domestic oil will not solve anything. It is only a short term measure with possible grave environment consequences. The thrust in renewable energy sector is required now, the environment demands it and so does the economy.
[...] a major part of the state economy are hesitant in giving their support to a bill which, to them, seems biased in favor of renewable energy. The there is the issue of biofuels. The Obama administration has clearly stated that biofuels will [...]