Essay 2

[DanielaD]

The negative effects of America's current dependence on foreign
nations for oil and the existing dangers this dependence entails for
the future of this country is widely accepted among writers,
government officials, and the media. There are a wide array of
proposed solutions to this dependency to improve America's future
success, but very few of them completely put aside the selfish hunger
for money and comfort in familiar consumerism to come up with the best
possible solution for the long run. In addition, many of them have
consequences that may seem suitable for halting oil dependency but
fall short in one aspect or another. In his 2009 Limits of Power,
Andrew J. Bacevich analyzes the concept of America's foreign oil
dependency and deems it a hazard to any hope of a stable and self-
sustaining future America, while also advocating alternative energy
sources and considerable surrendering of comfort to regain and retain
economic and environmental stability in the U.S. The National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) also agrees it is imperative that the
U.S. begin relying less heavily on foreign oil and suggests several
solutions that will help (2008, July. Fighting oil addiction.
www.nrdc.org/policy. Natural Resources Defense Council). Also
concerned is Robert Morley, who believes that Iceland's efforts to "go
green" should serve as a model and inspiration for how America can go
about both reducing its dependency on foreign oil and conserving the
environment (2008, April 1. Real-world solutions to foreign oil
dependence. http://www.thetrumpet.com. The Trumpet). The U.S. House of
Representatives also has its share of recommended solutions for
America's oil dependency crisis: Representative Michele Bachmann's
Emergency Energy Cut the Red Tape Now Act of 2009 (March 31. US House
of Representatives) and Representative Eliot L. Engel's Oil Savings
Act of 2009 (May 7. US House of Representatives), however these fall
short of ever realistically weaning America off of its addiction to
oil. The only way America will ever eliminate its dependence on
foreign oil is to pull itself out of immediate wars pertaining to the
oil crisis and begin reorganizing the nation's priorities in regard to
cleaner energy sources, a solution supported by Andrew J. Bacevich,
Robert Morley, and the NRDC.
The first place America should start in its quest to rid itself of
dependency on foreign oil is in its association with the nations that
are home to presently sought-after oil. Currently, America is engaged
in seemingly endless wars with both Iraq and Afghanistan. In both
instances, there should not even be occupation by the U.S. military;
in Iraq, there are no weapons of mass destruction, which was the
original reason for invading the country, and if Al-Qaeda, the
terrorist organization in Afghanistan, is a known threat to America's
safety, our military should be spending its time defending the U.S.
from within its borders. By actively fighting in Afghanistan, the U.S.
military is on the offensive, not the defensive. What started out as
wars to ensure America's safety quickly became an opportunity for the
U.S. to force its ideals and political beliefs upon foreign countries,
while simultaneously guaranteeing easy access to foreign oil using
violence. In Limits of Power, Andrew J. Bacevich agrees that
"Americans ought to give up the presumptuous notion that they are
called upon to tutor Muslims...Let Islam be Islam...Muslims will have
to discover for themselves the shortcomings of political
Islam...perhaps as we will one day begin to recognize the snares
embedded in American exceptionalism." (177) American occupation in
the Middle East must end, and although this may mean temporary turmoil
in those countries that were hardest hit, the U.S. must realize that
they, too, have beliefs of how a country should be managed, and will
succeed in building themselves back up by whatever means possible with
whatever leadership available.
In addition to pulling out of unnecessary wars and affiliations with
foreign countries for easy access to cheap oil, America must sort out
priorities within its own borders in regard to making the switch from
oil dependence to clean energy alternatives. In 2010, the U.S.
government expects to spend about $130 billion more dollars on the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2009. Cost of war. http://www.nationalpriorities.org.
National Priorities Project). However, a much better use of this money
would be investing it in the research and planning of alternative
energy sources within the U.S. The NRDC suggests several ways in which
each state can work to promote alternative energy sources and help to
curb oil dependence. One of these ways is to encourage people to
purchase energy efficient vehicles, and also to place restrictions on
the amount of pollutants new cars can produce. The U.S. could also use
some of that $130 billion to promote the production and use of
biofuels from nonfood sources to provide a clean alternative to oil,
or even to expand on the public transportation already available in
order to create state-of-the-art transportation methods in order to
promote alternatives to driving. Lastly, the money could be put into
the research and development of clean energy sources and vehicles for
the future. By combining the strategies of both Andrew J. Bacevich and
the NRDC, America would set itself up for an increasingly efficient
and self-sustaining future.
Robert Morley's strategy to reduce dependence on oil is very
inspirational, but, for the most part, just not realistic for America.
He believes that America should take a hint from Iceland's success in
becoming a country that relies primarily on clean energy sources
rather than oil. In Iceland, there are geothermal vents underground
that can be used to generate electricity to heat homes and offices,
which throws out the need for oil to generate heat. However, the U.S.
doesn't have plentiful underground geothermal vents full of hot water
just waiting to be used to create electricity, so Morley's suggestions
are actually just a pipe dream that many American environmentalists
wish was an option. However, Morley does make one point regarding
Iceland's efforts to go green: hydrogen fuel. Since 2008, Iceland's
huge fishing fleet has been in transition from one that runs on fuel
from oil to a clean fleet that runs on hydrogen fuel. This fuel uses
hydrogen cells to produce energy and releases only water vapor. It
could be a huge breakthrough if America were to invest money in
research on hydrogen fuel and ways to incorporate it into everyday
life. Presently, there is not technology advanced enough to extract
hydrogen cells from water without using large amounts of energy, but
with enough future effort, patience and optimism, this could
definitely be reversed, and hydrogen fuel could be produced using
little energy to make for a thoroughly clean energy source. Even so,
research such as this should be saved for the future. There are many
other ways that the U.S. can ween itself from oil dependence that are
much more immediately effectual, which is what America really needs at
present.
Unfortunately, it is America's own government that has come up with
some of the most ineffective methods for reversing oil dependence. Not
surprisingly, these methods are mostly centered around money and the
refusal to give up any amount of comfort in the effort to change the
nation. The first of these methods is the Oil Savings Act of 2009,
proposed by Eliot L. Engel of the U.S. House of Representatives. The
act aims to cut down how much oil the U.S. purchases from foreign
countries by a certain amount every year. While this may seem
effectual on the surface, the method is actually nothing more than a
distraction. At the moment, in America, there are no highly adequate
forms of fuel that could replace all the fuel that would be lost due
to the government buying less. The U.S. population is expanding, and
that only means that this country will need more oil in the future if
an alternative is not reached. The government should be focusing on
clean, renewable energy production in order to replace the fuel that
would be lost by relying less heavily on foreign countries for oil.
Only once a steady alternative is produced will America then be able
to begin purchasing less oil. The second method proposed by the
government is the Emergency Energy Cut the Red Tape Now Act of 2009
proposed by U.S. House Representative Michele Bachmann. This bill
claims that America can kick the addiction to foreign oil by opening
up federally protected land that harbors oil to build new refineries.
Bachmann's method is absolutely ludicrous for two reasons. One,
building oil refineries on federally protected land would destroy
thousands of wildlife habitats, and two, this method may decrease our
dependence on foreign oil, but it still harbors the dependence on oil
in general. The main goal of the government, once again, should be
eliminating the need for oil all together and focusing on clean
energy. Until the government realizes that there needs to be a change
in America's priorities and a certain surrender of comfort in order to
make the necessary transition to a cleaner future, congressional bills
will do nothing more than nurture the same ideals that drove this
country to the current point of distress and anxiety.


References

Bacevich, Andrew J. (2009). The limits of power: The end of American
exceptionalism. New York: Holt.

Bachmann, Michele. (2009, March 31). Emergency Energy Cut the Red Tape
Now Act of 2009. US House of
Representatives.

(2009). Cost of war. Retrieved from http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home.
National Priorities Project.

Engel, Eliot L. (2009, May 7). Oil Savings Act of 2009. US House of
Representatives.

(2008, July). Fighting oil addiction. Retrieved from
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/states/fstates.pdf. Natural
Resources
Defense Council.

Morley, Robert. (2008, April 1). Real-world solutions to foreign oil
dependence.
Retrieved from http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4991.3264.0.0.
Philadelphia Church of God.