My brother, O.J., I appreciate you posing the question. I’ve recently been lamenting my own personal and professional circumstances, as I contemplate my next move. So, I’ve not followed the oil spill, or news, in general, as closely as I normally do. First, allow me to say that, regardless of one’s politics, the oil spill is a tragedy. Eleven men lost their lives, and that is heart-breaking.
In considering the oil spill, I think it is clear that there is sufficient blame to go around: to include the current administration, to whom I continue to lend my support. In assigning blame following crises, however, we often take solace in merely pointing fingers, rather than owning the need for systemic change. Sure, there are individuals at British Petroleum, at the United States Marine Mineral Agency (or whatever the entity is called that is responsible for doling out permits, while in bed with the oil industry), and scores of other organizations at whom we can cast aspersions and demand change. Improving operating safety and efficiency, however, are band-aids trying to heal a gash that requires not only heavy-duty stitching, but, with increasing urgency, a transplant.
Regardless of one’s views on climate change (I’m not a scientist, and I’m no longer going to try to defend something that exceeds my expertise. I continue to hold that sufficient international scientific consensus exists to require urgent action), I strongly feel that our nation must undertake a comprehensive effort to radically change our energy portfolio. First, fossil fuels are a finite source. Even at two or three hundred years’ supply, what next? Dinosaurs just aren’t dying off and decomposing like they used to. And, as Americans stubbornly cling to diminishing sources, the Chinese are rapidly investing in solar, high-speed rail, and other renewable fuel technologies. The Chinese and others will likely reach scale on these technologies before we make any serious effort to compete. We will then be more at China’s economic mercy more then even at present.
The only viable argument that I see for continuing with our current energy portfolio is that our sources are cheap and abundant. Fair enough, we may have abundant domestic coal; but, we continue to rely largely on oil reserves from hostile regimes, whose ascendence we continue to underwrite.
I could continue to rant the same old talking points, but I believe them. Also, while I think our country is at a place that requires some tough decisions, I believe that we can turn these challenges into opportunities. But, while the current anti-incumbent sentiment is probably a good start toward abolishing the status quo, I fear that things will have to continue to get worse before they get better. We need to redefine our enemies. We should not first define ourselves as democrats versus republicans, but Americans. Our country’s boat is quickly taking on water, and, at some point, we have to stop fighting each other and start working together to stay afloat.
I know I’m rambling here. Just frustrated.
June 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm |
i appreciate you sharing that. i agree with 100% of your post and as this tragic event continues, i’m simply ashamed that we still rely on fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. i’ve heard the president say that he will find the votes needed to reform our energy policies. how practical is energy reform? seems to me that this topic, like most other political issues are influenced by revenue, above all else. we can no longer afford to let govenment function in this manner. too much is at stake. for gods sake, our habitat is at risk. what is more important than having a healthy planet? imo, this is priority one. this trumps the economic challenges, foreign conflicts, health care, etc. do you disagree? hope you’ll continue contributing thoughts to this forum…