America cannot afford to stay dependent upon fossil fuels. Subsidizing fossil fuels strangles our economy and harms future energy prospects, while burning them results in dangerous emissions that pollute our environment. Investing in a mixture of alternative sources like solar and wind power can provide cheaper, cleaner, and domestically-produced energy that promotes new American jobs and national environmental security. A diverse energy portfolio will bolster our economy and infrastructure in preparation for an uncertain future.
For all its great attributes, America has a serious problem: we are addicted to fossil fuels, and waste energy at a staggering rate. Our nation needs a clear energy plan going forward, and your administration has an opportunity to shape our future. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. used close to 20 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2016. America is responsible for nearly a quarter of worldwide oil consumption. Mr. President, you said you wanted to put America first. Why are we lagging behind in such a key category? You have an opportunity to make our nation a global leader in renewable energy sources and cutting-edge, sustainable infrastructure.
Regardless of your views on climate change, you must realize that our environment is being affected by humans. By burning fossil fuels, our transportation and energy sectors are emitting copious amounts of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, which collect in our atmosphere and trap heat. Effects of this warming range from severe drought and water depletion to natural ecosystem loss and more intense natural disasters. Drought will hit farmers in America’s heartland, while sea level rise will affect the lives of millions of Americans in coastal communities. As air quality suffers, our citizens have a greater risk of developing health issues. All of these effects will cost us money — this is not winning. If we make no effort to curb emissions, the global GDP will suffer a far worse fate than any short-term snags brought about by energy source changes.
It is true that our energy infrastructure, which influences the habits of American consumers, is heavily dependent upon fossil fuel use. That is how we have done things for the last century, and you may charge that a shift in our fuel source will throw the economy into a state of chaos. However, if the changes occur incrementally and with clear direction, Americans will be able to adapt and break their bad habits. Our attitude towards fuel needs to change, like what ecologist Garret Hardin illustrated in his famous “Tragedy of the Commons.” We can debate about technical solutions – finding new energy sources, adapting to climate change effects – but fully solving the problem requires a behavioral shift.
A logical first step to conquering our addiction is reducing fossil fuel subsidies. We pay upwards of $8 billion every year to keep fuel prices low for consumers. How is this a free market for energy? Mired in this fossil-fuel rut, we are willingly sabotaging the potential of alternative fuels. Cheap but dirty fuel is not American prosperity, but an energy prison. We are trapping ourselves in a vicious cycle that drains our finances and worsens our energy dependence. Only a few corporations benefit from this government backing; think of all the other, more practical uses for that money. Lower subsidies free up both the budget and the energy market, making room for emerging technologies.
Of course, a reduction in subsidies would need to occur gradually, so as not to have a drastic impact. But that should not discourage this process; our economy would thrive, not suffer, with the introduction of more alternative energy. This means more jobs will be created in these fields, research into better technologies will be undertaken, and the implementation of improved infrastructure will be hastened. Fuel and electricity prices will rise, sure, but the public will be spurred to take their own action. Tired of the status quo, they will demand a smarter way to fuel their transportation and power their homes and businesses. This is an indirect form of a “carbon tax” to reduce emissions, but does not require the legislation, regulation, and hassle that would come with such a measure.
As we make the switch to renewable energy, short-term investments in domestically-produced nuclear energy and natural gas could be sufficient alternatives to petroleum use. Natural gas emits about half the amount of carbon dioxide as does crude oil, somewhat of an improvement, although methods of harvesting can be detrimental to our planet. Nuclear energy, for all its safety concerns, would be best for our general energy needs as it takes advantage of current infrastructure and has less immediate emission threat. Transportation fuel requires us to get a bit more creative. I encourage you to explore areas like better fuel economy standards in American-produced cars and incentives for businesses and individuals to use cleaner transportation, such as hybrid or electric-powered.
With some of the money saved from subsidy cuts, households and businesses could be provided financial incentives to practice less wasteful energy consumption practices. Likewise, construction businesses can be incentivized to use more efficient building materials and appliances in new projects, along with alternative energy tie-ins like rooftop solar panels. These efforts will prod the behavioral change which makes the transition from fossil fuel dependence less difficult.
Reliance upon domestic fossil fuel is not a wise long-term solution, both economically and environmentally. As developed nations move away from fossil fuels, our aspirations to become a leading oil exporter take a hit. The future is not in fossil fuels; are we going to be left behind? By continuing to burn and subsidize these fuels, we are locking ourselves into an uncompetitive future. We will be tied to vulnerable and soon-to-be outdated infrastructure. Cutting our fossil-fuel dependence creates an opening for new infrastructure to be constructed.
Your administration’s commitment to American coal is admirable, but is a barrier to this infrastructure growth. While the dwindling coal industry employs about 75,000 people, it does not compare to the emerging clean energy sector, which employs hundreds of thousands and is poised for explosive growth. Additionally, emissions from coal burning are harming our environment. “Clean” coal does not come easy, as carbon dioxide scrubbing apparatuses are expensive to install and more trouble than they are worth; they are problematic, and coal companies do not like the increased regulation. Scrubbers are even more expensive to retrofit in older coal-fired power plants. Are we prepared to make such a heavy investment into the dirty habits of the past? A wiser and more cost-effective option is to bank on green energy.
A common argument against green energy sources like solar and wind power invokes their perceived unreliability and high startup costs. We are developing new technology that allows us to store increased amounts of energy, rendering worries about cloudy or windless days unimportant. Although initial capital costs for alternative energy projects can be high, the benefits are tremendous. Maintenance costs and risk of failure are low compared to traditional coal-fired power plants.
We do not need to put all our financial backing towards one “correct” solution. Providing a level playing field to groundbreaking private companies in these fields will be America’s energy salvation. Think of all the free-market completion that will result in smarter technology and more natural cost-saving options for American consumers. Above all, a switch to green energy will lower harmful greenhouse gas emissions and we can begin to reverse the disastrous effects of climate change. Ignoring this problem puts Americans at risk of losing their livelihoods, their health, and their hard-earned money.
Mr. President, we can be the nation to step up and proactively fight what is quickly becoming an energy crisis. Our energy portfolio will be diversified, our economy and infrastructure will be stronger, and our environment will be healthier — that sounds pretty great for America.