there are three choices.Tick the one that best reflects how you feel about the matter:
1-The United States should immediately stop using oil, and find alternatives.
2-The oil industry should be highly taxed and the government should reinstate tax incentives, encouraging the purchase of hybrid vehicles to reduce oil dependency.
3-Protecting U.S. oil interests in the Middle East is best for its economy.
7 Answers | Add Yours
While I do not like any of these options, I would have to say that option two is the best out of the three. I agree with post #5 that we should tax things like carbon emissions and other non-renewable resource use. As new technologies like solar panels become less and less expensive, we need to give people an incentive to switch to newer, cleaner technologies. I don't think the hybrid car fits into that category. While it is a step in the right direction, I don't think it is a big enough step to warrant huge tax breaks. Companies using non-renewable resources and generating carbon emissions are getting tax breaks still. These tax breaks need to be removed and given to companies that are using greener, renewable resources instead.
I too don't think any of the options are the only answer, but perhaps you could rank order them. For now, the US needs to do #3 -- we are currently reliant on foreign oil, but in order to reduce that dependency we could move to some sort of version of #2 where we find incentives for businesses to move us away from those fuel types, and ultimately -- many years from now -- we are at #1 and have found safer, more efficient, more renewable, alternatives to oil and coal.
I agree with those who claim that none of these options is especially attractive, and the first one is completely impractical. It's interesting that whoever gave you these alternatives did not give you some others, such as rapidly increasing domestic production, thus reducing reliance on foreign imports, and moving as rapidly as possible under those circumstances to find alternatives to fossil fuels altogether. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the option I've just mentioned, it is certainly one that is advocated by many and should therefore probably have been included in your list of choices (unless there is some logic to its exclusion that I'm not aware of).
As with the other posts, I don't think any of these is the answer. I think I'd go with a modified #2. I would drop the word "highly" and I think I would drop the part about hybrid vehicles. Instead, I think we need a carbon tax and then we should get out of the way of business and let it figure out how to reduce emissions. The carbon tax would make it worth business's while to reduce emissions and they would figure out the best way to go about it.
I agree with the other posts - none of the given choices is very realistic, in my opinion. I do everything I can to limit my consumption of fossil fuels and I find the increasing numbers of wind generators scattered throughout the countryside a good thing rather than being visual pollution. Hybrid vehicles should be supported and encouraged but the infrastructure to support large numbers of them is not in place at this time. As alternatives are developed and put in place, we can't simply shut down industries and transportation services using old energy sources.
I can't get behind any of these. We have oil potential in the U.S. that isn't being utilized, high taxes make higher consumer costs, and we should have stopped buying oil from outside years back.
However, if I had to choose, I'd go with #1, but it's just too unclear a question. Which alternatives? How do we swap our energy infrastructure overnight? Can we really rely on wind and solar power, which are still vastly inefficient compared to oil and coal? There needs to be a definitive solution to our energy problems.
(My opinion: safe nuclear fission using Thorium as a source. A reactor powered by Thorium cannot melt down and it is much safer than other reactants. Plus, we can switch the current coal industry over to mining Thorium, of which we have enough in the U.S. alone to run our energy needs for the next hundred years.)
I think it is unrealistic to do any of these. We cannot just stop using oil. We can't heavily tax oil, because too many people depend on it. If all we do is protect the oil interests overseas, we are enslaved to them and oil, and it's a very unstable region of the world.
We’ve answered 318,915 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question