Allyson Cochrane
English 101, essay 4
Professor Bleck
11 August 2008

The Energy Crisis in Meltdown

We live in a runaway world in which scientific innovation outpaces procedures to control its possible negative impact. Technology has given us cars, plastics, solvents, and synthetics that are used every day. However, our reliance on the fossil fuels needed to create these things is causing significant damage to the environment and our wallets. The United States is the greatest per capita producer of greenhouse gases mainly caused by consumption of fossil fuels (Donatelle, 443). As a result, our nation is faced with an energy predicament that requires immediate attention. Some very difficult decisions regarding the short-term and long-term courses of action are needed to alleviate this economic turmoil. As this is an election year, these resolutions will be made by our future president and will affect many generations to come, both in America and around the world. In Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson's book, Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of [Disinformation], chapter eight, they declare we need to use "mental discipline" to be as certain as possible in researching and weighing claims, in this case by the presidential candidates and their energy platforms. Both the Democratic and Republican candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, respectively, have formulated plans to improve energy conditions, but only one is cautious and shows responsibility in assessing risks. Barack Obama has the wisdom and foresight to carefully lead this country out of the energy crisis.

Barack Obama's short-term fix for the energy crunch is four-fold, and gives a slight psychological boost to the average citizen as it is proactive and reduces doubt (Un-Spun, 156). First, Obama will legislate a windfall profits tax, paid for by the big oil companies' exorbitant profits, to provide a $1,000 energy rebate to families. Second, he plans to close loopholes in energy speculations and make the system more transparent to prevent traders from driving up excessive profits. Third, using the supply and demand theory, he plans to swap light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices at the gasoline stations and replace it with heavy crude later. Fourth, Obama further calls for conservation efforts and the exploration of solar and wind power (New Energy). Wind power is proven to be more cost effective and much greener in terms of impact on the environment. This plan could positively impact the attitudes of the American people and provide financial relief in lower gas prices. Additionally, oil companies are recording absurdly high profits as a result of unregulated futures trading on the stock market. These oil companies have done nothing to improve their product that would justify the rising gas prices. It is widely believed that traders are responsible for the gross increase of the price per barrel of oil, and reigning in their manipulation is only right as the excessive profits benefit the few and are to the significant detriment of a great many citizens.

Long-term, Barack Obama's plans call for new technologies and monetary incentives to reduce dependency on oil. Obama plans to increase the required fuel standards for new vehicles by four percent per year and provide $4 billion in loans and tax credits to United States automakers as an incentive to meet these new standards. He also plans to encourage the use of one hundred fifty mile per gallon cars that are built in the United States instead of overseas, and there would be a $7,000 rebate to consumers for purchasing these vehicles. Obama would require sixty billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased in by 2030, and he would require oil companies to drill on sixty-eight million acres of land, which are already leased, but on which the oil companies are not drilling (New Energy). This long-term plan seeks to invigorate the U.S. economy on numerous fronts. The design could possibly create thousands of new jobs in the automaker industry, monetary motivations both to the consumer and the automobile companies, and forces the oil companies to produce or give up their leases. The sixty-eight million acres has already been approved for drilling, yet these greedy oil companies are not drilling them to increase the demand by pinching the supply. With billions of dollars in profits each quarter, it borders on criminality to allow this undeveloped land to stagnate.

McCain's energy policy is similar to Obama's except in three main areas. McCain would not hold the oil companies accountable for their excessive profits (Hornick). The candidates are at opposing ends on offshore drilling and nuclear power. McCain has flip-flopped in his opposition to off shore drilling and now proposes to allow oil companies to immediately drill off of the Pacific coast, stating this would be a short-term fix for oil needs (Bacon). (There is currently a ban in place after the major oil spill off of California's coast in 1969.) This would provide the economy with more barrels of oil, increasing supply and lowering the price per gallon. McCain also proposes to build forty-five new nuclear power plants by 2030, with the eventual goal of building one hundred new plants. McCain states this is a clean form of energy because it does not emit greenhouse gases and is needed as the country shifts to electric cars (Lexington). The United States currently has one hundred four plants in operation that supply approximately twenty percent of the nation's energy needs (Bacon). Bringing on line another forty-five to one hundred plants would provide an additional nine to nineteen percent in energy output.

However, McCain's energy platform could have deadly consequences to the environment and economical conditions. Offshore drilling has a negative environmental impact on sea life. Also, according to the Department of Energy, the eighteen billion barrels of oil in these waters would not be a short-term benefit because it would not have an impact on oil prices until approximately 2030. There is a backlog of orders for offshore rigs dating to 2013 and a need to replace the old rigs currently in existence (Horsley). Even if the production of new rigs could be sped up to meet demands for new drilling, logically, drilling should start in areas already approved rather than in fragile eco-systems of the coastlines. Regarding nuclear power plants, again the cost to the environment and financial considerations are significant. Currently it costs $6 billion to $8 billion to build a reactor, which is four times the expenditure of building a similar sized coal plant (Hargreaves). Construction of a single plant takes eight to nine years to build (Jackson). Also, the cost per kilowatt-hour is seven cents versus coal and natural gas at six cents per kilowatt-hour (Hargreaves). The issue of safety is an additional concern to energy expenses. The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island and the disaster of Chernobyl should cause all citizens to carefully evaluate this form of energy. Although reactors are built surrounded by concrete barriers and a cooling pond, it took only 4.5 seconds for the temperature to increase enough to cause the massive explosion at Chernobyl. Initially, thirty workers were killed, but over one hundred thousand people later died of radiation sickness and radiation induced cancers. Costs were estimated at over $13 billion in lost property and replacement of the reactor (Donatelle, 451). The uranium used to power these reactors must be mined, which causes more pollutants and scarring of the Earth. McCain addresses the storage issue of radioactive waste by building a facility in the Yucca Mountain in Nevada (Jackson), but this plan is understandably opposed by people who live in that area. Who would want a nuclear reactor or waste storage facility in their backyard? In addition to the significant health risks, peoples' property would be devalued because it would become undesirable. Moreover, it is important to remember the leaks in the storage drums at Hanford that are currently making their way into the Columbia River or the leaks that France is experiencing to decide it is not a safe and viable option. Lastly, there is the very real vulnerability of a terrorist attack at these facilities that has the potential to cause massive destruction and loss of life (Hargreaves). Obama sums up the nuclear power issue by asserting caution to find safer ways to use this power and store the waste before implementing more plants (Jackson). This is the only logical approach to take in light of our inability to control and protect this force. Analogy can be made of McCain's proposed use of nuclear power to a "payday loan." Initially, both sound appealing, giving us a relatively quick fix to our energy deficit. However, the resulting "interest" owed will only compound our long-term debt as we deal with radioactive and mining waste and the threat of oil spills and nuclear accidents.

The reality of the energy crisis is that it is a colossal problem without any actual short-term answer. As a nation, we must start to take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy, decrease our detrimental environmental impact and shore up our economy. Both candidates running for president of the United States put forth legislation that would provide incentives for reducing oil consumption and invigorating new technologies for alternative energy sources. The difference between the two candidates comes down to the advancement of a moral climate of politics in which long-term ramifications to the environment are considered. McCain's proposal for immediate implementation of offshore drilling is not currently possible, and if somehow implemented would have serious consequences to the area. Further, if these forty-five nuclear power plants are put into operation, the potential of an immense disaster should be proof enough that we do not have the current technology to engage such power. It boils down to which candidate can cautiously and intelligently lead us away from our dependence on harmful forms of energy to a more sustainable long-term solution. Barack Obama is the one who can lead our country from the crisis we now face.

Works cited

Bacon, Perry, Jr., Michael D. Shear. "Obama Urges Opening Up Oil Reserves; Policy
Shift is His Second in a Week on Energy Issue; McCain Urges Immediate
Drilling." Washington Post, Washington, D.C. 5 August 2008. A.4. 8 August
2008.

Donatelle, Rebecca J. Health, The Basics. 7th ed. Pearson Education, Inc., San Francisco,
Ca. 2007.

Hargreaves, Steve. "McCain's Nuclear Plan: Doable, But Risky." CNN Money.com. 7
August 2008. 9 August 2008.

Hornick, Ed, Kerith McFadden and Alan Silverleib. "Obama, McCain Energy Plans."
CNN.com. 5 August 2008. 9 August 2008.

Horsley, Scott. "Obama, McCain Differ on Energy Policy." National Public Radio. 2
August 2008. 9 August 2008.

Jackson, Brooks and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Un-Spun: Finding Facts in a World of
[Disinformation] New York: Random House, Inc. 2007.

Jackson, David. "McCain, Obama Promote Nuclear Energy Plans." USA Today. 5
August 2008. 9 August 2008.
nuclear_N.htm>

"Lexington Project." John McCain 2008 - John McCain for President. 9 August 2008.
0ef1468e96f4.htm>

"New Energy for America." Obama for America. 9 August 2008.