WordPress
A Bright, Clean Future
There is a way energy independence can be achieved in the United States while reducing the amount of fossil fuels. Don Willmott of the Huffington Post writes in his article “From Sea to Shining Sea, Sustainably” that the United States has the ability to replace fossil fuel energy with clean, renewable energy within the next 35 years (Willmott). Willmott claims that these technologies are not far off in the future, but exist today, and it is political, social and industrial resistance that keeps them from being introduced and incorporated among fossil fuel production, let alone replace it (Willmott).
The continuation of the Dakota Access Pipeline would not only further the amount of fossil fuels used up in our country, but also halt the progress that could ultimately lead to a cleaner and healthier environment. MIT students concluded that the average American’s current rate of fossil fuel use in the United States emits more than double the amount of carbon than anyone in the rest of the world. Americans consume so much oil that there will be a huge amount of responsibility on the United States for the worsening state of the environment, and that alone could potentially cause more resentment among foreign leaders than the resentment for investing in oil in the Middle East.
By limiting consumption to the “vast” supply of oil and coal underneath domestic soil, American industry is not thinking about the future in terms of energy efficiency and usage. Dale Hansen, a political writer at Huffington Post explains how the United States has a great potential to create change in global energy usage in his article, “U.S. Dominance Is the True Renewable Energy Incentive” (Hansen). He explains how if the “American ingenuity” used in the Space Race, which took up $157 billion taxpayer dollars, was applied to a race to elimination of fossil fuels, the United States would probably be on track to reduce the global impact of humans on the environment (1). The Space Race funding was justified by the government because it was “seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of technological and ideological superiority.” (Hansen). If the United States applied that same logic to energy usage, the Dakota Access Pipeline might be viewed as an outdated and even dirty form of technology. If the United States has this incredible power to make change, the government should be taking advantage of it for the progress of global environmental health, and use influence as a dominant leader in innovation for good.
Finally, the Dakota Access Pipeline not only stands in the way of clean, renewable energy innovation, but also the health in the relationship between Native Americans and the United States government. As indigenous peoples are already disproportionately affected by climate change, the rerouting of the pipeline demonstrates the value the government places on Native Americans, and furthering the construction will only further the frustrations of a people that established their presence long before this nation was founded. With consideration of these long term historical and environmental damages, the risks for the above mentioned claims outweigh the benefits of installing the Dakota Access Pipeline. The risks are not only detrimental to the physical health of our planet, but determine the role the United States will play in the future, as an environmental and social menace, or an innovative leader.
The continuation of the Dakota Access Pipeline would not only further the amount of fossil fuels used up in our country, but also halt the progress that could ultimately lead to a cleaner and healthier environment. MIT students concluded that the average American’s current rate of fossil fuel use in the United States emits more than double the amount of carbon than anyone in the rest of the world. Americans consume so much oil that there will be a huge amount of responsibility on the United States for the worsening state of the environment, and that alone could potentially cause more resentment among foreign leaders than the resentment for investing in oil in the Middle East.
By limiting consumption to the “vast” supply of oil and coal underneath domestic soil, American industry is not thinking about the future in terms of energy efficiency and usage. Dale Hansen, a political writer at Huffington Post explains how the United States has a great potential to create change in global energy usage in his article, “U.S. Dominance Is the True Renewable Energy Incentive” (Hansen). He explains how if the “American ingenuity” used in the Space Race, which took up $157 billion taxpayer dollars, was applied to a race to elimination of fossil fuels, the United States would probably be on track to reduce the global impact of humans on the environment (1). The Space Race funding was justified by the government because it was “seen as necessary for national security and symbolic of technological and ideological superiority.” (Hansen). If the United States applied that same logic to energy usage, the Dakota Access Pipeline might be viewed as an outdated and even dirty form of technology. If the United States has this incredible power to make change, the government should be taking advantage of it for the progress of global environmental health, and use influence as a dominant leader in innovation for good.
Finally, the Dakota Access Pipeline not only stands in the way of clean, renewable energy innovation, but also the health in the relationship between Native Americans and the United States government. As indigenous peoples are already disproportionately affected by climate change, the rerouting of the pipeline demonstrates the value the government places on Native Americans, and furthering the construction will only further the frustrations of a people that established their presence long before this nation was founded. With consideration of these long term historical and environmental damages, the risks for the above mentioned claims outweigh the benefits of installing the Dakota Access Pipeline. The risks are not only detrimental to the physical health of our planet, but determine the role the United States will play in the future, as an environmental and social menace, or an innovative leader.
Maya Johnston