Those in favor cite global warming and the environment and push for alternative fuel sources to reduce emissions. They also say that oil makes us dependent on other countries, and is a limited resource.
Those against alternative energies claim that the alternative energies available are not nearly advanced enough to replace oil entirely and that any pollution reduced from emissions is only transfered to another place. Switching to electric cars will only cause coal plants to emit just as much pollution (if not more) as what was saved. There are also a few who say the environment is a non-issue.
The audience is complicated. There are consumers who wish to have the product that will save them the most money, and may have an inkling thought about the environment. Then, there are producers who wish to make the most money possible. (Oil companies purging every last dollar, or car companies exploiting trends.)
It's hard to talk to the companies; they have one tracked minds. My audience would be the consumers. The population is also the ultimate decision maker, so appealing to the voting body would get me the best results.
If I wanted to push for mandated alternative energy, I would talk mostly about the importance of energy independence. I'd demonize OPEC and deals they make with car companies and reveal how much control oil producing countries can possibly exert over our nation (cite prior gas shortages, etc.) Until greater technologies emerge, the environmental angle may be touching, but in the long run illogical because mandated alternative energies do not benefit the environment at this point in time.
If I was apposed, I would exploit the inefficiencies of every possible alternative and glorify our current system.
I like what you are saying about overlooked costs of alternative energy. For example corn for biofuels has depleted otherwise arable land of nutrients. Also soybean and palm harvesting have led to massive deforestation in the rain forests.
ReplyDeleteI find it frustrating how ignorant people are about energy. Energy is energy, there are going to be detrimental effects regardless of where you get it, and burning goop that sits in natural holding tanks underground certainly isn't the worst source.
ReplyDeletelarge scale practicality is one of the largest issues I can see. Switching an entire country over to another source of fuel is a lot more complicated then just counting the price per units (dollars per gallons, cents per kilowatt). Take natural gas for example. It is currently at around 75 cents per "gallon." This leads some people to champion it as the ultimate solution. However that 75 cents price will change when the demand multiplies several thousand fold. Not to mention the cost of replacing 120,000+ gas station with the new infrastructure. Things usually don't scale up with out these additional consequences.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your argument and like your ideas and your plans. It is all too true that people do not understand what is happening in the world regarding energy and energy consumption. So it is that I feel strongly about informing the ignorant, to an extent, so that they can feel like they can comprehend why people are so argumentative when it comes to energy and its uses in the world today.
ReplyDelete