About that "Energy Independence" President Carter...

Atlantic Monthly by Lisa Margonelli | May. 16, 2009 (Opinion)

Energy Independence is a political term, but not a reality. The US has 3 percent of the worlds' oil reserves, and we use 24 percent of world's production with just 4-5 percent of the population. We've been committed to an industrial policy and a foreign policy built around oil imports since the 1930's, though we didn't really get into the soup until Roosevelt struck the Big Deal with Saudi Arabia in the early 1940's. Alternative sources of energy currently ... Full Story »

Posted by Derek Hawkins

See All Reviews »

View

2.2

by Kim C. Maynard - May. 16, 2009

This article is confusing. I don't understand the gist of it, where it's coming from and where it's going. And what does: "the economic and environmental hassles and costs we may have avoided--by being energy dependent" mean. What economic and environmental hassles? While it may not be possible for the U.S. to become "energy independent," it certainly wouldn't hurt to raise that as a goal. We could start by looking at what we can do, cutting our use through conservation, different lighting, monitoring usage, insulation, education to help people on the local level, and then examine where the majority of our energy usage is and work on that. This article vague and scattered, and if there is a point to be made, it wasn't..

We need to push mass transit, create car free zones, move energy production closer to where it is used and localize as much as possible. So much of alternative energy concepts still focus on wind or solar farms far away from where the energy is used. This may keep the energy companies in the loop, but isn't efficient. Solar panels on homes and gyms and corporate roofs, wind generators on top of buildings, passive solar built into new construction, banning energy wasting lights, higher CAFE standards, all these things can be productive.