Goal Statement

• To analyze why U.S. energy dependence is a problem, look at the history of this problem, evaluate possible solutions to this problem, and analyze the problem from a sociological perspective.

Policy/Program Options

A. Increase domestic oil production.

• Drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve
  • Pro
    • Increases the diversity of supply
    • Decreases foreign dependence
  • Con
    • Damage to public lands
    • May not have significant yields
• Offshore drilling
  • Pro
    • Currently 30% of U.S. oil and 20-25% of U.S. natural gas come from offshore drilling^[1].
    • The 2005 Energy Policy Act requires an inventory of offshore resources, and energy companies think that there is much more oil available offshore than is currently being tapped.^[2]
    • Offshore oil was responsible for only 2% of spills leaked into North American Waters in 2006.^[3]
  • Con
    • 60% of offshore oil reserves are in areas already open for drilling, so expansion isn't necessary.^[4]
    • Offshore drilling requires more onshore infrastructure.

B. Use alternative energy sources.

• Nuclear
  • Pro
    • Clean
    • Domestic
  • Con
    • Waste disposal
    • Terrorist target
    • NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiment
• Hydrogen
  • Pro
    • Clean
    • Abundant sources
  • Con
    • Prohibitive start-up costs
    • Little short-term benefit because of the time and cost necessary to create necessary infrastructure.
• Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, etc.
  • Pro
    • Clean
    • Renewable
  • Con
    • Not widely use because they're expensive or can't create enough energy

C. Increase Efficiency.

• CAFE standards
  • Pro
    • 68% of oil consumed in the U.S. is for transportation, so even small increases in average fuel economy will have a huge effect^[5]
  • Con
    • One argument sees the auto industry as the scapegoat for an inefficient nation. By this reasoning, even though consumers demand large, inefficient cars, the auto industry is penalized with hard-to-meet efficiency standards that will result in products that consumers do not want: smaller, less safe cars.^[6]
• Raise gasoline tax
  • Pro
    • Will force the market to demand more efficient products
  • Con
    • May cause a recession. Demand for gasoline has proven itself to be very inelastic, meaning that people will continue to buy it even if its price increases. If consumers continue to buy the same amount of a more expensive product, they will have less to spend on other goods, thus triggering a slowdown in the economy and a possible recession.
• General efficiency standards
  • Pro
    • There is currently much that could be done to increase the efficiency of buildings and appliances that is not being done
    • The Alliance to Save Energy estimates a 30% increase in efficiency for buildings is possible using only available, affordable technology^[7]
  • Con
    • Start-up costs and the length of time that it would take for those costs to be recovered by increased efficiency.
    • Builders don't have an incentive to spend money on a more expensive, yet more efficient, construction, because the benefits will be reaped by the buyer. 

Issue Briefs (local, state, national, global)

Glossary of Terms

• CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy
• API: American Petroleum Institute
• EIA: Energy Information Association 

Bibliography