Energy Independence
is a Environment centric issueEnergy Independence suffers from poor marketing
Forums > Energy Independence suffers from poor marketing
Energy Independence suffers from poor marketing
The Movement for Energy Independence suffers from tragically poor marketing here in the U.S. How a Country as wealthy and as intelligent as we're supposed to be allows itself to be anything less than fully in charge of it's energy production is beyond me. This issue is typically put into the "tree-hugger" category. And if one is not or does not buy into the Global Warming issues (separate topic not to be discussed here) then they poo-poo the Energy Independence Movement. The fact is, the FACT is, that no nation can consider itself truly strong and secure from any perspective when it is so dependent on others (as we are in this regard)? Consider all that hangs in the balance.
First, Economic Security. Energy production allows, or in it's absence denies, the continued growth and expansion of any society. How do we expect continued growth of jobs and financial opportunity for our citizenry if we can not assure ourselves of access to consistent, effective energy sources? We sit on tremendous resources for Solar, Wind, Geothermal, etc. production. But they go untapped.
Foreign and Defense Policy. Imagine a state of the world in which the U.S. (and other major world powers, but the U.S. specifically in this case) becomes involved in World Affairs based upon higher calling more moral non-oil issues. The position of strength would be unprecedented. Imagine a position of strength such as this when the U.S. does not lose sons and daughters for corporate, business, resource pursuits. This could allow a reduction in overall Defense spending. Perhaps freeing up capital for Health -care and Education, etc. If suddenly our need for foreign oil dropped by 5%-10%-20%-100% funds/profits that now go to extreme radical terror investing regimes around the world dries up and/or diminishes greatly. How, how, how is this not obvious to more people. How does a National outcry for Energy Independence not exist and ring out each and every day???
Jobs/Labor Policy. Job creation. As new Energy Sources are pursued and invested in, new job and business opportunities will and do present themselves. This can help to offset the loss of other jobs in the manufacturing segment of our marketplace. As many new Energy options are more local in nature they require localized install, maintenance, service and support resources. These are all job opportunities. In addition, R&D and manufacturing jobs are created. Again as new Energy Sources are more distributed maintaining local (U.S. based) manufacturing facilities can make strong business sense and can help stem the tide of overseas job losses in this business sector.
Foreign Aid - How much Foreign Aid do we provide to Countries based upon tactical needs versus strategic importance? And as importantly how much Aid do we provide to Countries based upon the influence of Business Interests versus the need or hope to help the people of the Country in question? In this Country we tout Welfare reform (Back to Work policies) yet we have no similar expectations or approach to Foreign Aid. If rather than Energy Resource needs we provided Aid to Countries: A) that truly need it due to some environmental catastrophe or some other challenge they face or B) to help them as a result of some humanitarian wrong they suffer at the hand of others or C) to help lift that Country up beyond the resources they may have on hand geographically. This would eliminate the lining of pockets that we do to horrible despots and dictators.
When will we wake up as a Nation? When will the cry go out as it did for a man on the moon? When will a Leader of National prominence take action and lead the rally for Energy Independence and lead this Nation to a higher place and a higher stance than it's ever been?
I think a better approach to getting people on board to the idea of 'energy independence' is by promoting the environmental aspect of curbing oil consumption.
We aren't completely secure because we aren't completely independent. Even if we achieved energy independence, we are still apart of a web of global interdependence and oil is just one strand. Think about the amount of food we import, the number of minerals we import to sustain industry and our economy, the plants we use to make pharmaceuticals and consumer goods that are all necessary to support our lives.
I'm afraid pushing the energy independence idea will only fuel the rising fear of foreign trade in this country.
Now that industries are finally starting to realize their are many opportunities to make a profit in environmentally sustainable products, it seems like a better way to cut oil consumption.
Bethany,
I disagree with your sense that the better approach to getting people on board "Energy Independence" is to promote the environmental aspects. I think this is actually part of the challenge...only selling the environmental aspects. As we know, while the tide seems to be turning, there remains a strong political aspect to "climate change/no climate change". So while I believe that the environmental aspects are important, "selling it" requires moving beyond just this point. An equal, additional point to be made (beyond the environmental agrument), and one that I believe would rally the support of the "no climate change" people is the strengthening of our country; it's economic position, it's trade position, it's self-reliance position, that occurs if we become Energy Independent.
How can we make the best big picture decisions for our Nation, our citizens, even our partners in the world when we're so beholden to dictators and despots for our basic energy needs!
dpkell2000 says:
"Bethany, I disagree with your sense that the better approach to getting people on board "Energy Independence" is to promote the environmental aspects. I think this is actually part of the challenge...only selling the environmental aspects. As we know, while the tide seems to be turning, there remains a strong political aspect to "climate change/no climate change". So while I believe that the environmental aspects are important, "selling it" requires moving beyond just this point. An equal, additional point to be made (beyond the environmental agrument), and one that I believe would rally the support of the "no climate change" people is the strengthening of our country; it's economic position, it's trade position, it's self-reliance position, that occurs if we become Energy Independent. How can we make the best big picture decisions for our Nation, our citizens, even our partners in the world when we're so beholden to dictators and despots for our basic energy needs!"
Good points, dpkell2000. I guess my point comes from my desire to see people show more interest in environmental preservation rather than being driven by a misguided fear of foreign trade. Selling the idea that the development of alternative fuels and green technologies can strengthen our economy in conjunction with the environmental argument would probably be a more effective approach, like you said. But I still don't agree that pushing the idea of self-reliance/independence is the best way to go. I think this only fosters isolationist, xenophobic, and amerocentric mentalities.
Energy is the major issue of the 21st century. It has a lot more aspects than just climate change, even though that's probably the biggest concern. National security and foreign policy related to being reliant on nations that export the oil to you. And peak oil, with oil supply expected to not match up with demand in the next few years, the economic cost of doing nothing will be far greater. These are all related. You get to alternative energies like nuclear, wind, solar and battery electric cars. You improve national security, save the environment and save the economy.
It gets boring listening to you assume that energy independance is not important to those who do not neccessarily beleive in the global warming (or the new title; "climate change") histeria! One of the biggest reasons that we are dependant on foreign sources of oil has nothing to do with neccessity like you all assume it is, it's due in large part to the enviromentalists who have successfully prevented us from developing our own new sources of oil in the US and from building much needed refineries. environmentalists have also prevented us from building nuclear power plants to provide for our electricity which would have made us much less dependent on oil as an energy source.
the environmentalists oppose drilling oil in the US, because it will damage our environment, but the results of that policy means that we will be destroying someone else's environment for our own oil needs (a pretty irresponsible policy if you ask me!), we know that we will drill our own oil in a much cleaner fashion than those in the Middle East and other parts of the world will. If the environmentalists would have allowed us to develop our own oil sources here in the US and would have allowed us to build nuclear energy plants to provide for our electricity, we would be in a position to where we would not have to buy any oil from those in the Middle East who use the money to support terrorists.
Going forward, we can solve most of these problems by doing the following:
- We should continue to invest heavily in developing new alternative energy sources.
- We should conserve more
- We should drill for new sources of oil in the US.
- We should build more refineries.
- We should continue to build more nuclear energy plants to produce electricity.
- We should lower the gas taxes. after all, the government takes around $.50 per gallon on average, of every gallon of gas sold in the US, while the oil companies who produce the oil and gas earn about $.20 per gallon in profits..
Since we get less than 50% of our imported oil from the Middle East. The steps above will go along way in reducing our dependence on oil from that region of the world.
Poor marketing? Nah, the past year and a half have been chock full of media stories about global warming this, and energy independence that. The bottom line is that the incentives are not in place on an individual basis to encourage a more energy-efficient economy, and that is becuase the political will is lacking. Politicians know that some sacrifice and taxes will be necessary for meaningful progress, which will kill them at the ballot box. I don't think anything big will happen until we have a major oil shortage (a la 1973) which really hurts people in the pocket book and a series of major natural disasters clearly tied to global warming to make people realize they have some "skin in the game" so to speak.
PoliticalCrunch, There is not enough oil in the ground in the US to satisfy demand at current consumption levels. Even if you drilled the alaskan oil, the whole oil reserves in that region is only enough to satisfy the oil usage of one year. Oil needs to be phased out of the economy for several reasons, reducing reliance on the middle east is actually one of the more minor concerns!
I'm not sure why we would want to invest so much money into practices that have gotten us into the trouble that we are currently in ie, drilling for more oil and building more refineries. That would be an extremely short sighted stop gap measure to bring jobs back home to the US for the short term. The digging of wells and the building of refineries will cost and make large sums of money for workers right now but when we no longer have the domestic oil to keep them running where do all the employess go for work and what do the cities do with large refineries that no longer serve a purpose. To keep those refinery workers employed we would be right back to needing foreign oil. A more sustainable source of electrical power would be solar, wind and geothermal power. The building and maintenance of wind farms would create the domestic jobs so many of us desire and there are no worries of import/export with foreign nations. In Montana and the Dakotas wind farms are breathing new life into agricultural America since the land is leased from farmers and gives them a new source of income. I think if we truly want to be independent from the financial and environmental burden caused by all oil we need to serious look to a future with little or no oil consumption. (I know this sounds maniacal but we have accomplished greater achievements.)
i don't think it's a matter of "marketing"...it's about "doing"...i see major corporations going green, doing their part to lessen their own dependence on foreign energy sources, with little fanfare. that doesn't mean they aren't winning the PR war...it means they are doing the right thing without the need to jump up and down saying "we're saving the world!" john q. citizen typically goes through his day without thinking about where his energy comes from. so why worry about marketing to him?
As far as the PR goes, to my understanding developing new energy sources requires a combination of both federal and state funds in addition to private funds. To garuntee that the politicians are in place to get money where it is needed to effect change the word must get out that it is to the benefit of every single American (and their future generations) to get better energy sources rolling now. I know locally this is becoming a very central topic but I do not see that fire being lit under the ass of America in general.
My comments really were meant to focus on the basic premise of Energy Independence rather than a lack of marketing, generally about the subject. When we frame Energy Independence "purely" or mostly in environmental terms we lose people who don't see themselves as "tree-huggers". While the environmental issues are important I don't truly believe them to be the most important. National security, Labor Relations/job creation, Foreign Aid, Defense Policy, etc. are all equally important. Energy Independence holds promise for all of these areas in addition to Environmental benefits. Lastly (for now), it's interesting to see when people argue this point and they mention "supports" or government subsidy that goes to foster growth and acceptance of Alternative Energy...as if petroleum, as an energy source is not now costing us billions (and possibly trillions) of dollars in direct (war) and indirect (war) government/tax payer subsidy...
Well here is a possible marketing campaign for those that feel no need to market to the tree hugging environmentalists. Inform the public of the grants and what help is available to homeowners that want to install alternative sources of energy to their homes(make the marketing small and to the individual so there is only limited government involvement and no one has to consider themselves a "tree hugger."). State the benefits of saving money on electricity bills and how the money saved can go to help heal the sting of any new taxes that might come along with the government and private entities trying to get large scale green sources of power rolling. Then go on to talk about how it can up the re-sale value of homes and make them more marketable even in a slowing housing market. Because, lets face it, almost everything to do with the American people, myself included, comes down to dollars and sense.
