Post 5

America’s dependence on foreign oil is a very vast issue. For that reason, there are many ways that one can look into “fixing” our dependency. In this blog post, we’ll take a look at the two campaigns I mentioned earlier, Woolsey and Pickens, in regards to how they are framing their campaigns and are appealing to their audience.

To wane America off of foreign oil, the Woolsey plan proposes remaking the entire auto-industry so as to make it more fuel-efficient. Unlike the Pickens plan, this does not exactly target alternative/renewable energy advocates, which is an interesting choice, however, it is aimed more towards the government. Ex-head of the C.I.A., Woolsey has ties to the political world, and specifically calls for the Obama administration to provide tax incentives to car companies who choose to remake the way they make things. On paper, this plan looks good to the average reader; more efficient automobiles, less money spent on gas, no large-scale re-construction of the nation’s power system, what’s not to love? However, for change to occur, and for this plan to truly take action, the auto-makers have to jump on board. The fact of the matter is though, tax incentives or not, it is very unlikely that many car companies will be willing to adhere to a government mandated revamping of their entire manufacturing process. If Woolsey could find a way to make his plan more viable for the car industry to adopt, it would be a vastly more realistic solution to our nations problem with foreign oil.

T. Boone Pickens, an ex-oil man himself, puts a slightly different spin on his approach to the foreign oil problem. Whereas Woolsey only targets the auto industry for reform, Pickens proposes a more wide-sweeping plan of action. Here, we would be looking into renewable energy sources, hydrofracking, and replacing traditional gasoline in automobiles with natural gas. By making his plan touch on so many possible solutions to the foreign oil problem, Pickens is able to appeal to a wider audience than Woolsey. The problem Pickens might face from those who support Woolsey, is that he his being too hopeful with alternative energy sources. Woolsey and his followers argue that we have yet to develop the technology to make wind energy entirely cost effective.  

As a whole, I’d say that both plans are similar to a certain extent. The biggest difference is that the Pickens plan just has a larger frame to work with than the Woolsey plan does.

Speech Preparations

Since “alternative energy” isn’t exactly a problem, it’s hard to write a persuasive speech about it. For that reason, I have decided to take a slightly different turn for my term paper speech. I will know be speaking to persuade my audience that the United States of America needs to become less dependent on foreign oil. I plan on listing the multiple reasons that foreign oil dependency posses a problem to our country, such as ecological damage, economic damage, and even matters of national security.

There are two major plans for waning our reliance on foreign oil, one proposed by Robert Woolsey, and the other by T. Boone Pickens. The thing that really caught my eye about Woolsey’s plan is that it really does not advocate alternative energy off the bat. He believes that the technology to make alternative or renewable energy a viable replacement for foreign oil is still too expensive to be a realistic consideration. Instead, he advises that we should re-build the transportation industry. Require cars, trucks and busses to become more fuel efficient, build them with lighter materials so that they need smaller engines and less gas to run, and ultimately start spending less money importing foreign oil into our nation. I really like the idea of remaking the auto/transportation industry, though; I’d like to see this plan also at least make an attempt at establishing some sort of alternative energy source.

The plan proposed by T. Boone Pickens does just that, which is why I think this is the campaign that I am going to chose to advocate for in my speech. Under this plan, we would pursue many forms of alternative energy, most prominently wind energy, while also making a change to the transportation industry. What Pickens proposes is that we use wind energy to create electricity. The electricity that we create from the wind would be sufficient enough to replace the electricity that we currently derive from natural gas. After we free up some of our natural gas reserves, we would re-allocate it towards the transportation industry. Fueling our cars, commercial trucks, and/or busses with natural gas would have a direct impact on our dependency for foreign oil.

In my speech, I will frame the Pickens plan as being the best of both worlds. Not only does it call for reform of the transportation industry, but it also hopes to create new sources of domestic renewable energy. With the changes brought on by the Pickens plan, many jobs would be created for American citizens, and we would make a dent in the spending we use on imported oil, therefore, this plan may be just the plan we need to help get our economy back on track, as well as solving the problem of foreign dependency. 

3 Different Plans

            There are lot’s of potential sources of renewable energy sources and plans out there, but few are as comprehensive as the concepts that William McDonough and Michael Braungart propose in their book, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking The Way We Make Things. This book explores the concept that simply being less bad is not necessarily good. Basically, simply recycling, or using renewable energy sources is not going to be enough if we truly want to find a way to sustain ourselves while also being eco-friendly. Along with embracing renewable energy, the Cradle-to-Cradle plan proposes that we recognize and embrace the fact that in nature, everything is a RESOURCE for something else. We too can find ways to make our progress mutually beneficial between mankind, and the planet as a whole. Just as trees provide both shelter, and benefit our planet, we could in theory design buildings that, instead of hinder our environment; provide it with both biological and technical nutrients. Cradle-to-Cradle also calls for us to celebrate diversity. Instead of erecting the uniform skyscraper clad cities that have become the norm, why not (just as in the natural world) build our structures to be locally specific. Designs that embrace the unique environments of its surroundings will prove to be more visually pleasing, and ultimately be more efficient models.

            Another, more one-dimensional plan, is proposed by T. Boone Pickens. He recognizes that we (the USA) are “addicted” to OPEC oil, and suggests that we look to natural gas for a substitution for fossil fuels for means of transportation. Pickens understands that we as a nation are suffering with a struggling economy, however he points out that we are lucky enough to have an abundant supply of natural gas right here on domestic soil. We could cut down on foreign spending, while also addressing the problem of depleting fossil fuels if we chose to adopt his plan. As for non-transportation use, Pickens’ plan calls for the development of wind and solar power. Ideally, incentives would be given to both homeowners and business owners alike who are willing to upgrade their buildings with more effective and efficient insulation. This new insulation would help to cut down the need for energy at all in these buildings, helping to cut costs in the big picture. (Pickensplan.com/theplan/)

            Under our current plan with the Obama administration, most of the focus is placed on decreasing dependency on foreign energy sources, and increasing our own efficiency with what energy we do use.  According to Executive Order 13514, we are planning to cut vehicle petroleum use 30% by 2020, become 26% more efficient with our water use by 2020, and raise recycling 50% by 2015. However, I just don’t think that cutting back on use and dependence will be enough to solve our energy problems. If we use less of a finite source, we will still eventually run out of said source. We’re just putting off the in-evitable.

Issue Identification: Renewable Energy

            Whether we are ready for it or not, the world’s oil supply is finite, and will eventually run dry. Nobody will deny that. Very little wide-scale action however, is being put into effect to try to find a sustainable alternative to oil. I don’t know about you, but I’d like to feel safe and know for a fact that we have a reliable source to fall back on by the time the oil wells run dry. Quite possibly, the hardest part of this process is that there are simply so many different forms of renewable energy alternatives to pick from.  There are the more obvious types, such as Solar (sun), Hydro (water), and wind energy, but there are also a few lesser-known types of energy. There’s biomass energy, which essentially derives its energy from dead plants and other things that we often label as garbage. There’s geothermal energy, which takes it’s energy from the immense heat and pressure found under the earth’s surface. Also, lets not forget the slightly more controversial alternative to fossil fuels: Nuclear Power.

            According to Renewable Energy Focus, the best alternatives that are suitable for large-scale energy production are Wind energy, and solar energy. They address the issue of intermittency, or reliability, and decide that a solar system that is supplemented with wind energy would be the most reliable source of renewable alternative energy. Due to this problem of intermittency that surrounds renewable sources, it is unlikely that there will be a stand-alone renewable alternative to fossil fuels.

            Though solar has been accepted by most as one of the most viable source of renewable energy for our future, it does not come without its drawbacks. According to the article “Assessing the Risks in Solar Project Development,” found on Renewable Energy World, solar development comes with multiple hazards and risks. Solar parks, vast amounts of solar panels, can be extremely hard to build, and operate. The expense of building these systems may also out way the benefits.  Solar energy plants are also more fragile, and more susceptible to vandalism, or even terror attacks, than your typical power plant. A damaged solar park would not be able to export an adequate amount of energy. And most surprising of all, there are environmental issues. The building of these large-scale solar parks requires a large amount of open space. An open, undeveloped field would be the perfect place for their construction.

            While the article from Renewable Energy World does bring up some good points, most of the drawbacks that they list seem to me like they would come along with any sort of power plant construction. I’m sure if we set some intelligent minds on it, they could figure out ways to protect the solar panels, and as for being hard to operate… Well I’m sure all power plants are hard to operate. That’s why you would need to make sure you hire qualified and competent employees. 

Blog The First: The Case For Public Persuasion

Persuasion. The ability to make others agree with, or if nothing less, at least respect your decisions is indeed an invaluable skill; a skill that we’ve been trying to hone since we first learned to communicate our thoughts. And odds are, if we’ve made it this far in life, we’ve gotten rather decent at it. Not only have we gotten decent at it but, just as an artist develops his or her own artistic style, we develop our own styles of persuasion. Some chose to persuade by using facts and figures, some rely on charisma and emotions to make people agree with them, and others (the true masters) do both. It is especially important to be able to make logical and emotional appeals because, just as individuals have their own ways of persuading, they also have developed certain ways that they are more easily persuaded. Some are swayed by logic, but impervious to emotion. While others prove to be just the opposite. For these reasons, it can be said that there is no set-in-stone right or wrong way to persuade. Just effective, and not so effective. Depending on the speaker/audience relationship.

Though I’d prefer not to get into political here, I feel like there is a good point that can be made of Democrats and Republicans and how they chose to persuade their target audiences. I won’t say which party I support, and before you decide to get all up in arms and disagree with me, let me just say that both parties are relatively successful in making their appeals. As a whole, Republicans have a tendency to make persuasive arguments based on emotional/charismatic appeal. Of course, there are exceptions to this observation, but most republicans have found success in arousing belief in voters/other politicians through powerful emotional appeals. Democrats however, seem to take a more “here’s the ‘facts.’ Now you decide type approach. A prime example of this occurred during the debates of the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Though I think most can agree that Gore was the more intelligent of the two, Bush proved to be more effective in persuading the American people. His success was not essentially attributed to his knowledge, but his ability to make himself likeable to the people, and connect himself with the average Joe of America.

Another, more rudimentary, tool in persuasion is repetition. This tactic may result in the speaker getting his/her audience to do what they want in the immediate present/future, but is less effective in influencing long-term beliefs. Think of a child nagging a parent for a candy bar in line at the grocery store. After a given amount of time, the parent is likely to give in, and buy the candy bar for them. But come the next time they’re at the grocery store, the child will, more than likely, yet again have the uphill battle of persuasion to fight if he or she wants another candy bar.

            Having said that… Mom’s about to go to the grocery store, and I want a Reese’s.