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.