Blog Stage 7: Transitioning to Alternative Energy

     When you look at modern energy consumption in our country, you see that in 2011, "about 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 42% attributed from coal" whereas renewable energy accounted for only about 5%, according to the United States Energy Information Administration's website. Now consider the effects that fossil fuels have on the environment and on humans and animals as well; greenhouse gases that warm our ecosystems and gases that are damaging to humans and animals. If we are to keep societies healthy, as well as maintain a stable environment, then we must advance and execute renewable sources on a wider scale than what we currently are. Renewable sources such as solar and wind are grossly outmatched by coal and oil, which are the leading sources of fuel in America. 

     Looking at which fuel is more efficient, one would side with coal and oil simply because it currently produces the most energy, but that is in part because of a gross dependence on fossil fuels and because solar technology is currently more expensive. But what is more important, cheap fuel or safe, renewable fuel? The answer is clear and obvious; renewable energy systems like solar and wind. What is our government doing to further these renewable energy technologies? Luckily, they are funding R&D programs that are working to make solar and wind energy technology more cost efficient, as well as more energy efficient. The benefits of renewable energy simply outweigh the benefit of fossil fuels. They will create more jobs and help stimulate the economy. They will lead to cleaner air, as well as reduced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that are helping to warm the Earth. Currently, President Obama has requested a "$28.4 billion Fiscal Year 2014 budget for the Energy Department, including $2.78 billion for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)," stated on U.S. Department of Energy's "Sunshot Initiative." 

     I support this request, and believe that it is wholly necessary in order to ensure a cleaner future for America. If we take a step back and look at how we consume fossil fuels, we should realize that our dependence on them is too great and dangerous. The time to transition to cleaner sources is now, and this budget for the Energy Department is helping to make that happen. We need to lessen our dependence on oil and coal, and use what is available every day; the Sun's light, the constant winds of the Earth, and the power of water and other clean sources. I believe that we have outgrown fossil fuels. They won't last forever, so advancing technology to fit our future needs today is simply the smartest thing we could do, and to not do so is reckless.

Sources: 

United States Energy Information Administration

United States Department of Energy

Blog Stage 6: NASA Budget Cuts; Beneficial or Detrimental?

     On the blog "Land of the Pleas and Home of the Craves," classmate Cheri Morris claims that cutting NASA's budget is harmful to the safety of US citizens and that too many people remain uneducated because of a lack of media attention. She goes on to say that within NASA, certain programs are receiving cuts, such as planetary science programs, water and systems, and atmospheric changes. These fields of studies are all necessary for the overall safety of not just America, but globally. I agree that NASA shouldn't reduce it's spending on programs as important as the ones listed. Detrimental is an understatement when considering the possible catastrophes that could occur as a result of a meteor strike or of a sudden rapid acceleration of global warming, which then we as humanity are responsible for the damage to the environment.

     If one considers the dangers that space poses to Earth's fragile ecosystem, then one could logically come to the conclusion that one of only two surefire ways to ensure our continuity as a species is to continue funded research into planetary defensive measures that we could employ when necessary. A moderate to severe budget cut could hinder NASA's ability to educate and research methods of protection. Furthermore, interplanetary travel and colonization of space and other planets, such as Mars, are the other ways to further our species by not limiting ourselves to one planet that may be the recipient of a future massive meteor impact. That situation could spell the end of humanity, as well as any and all life forms inhabiting Earth, so colonization outside of Earth is simply assurance of our survival.

     I realize that the federal government needs to cut federal spending when necessary and that other nations have space programs that do research as well, but NASA has more importance than most people realize, and hindering this important agency is doing more long term harm than short term good when you look at the facts. People need to be educated on space and it's threats, as well as our harmful actions to the environment.  People need to open their eyes to the dangers of space, and of our own actions, like global warming, and start focusing on what we can do to make sure we as a nation and as a species continue forward while experiencing little to no threats. And people need to realize that our existence isn't eternal and that even though there are no immediate catastrophic dangers present, humanity's lifetime is shortening every day that we don't advance our defenses against future meteor impacts or resolve the global warming problems.