For many years the United States has benefited from oil consumption because it has served as a direct catalyst in empowering the U.S. economy. However, in a new era when times are rapidly changing, the United States needs to keep up by jumping ship from an obsolete, superfluous oil-guzzling yacht to a more practical vessel run by environmentally friendly, sustainable alternative energy.
By putting off this necessary switch, the United States is only entrenching itself in a plethora of bottomless quagmires with only short-term gains to show for it. The environmental and human costs of delay and denial of the gravity of the situation are too great to ignore.
The current oil use is creating immediate and long-term negative consequences in many arenas. For starters, the fulfillment of the United States' oil appetite through its close superficial relationship with Saudi Arabia is not only politically and morally entangling, but hypocritical as well.
The Saudi royal family is able to stay in power by appeasing Islamic fundamentalists in a country that disapproves of such cordial relations with the United States. The internal pacification of such Saudi Arabian citizens is achieved through governmental monies that are indirectly siphoned into terrorist activities. So, in short, the money the United States gives to Saudi Arabia to purchase oil is indirectly sponsoring anti-U.S. terrorist activity.
Additionally, the Saudi government is a flagrant violator of human rights. The authoritarian regime imposes strict religious law upon its citizens resulting in the egregious oppression of religious and political minorities, unparalleled gender discrimination and torture in prisons.
The United States is assisting in financing these blatant offenses against humanity by supporting the Saudi Arabian government. This move is especially hypocritical not only because of the United States' apparent stance on human rights, but because one of the main reasons cited for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein's lack of concern for human rights.
This political marriage of convenience needs to be annulled immediately in order for the United States to reclaim any kind of international legitimacy and halt the indirect sponsorship of terrorism and tyranny. However, if the United States followed through on this it would still not have solved the problem of its dependency on oil.
In response, many have suggested the drilling for oil in Alaska as a means for us to be less reliant on foreign oil. But, drilling for oil in Alaska would not solve the need for oil and would exacerbate economic and environmental troubles that are caused by fossil fuel usage.
The sheer cost of drilling for Alaskan oil goes well beyond the mere cost of extracting and transporting. The removal of oil requires environmental disruption and inevitable accidents in the form of spills, which necessitates supplemental billions of dollars to facilitate ecological restoration.
Moreover, the human cost of environmental damage is an estimated 30,000 deaths per year in the United States that are the product of diseases propelled by oil-based pollution.
The only viable alternative for the future generations is energy conservation and investment in alternative energy sources right now. Here in Wisconsin we've already made progress with alternative energy in the form of greener buildings and energy conservation. These types of solutions should be looked into for oil policy as well. And even though critics claim this measure is too costly, hesitation and postponement will only allow current problems to blossom and will cost more in the long run. Humanity and our fragile ecosystem should not have to pay for our greed and selfishness.
