As you read this, people are giving their lives for a commodity that is valued what seems like more than life itself. Oil is now almost completely depleted from our reserves, forcing us to become dependent on foreign sources and environmental treasures.

We have created a society that relies on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels fuel our cars, light and heat our homes, and aid in the production of modern technology.

As the U.S. consumes ¼ of the world’s energy and the population continues to grow exponentially, we must realize that this sole dependence on fossil fuels is not sufficient and cannot continue.

Although we may not admit it, we have already hit a point of chaos due to the exclusive reliance on this energy system. We have overexploited these non-renewable natural resources and must find another path that allows for our current and future growth.

A solution the current administration has chosen to deal with this crisis is nuclear energy. The Department of Energy has proposed to increase funding for nuclear energy research and development 11.9% from 2005 to the 2006 fiscal year. Although nuclear energy does not rely on the same natural resources as fossil fuels, it does still rely on resources that are not renewable. Therefore we are transitioning from one system of natural resource abuse to another. Is this the answer to deal with the population expansion? My answer is no.

Although there are some benefits of nuclear energy in relation to fossil fuels, there is still the issue of risk from dependence on a non-renewable system. However in relation to fossil fuels, the direct benefit is that nuclear energy does not produce green house gases.

Using nuclear energy as our main source of energy production can be dangerous. There are the risks that a plant accident could occur, exposure to radiation, and there is still no way to effectively dispose of nuclear waste. Most importantly, changing sole reliance from any one non-renewable natural resource system to another is not the best strategy. Exclusive dependence on any one non-renewable system is risky and dangerous.

We must look then at a sustainable energy path. Renewable energy systems provide a sense of security because energy can be regenerated on timescales meaningful to humans. Some examples of renewable energy sources are solar, wind, biomass, biogas, hydropower, geothermal, and tidal. Although at this point it may be economically impossible to change completely from a system of non-renewable natural resource use to a system of renewable energy production. When you take into account science, economics, and the precautionary principle, the policy that minimizes the maximum risks is a renewable resource system. Even though entirely changing the energy infrastructures would be costly, we must take into account current risks and our responsibility to future generations. Therefore, the best policy would be one that aims at a goal of renewable energy systems but at the same time maintains the needs of society. A combination of both a non-renewable natural resource system and a renewable resource system may ease the dependence and decrease the overexploitation that occurs when using only the one system. As we grow in population we must find a way to integrate renewable energy into our system.

This change starts with the funding for the research and development of renewable energy. Therefore the proposed 7% cut from the research and development of renewable energy is not acceptable.

If we are hoping to find a way to sustain our energy consumption we cannot decrease the funding for renewable energy while maintaining our current non-renewable path.

I propose that the Department of eEergy reallocate funding so that renewable energy research and development funding increases in an effort to find a sustainable and efficient system.

I am asking you to actively reject the proposed 2006 Energy Budget that cuts funding from the research and development of renewable energy. This administration’s policy of emphasis on a non-renewable resource system indicates either a sense of optimism about future innovations or a complete lack of responsibility for future generations. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, we are running out of resources, and we need a sustainable path.

We can stand around and discuss these issues but until we act it’s simply conversation. You have a voice in this decision.

Write to your congressional representatives and tell them that as a voting citizen you are asking them to represent you and reject this proposed budget.

Santa Cruz County:
Congressman Sam Farr
701 Ocean Street
Room 318
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831-429-1976
See the proposed budget:
www.energy.gov/engine/content.do

Resources:

U.S. Department of Energy. 25 Feb. 2005.
www.energy.gov/engine/content.do

Haddad, Brent. “The Sustainability Concept.� 21 Jan 2005.

Haddad, Brent. “Applying Sustainability, renewable energy.� 24 Jan 2005.

McCarthy, John. “Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy.� 15 Feb 2005.
www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html