Joe and Leo's Blog

1. Is your personal consumption of oil part of the problem?

Leo: My personal consumption of oil is just a tiny bite out of the whole problem. I don’t consume enough oil to affect anything, but in the end we as a community are the problem. In reality, I don’t use oil at all because I don’t drive, but I guess mowing the lawn counts as pollution because it burns gasoline and uses oil. The consumption when living in crowded cities like Detroit in which nobody even bothers thinking about fuel efficent vehicles, though public transportation cuts down a little of the problem. The U.S.A imports over 388.6 million gallons/day which is an outstanding amount and due to this neccesity and our dependence on foreign oil. The prices have been growing and growing, in the near future there will be another oil shortage where we will be limited on the amounts of oil we can buy.

Finalized: 21 December 2007

2. What impact does oil have on our environment?

Joe: We use petroleum products everyday, and this causes many problems. Many plastics, unless specifically designed to decompose, stay in the environment for a long time. Oil is a obviously a problem for us. In addition to hurting the environment, gasoline (from oil) also hurts us. According to the EPA, at least 1,500 cancer cases each year result from automobile pollution. The carbon dioxide (along with other pollutants) emitted by cars are causing atmospheric changes according to the EPA. Though the circulation of carbon dioxide is part of a normal atmospheric cycle, we have been emitting more carbon dioxide than the environment can handle. This has caused many problems. Ozone depletion is a result of man-made chemicals eating up Earth's atmosphere. During these processes gases become trapped in the Earth and our world heats up.

Finalized: 21 December 2007

3. Are there any viable energy alternatives?

Joe: There are many viable energy altenatives to oil that are being pursued. Electric cars are definitely possible, as well as other fuel sources such as hydrogen. Granted, these do have their flaws, but so does oil. Ethanol is not the answer as it still relies heavily on oil, is inefficient, and expensive. The problem is that the auto companies are afraid of trying to work with oil companies who (surprise) don't want energy-alternatives. If we can work on other solutions, plenty of jobs will be available in the new industry. To learn more about electric cars please visit http://www.electricdrive.org/ to see advances being made in the field of electric cars. Electric cars would be a great energy alternative as they are clean, efficient, and safe (as oppose to hydrogen). The Electric Drive Transportation Association is a driving force to make electric cars commonplace in the U.S.

The technology for the electric car is more than a possibility.

Finalized: 21 December 2007

4. Is there a connection between oil and violence in the Middle East?

Leo: Of course, there are several, obvious reasons. The main one, as stated by Thomas Friedman, is that oil is paying for both sides of the war on terror. Tax dollars from gas are funding our troops in Iraq while the actual oil we buy is funding radical Muslims who aim to disassemble America. These terrorists are responsible for 9/11, so that is why we should be hunting down their leaders and killing them. This is the reason we should be in Iraq, but currently it just seems that we're there for their oil. We've given them democracy (if you want to call it that), so why are we still there?

Joe: There is definitely a connection between oil and violence in the Middle East. Many of the people funding terrorism are from countries who sell us oil. There are many radicals who use their money to fund terrorists that fight the U.S., or go into other countries and fight. Those who go into other countries to wreak havoc often target American soldiers. We are funding terrorism against our own troops. The country needs to think of this when wondering if we should convert to other souces of energy. There are also the green benefits. Instead of fighting a war against an invisible enemy, we should be funding the future. The war on terror should be fought through the scientists developing alternatives to oil, not troops away from home. There are many reports of money going from the people of oil producing countries to terrorists. One example is Saudi Arabia (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm), you can bet that money isn't coming from poor Saudis. So who is it coming from? The rich people involved in the oil game, maybe even the government? We're killing our own soldiers, that's what we are doing.

The wrong way to fight.

Finalized: 21 December 2007

5. Extra content

Videos:

Al Gore- Proposition 87

Thought-provoking images:

Can he fight us without oil?

The new "War" on Terror.

Finalized: 21 December 2007