Colenbrander 1

Tyler Colenbrander

A.Williams

AP Language 1st

19 April 2018

The Future of Energy Policy in the United States

Fossil fuels kill. Our reliance on fossil fuels—coal, petroleum, and natural

gas—continues to plague our world with the ravaging effects of climate change and pollution.

What are we doing to stop this? The answer is not enough. While it is true that renewables have

taken huge strides in the recent years, fossil fuels still constitute a supermajority of the United

States’ energy consumption (“Monthly Energy Review” 6). All of the other types of

energy—nuclear electric power, hydroelectric power, geothermal, solar, wind, and

biomass—still fall way below the menacing amount of fossil fuels that we depend on. In order to

solve the problems presented to us by fossil fuels, the United States must act now, and act as a

world leader. The United States, working with and leading other countries, should push

legislation supporting investment in renewable energy technology application and research,

while repealing legislation that creates subsidies for fossil fuels. A heavy emphasis should be

placed on solar energy because it has the most potential for the future, but we still need a

combination of renewable energy sources to achieve the desired output. This process will be

lengthy and difficult, but if we do not try, we lose even the smallest fighting chance that we have

to save our world.

In the 1700s, when the present day United States was comprised of colonial territories,

the main energy source was wood (“Energy Sources”). Colonists cut down forests and burned
 Colenbrander 2

the wood for energy and heat, rapidly using up this finite resource. In fact, in other parts of the

world like England, people had already cut down so many forests for wood, and there simply

was not enough wood left to continue supporting their lifestyle. While America was still using

wood, England had already begun converting to coal, another finite resource. With England’s

energy transition, they became early pioneers of the industrial revolution, and America followed

suit with the transition to coal as an energy source in the late 1700s.

Industrialization, with steam engines, factories, and urbanization, flourished because of

coal, which became a much desired resource. Coal and industrialization revolutionized energy

consumption and changed the way people lived. People now consumed energy much easier, and

therefore they used more of it. One invention that helped produce more energy was Thomas

Newcomen’s steam engine, powered by coal. Before the steam engine, factories and cities had to

be near water, because flowing water was used to generate power. But with the advent of the

steam engine, factories no longer had to be near water, because the steam engine only required

coal, which could be transported anywhere, as a fuel source. More factories sprang up

everywhere, and more goods and services became available with the industrialized society.

Coal is still used today, but other fossil fuel sources constitute more of our nation’s

consumption of energy now. In the mid-1900s, automobiles became increasingly popular, so

petroleum emerged as a dominant energy source, used for things like automobile fuel, heating,

and electricity generation (“Energy Sources”). Natural gas has also emerged as a dominant fossil

fuel source, accounting for more of our consumption than coal, but still less than petroleum.

Natural gas is commonly used for heating, cooking, and electricity generation (“Energy

Sources”). As of 2018, petroleum, natural gas, and coal constitute 79.8 percent of our nation's
 Colenbrander 3

total energy consumption. These are followed by nuclear energy, which accounts for 8.6 percent

of our nation's total energy consumption, leaving less than 11.6 percent of total energy

consumption to renewables.

Our reliance on fossil fuels stems from a few key issues. Fossil fuels are a very efficient,

convenient energy source that is already well-established. Coal is extremely “energy dense,”

meaning it can produce lots of energy from a small amount, and this is one of the reasons why

our transition to coal from wood started (Cheek). Fossil fuels are also convenient, because we

already know how to collect and store the energy from fossil fuels, while many new

technologies, like solar, require more innovation. On the consumer level, the average consumer

that can easily afford to pay their energy bill might not be able to as easily pay for an entire solar

array on their home. On the large utility level, solar can hurt utilities like Pacific Gas and

Electric, because they lose revenue from customers who no longer need as much energy.

Now, since fossil fuels are well-established, they are propped up by policies including the

more than 20 billion dollars in fossil fuel production subsidies offered by the government each

year (Redman 24). Unfortunately, this 20 billion dollars is a very conservative estimate; Oil

Change International, who conducted the study, states that this number from the study only

estimates “direct production subsidies,” and they explain that the real cost is much higher. The

estimate does not account for the 14.5 billion dollars in consumption subsidies, such as Low

Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Nor does it factor in the 2.1 billion dollars

set aside for overseas fossil fuel exploration programs. And, how about the indirect costs? The

United States Military spends large sums of money protecting oil shipping routes, and the United

States government spends even more on dealing with health and climate impacts from climate
 Colenbrander 4

change. The International Monetary Fund estimates that globally, these indirect costs amount to

5.3 trillion dollars a year, dwarfing any other direct subsidy (Roberts). While this number is

controversial and not easily calculated, it is certain that trillions of dollars are lost each year as

the United States government and governments abroad continue to support fossil fuels. The

worst part: it does not look like the government will cease rewarding these costly subsidies. In

the 2015-2016 campaign cycle, “oil, gas, and coal companies, and the industry associations that

advocate for them, spent $354 million in campaign finance contributions and lobbying

expenditures,” and received 29.4 billion dollars in subsidies (Redman 16). This gives the fossil

fuel industry an 8200% return on investment, and without change, the fossil fuel industry will

continue to have a controlling hold over the government.

Some people point to the solar tax credit that the government provides, which allows one

to deduct a percentage of the cost of a newly installed solar system from their federal taxes, as a

victory for the renewable energy industry. In reality, all it has done is appease the public and

make them believe that the government is supporting renewables and therefore stopping climate

change. This false assumption is very dangerous, as many citizens do not realize “that permanent

tax breaks enshrined in the federal internal revenue code favor the fossil fuel industry over the

renewable energy sector seven-to-one” (Redman 12). While public opinion points to the fact that

renewables are rising, the real numbers behind the scenes expose the harsh reality: fossil fuels

continue to dominate the energy industry.

After evaluating the status quo, it is clear that we have a problem with fossil fuels. Many

alternatives to fossil fuels exist, one being nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is sometimes thought

of as a renewable energy source, however, nuclear power plants use elements such as uranium,
 Colenbrander 5

which are finite resources. By definition, this makes nuclear energy a non-renewable energy

source (Chowdhury). Nuclear energy is created through the process of fission, which releases

heat energy to heat water and spin a turbine, generating electricity. Nuclear energy does not

pollute the air and is 8000 times more efficient than fossil fuels, but it could have serious

environmental effects if accidents, like Chernobyl and Fukushima, occur, leaving the

surrounding environment uninhabitable. Because of these harms, safer alternatives offer us better

options.

To be a truly “renewable energy source,” the source cannot be depleted when used. One

such source that has been used for a very long time is water. Water in rivers, lakes, or other

bodies of water without waves is used for hydropower, which uses gravity and falling water to

turn a turbine. Water in the ocean can be used for wave power, which uses hundreds of wave

pumps to pump water back to land and turn a turbine as well. Both of these technologies use a

source, water, that is constant and won’t go away, but they greatly alter their environments and

that could be a problem (Nakaya 42). Next, there is wind power, which can also generate lots of

energy, but takes lots of space and looks unsightly. Wind power is generated with giant wind

turbines that are usually installed in large, open areas; you can probably see them on the side of

the freeway (Nakaya 40). Another source, geothermal energy, uses the Earth’s heat and

withdraws steam from the Earth to generate electricity. This heat is available 24 hours a day, but,

could have environmental effects of “air pollution, thermal pollution, water pollution, land

subsidence, groundwater contamination, and possible earth tremors.” (Nakaya 43). Lastly, we

have solar energy. The most common type of solar power is photovoltaic solar, which takes

photons from sunlight to generate direct current (DC). This DC power is converted to alternating
 Colenbrander 6

current (AC) through an inverter and can then be used in our homes. The sun’s light can easily

power our entire Earth. In fact, the sunlight that hits Earth in an hour can supply our world’s

energy demands for a whole year; it is just a matter of harnessing that energy. The drawback to

solar energy is that it is costly and not very efficient; most panels are 24 percent efficient at best

(Nakaya 39).

Renewable energy can help solve climate change by mitigating greenhouse gas

emissions. Climate change causes devastating health effects like breathing problems,

neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer (“Benefits of Renewable Energy Use”). Climate

change is accompanied by air pollution and a degraded environment, which makes living

conditions less hospitable for people. For example, particulate matter in the air can cause lung

diseases and can also impact heart function, leading to respiratory problems. Overall, these

health issues and threats from climate change cause about 400,000 deaths a year worldwide.

Let’s compare this to another global problem that takes many lives: terrorism. Many people

believe we need to lock down on immigration policies due to terrorism threats. However, in

contrast to climate change, terrorism causes 18,000 deaths in a year (Leber). Climate change

affects every single person in the entire world, which explains the higher death rate and

widespread effects. Climate change poses a much bigger threat to our entire nation and world,

and it should be our top priority to solve this disastrous problem.

Climate change is the culprit responsible for severe weather and climate related events,

like rising sea levels and storms that inflict serious damage and could cause between 50 and 200

million people to lose their homes by 2050 (Robertson). This leads to yet another problem:

climate change costs a lot of money. In 2016, we experienced 12 weather and climate related
 Colenbrander 7

events around the world, like storms and severe flooding, that had losses of over $1 billion

("Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production"). Unfortunately, climate

change is not like a Netflix subscription. We cannot just stop paying for it after we realize how

much money we’ve wasted on it. We have no choice but to pay to repair problems caused by

climate events and health issues.

With our serious climate predicament, mitigating our greenhouse gas emissions with the

renewable energy sources mentioned before becomes a necessity. But which source is the best?

When we evaluate the different renewable energy sources, solar energy is the most flexible

source, as panels can vary in size to create giant solar farms, one house arrays, or just a solar

lamp. Additionally, the only downsides, cost and efficiency, can be solved with more research

and better technology, and the high initial cost still leads to a return on investment in less than 10

years in most cases. Because of this, solar has the most room for improvement. Currently solar

only contributes to 0.9 percent of the United States total energy production, and the other

renewables of wind and hydropower sit at 2.7 percent and 3.2 percent respectively (“Monthly

Energy Review” 5).

The path to improving solar technology is through research. MIT researchers have

succeeded in creating a transparent, flexible solar panel. Instead of using silicon in the solar

panel, they use graphene, a carbon compound that is very strong, yet flexible. A transparent and

flexible solar panel could adhere to a multitude of surfaces such as windows, cars, buses, etc.

which would greatly increase the amount of solar panels on our planet (Stauffer). Since solar has

the largest room for improvement, this would be a perfect way to increase the number of solar

panels on our planet. Solar energy has a bright, sunny future.

 Colenbrander 8

Despite the promising future that solar could bring, we cannot completely rely on it.

What if the graphene solar cells turn out to not be as magnificent as expected? This would be like

putting all of your money into a stock that then fails. You would be broke and wishing that you

had diversified your stocks. While still true that solar energy has the most benefits out of all the

renewable energy sources, and would therefore be the best stock to invest in, we should still use

a mixture of all the sources to achieve the desired production of energy. This insures that we

have a fall back if our primary stock (solar) fails. Also, different types of renewable energy may

work better in different places. For example, Africa has the highest potential for solar power,

because it receives more sunlight on average when compared to other countries (Nakaya 53). But

in other places, that may not receive as much sunlight, like Norway, other energy types like

hydropower may be more effective. Regardless of what renewable energy type is being used, it is

definitely better than any type of fossil fuel.

Some say that we cannot reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because we will lose

fossil fuel related jobs. However, when we look at the status quo, fossil fuel jobs are already

falling, despite the large fossil fuel dependence we currently have. In 2015, the number of oil and

gas rigs dropped by 61 percent, taking all of those jobs with them (Bomey). While these fossil

fuel jobs are dropping, renewable energy jobs open up every day. We need a lot of people to

research, design, and implement the new renewable energy infrastructure, which creates many

new job opportunities. Currently, the solar and wind industries create new jobs 12 times faster

than the overall economy (Samuelson). In fact, if we were to convert to a fully solar-powered

society, 22 million more jobs would be created than destroyed, as calculated by Stanford

University professor Mark Jacobson (COP21-CNN).

 Colenbrander 9

Another argument made for the continuation of fossil fuels comes from the Trump

Administration. The current presidential administration argues that coal, natural gas, and nuclear

energy are the answers to climate change (Friedman). However, with the fossil fuels of coal and

natural gas being two of the main culprits of climate change, and nuclear power having adverse

environmental effects when accidents occur, it does not look to be a promising “solution.”

Climate change cannot be stopped by simply using more of the harmful energy sources that

caused it. This would be like using wood to start a fire, and then adding more wood to the fire to

attempt to put it out. Next, Trump’s Administration claims that these “clean” fossil fuels can help

provide power for developing countries. However, Saleemul Huq, the director of the

International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, found that “fossil

fuels were hurting, not helping, the world’s poorest nations” (Friedman). The effects of climate

change hit these developing nations the hardest, because they do not have the money to rebuild

infrastructure and adapt to changing climate situations, like rising sea levels. Furthermore,

renewable energy can provide for these countries even better than fossil fuels can, because they

will not run out. For instance, if a remote village was to be powered by coal, then coal would

have to be transported into the village, or used to generate electricity nearby and then the

electricity would be transported through power lines. The amount of infrastructure needed to do

this would be costly and more complex than simply installing a solar array. Additionally, on the

small scale, there are non-profit organizations, such as One Million Lights, that give small solar

lanterns to villages in developing countries to help light up their villages. Now, families can see

through the darkness without having to use dangerous kerosene lamps. Children can now do their

studies at night and they can finally have an education. Many of these children have to work long
 Colenbrander 10

strenuous hours the entire day, and this time at night is all they have to study and learn. All of

this is possible without the use of fossil fuels.

One controversial issue surrounding the United States’ stance on climate change and

renewable energy is the Paris Agreement. In 2015, countries from around the world met in Paris

to draft this agreement, forming a coalition to end climate change. Since then, President Donald

Trump has voiced his concerns for the agreement, saying that we should focus on the energy

sources of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power instead. Trump wants to leave the agreement, but

the United States cannot legally leave until November 4, 2020. If the United States were to

withdraw from the Paris Agreement, it would have severe detrimental effects on our global

influence and hinder the ability of our world to prevent climate change. Doing so would set a bad

precedent for future negotiations on climate change, and without the United States’ full support,

developing countries cannot fight climate change as well (Zhang). Withdrawal also puts China in

a position to assume the lead on fighting climate change, pushing the United States out of the

picture and reducing the United States’ global hegemony.

What legislation can we pass in the United States to curb climate change? We can first do

away with those harmful fossil fuel subsidies mentioned earlier. Oil Change International

discovered that “the cost of federal subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is equivalent to the

projected 2018 budget cuts from Trump’s proposals to eliminate or significantly scale back 10

public programs and services,” with some of these programs being food stamps, Children’s

Health Insurance Program, Amtrak, and Energy Star (Redman 9). By eliminating these subsidies,

we will have more money to put towards beneficial programs such as these, or the money could

go towards healthy, renewable energy subsidies. In order to bring about this change, we need to
 Colenbrander 11

break the cycle of “dirty energy money,” a very unethical practice that involves elected officials

receiving “campaign donations and other forms of support from the oil, gas, and coal industries”

(Redman 6).

Even if you believe that climate change harms are not significant enough to warrant a

solution, we still have a moral duty to protect Earth. Earth is our home and has sustained life for

generations and hopefully many more to come. As Barack Obama said, “no challenge poses a

greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The future innovators of tomorrow will

have nothing left to innovate if we leave behind a dying Earth. There will be no problems left for

them to solve, nothing for them to fix, because everything will be broken and irreparable. This

will all be because we struggled to solve the one simple problem of climate change.

Slowly, we are destroying the Earth and its natural resources. We are destroying the very

place that gives us life. We are living on this planet as if we have another one to go to. I hate to

break it to you, but we don’t. We need a change of mind, a solution. We need to end the

dominance of fossil fuels over the energy industry with fossil fuel subsidy cuts. We need to

invest more money into solar energy technology and the implementation of all renewable energy

resources. We need the countries of the world to unite together on one front to challenge the

pervasive threat of climate change.

 Colenbrander 12

Works Cited

"Benefits of Renewable Energy Use." ​Union of Concerned Scientists​. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 March

2018.

Bomey, Nathan. "More Job Cuts Expected for Oil Workers in 2016." ​USA Today​. Gannett

Satellite Information Network, 08 Jan. 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2017.

Cheek, Linden. “3 Reasons We Are Still Using Fossil Fuels.” ​University of Arkansas

Sustainability Blog,​ 27 Nov. 2017. Web. 15 Mar. 2018.

Chowdhury, Navid. ​Is Nuclear Energy Renewable Energy?​ Stanford, 22 Mar. 2012. Web.

24 Mar. 2018.

"COP21: 9 Questions for a Renewable Energy Expert." ​CNN​. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 9

Mar. 2018.

“Energy Sources Have Changed throughout the History of the United States.” ​US Energy

Information Administration​, 3 July 2013. Web. 10 March 2018.

Friedman, Lisa. “Trump Team to Promote Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power at Bonn Climate

Talks.” ​The New York Times,​ The New York Times, 2 Nov. 2017. Web. 10 Mar. 2018.
 Colenbrander 13

"Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production." ​Nature​. N.p., n.d. Web. 25

Mar. 2018.

Leber, Rebecca. "Obama Is Right: Climate Change Kills More People Than Terrorism." ​New

Republic.​ N.p., 11 Feb. 2015. Web. 7 March 2018.

“Monthly Energy Review.” ​Energy Information Administration,​ 26 Feb. 2018. Web. 13 Mar.

2018.

Nakaya, Andrea C. ​Energy Alternatives​. ReferencePoint Press, 2008. Book. 26 February 2018.

Redman, Janet, et al. “Dirty Energy Dominance: U.S. Subsidies – Oil Change Int'l.” ​Oil Change

International​, 3 Oct. 2017. 23 Mar. 2018.

Roberts, David. “Friendly Policies Keep US Oil and Coal Afloat Far More than We

Thought.”​Vox​, Vox, 6 Oct. 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2018.

Robertson, Coral Davenport and Campbell. "Resettling the First American 'Climate Refugees'."

The New York Times​. The New York Times, 02 May 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2018.

Samuelson, Kate. “Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of

U.S.” ​Fortune,​ 27 Jan. 2017. Web. 11 Mar. 2018.

 Colenbrander 14

Stauffer, Nancy W. “Transparent, Flexible Solar Cells.” ​MIT News​, 28 July 2017. Web. 9 Feb.

2018.

Zhang, Hai-Bin, et al. “U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons, Impacts, and

China's Response.” ​Advances in Climate Change Research,​ Elsevier, 27 Sept. 2017.

Web. 11 Mar. 2018.