Category: Fossil Fuels

The world has changed into a whole new level of inventions ever since mankind had discovered what the burning of fossil fuel can do. Skipping through a whole lot of inventions, the automobile was and still is one of the greatest one that is currently used today with the burning of fossil fuel. Not so long ago, scientists noticed that the temperature was rising and they found out it is because of the burning of fossil fuels that give off carbon dioxide, which increases the greenhouse effect and heats the planet—the process we call global warming. There are many sources that affect it such as nature itself like a forest fire. Automobile is the main source due to the need of transportation.

“Us, humans, rely on air to survive but we are largely responsible for air pollution” (Air Pollution, 1). Air pollution is caused by the release of toxic or damaging particles and gases into the atmosphere and it is also caused by a variety of things. When humans burn fossil fuel, miniscule particles escape into the atmosphere. “These particles form black carbon, which is one of the most common forms of air pollution.” (Air Pollution, 1) Very few scientists believe that it isn’t us that is causing this, but majority believe it is. When cars are used and burn fossil fuel, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide noxious gases are released into the atmosphere. Due to these gases being in the atmosphere, it can make the air unsafe to breathe. One of the causes from the mixing of these chemicals is acid rain. Normal rain is slightly acidic with the dissolved carbon dioxide but acid rain contains sulfuric and nitric acid making it 1000 times more acidic and is more dangerous to living things. Acid rain can harm the environment in many ways such harming the vegetation. Living things such as crops don’t grow well in acid conditions because certain enzymes are unable to function in acid conditions. These conditions wouldn’t be like this if there wasn’t as many cars as there is now. The world is filled with fuel-running cars and a solution has to come soon before it’s too late.

Global warming or climate change is also another severe consequence of air pollution. Cars play a big impact in this again due to the burning of fossil fuel. Scientists call it the greenhouse effect which is when hot air is held in the planet. “Rising temperatures caused polar ice caps to melt quickly which causes massive bodies of ice drip into the ocean, sea levels rise and threaten to flood low-lying coastal areas.”(Air Polllution, 1) Not only is it raising sea levels but also has the wildlife at risk, increasing risk of drought, fire, and floods, stronger storms, more heat-related illnesses and disease, etc.

When it gets to people dying, it’s time to do something. “In 2003, extreme heat waves caused more than 20,000 deaths in Europe and more than 1,500 deaths in India.” The number of deaths is unacceptable especially if we’re the cause of it. Scientists believe it is due to climate change and predict there are more to come. Due to climate change increasing, the infectious diseases will be more able to spread because warmer temperatures allow disease-carrying insects, animals to survive areas where they were once in a cold area.

But that’s not all, there’s a whole list of dangerous effects that come from the burning of fossil fuel. Such as smog, which causes children and the elderly to be in a life threatening situation because children’ lungs are still developing. On the other hand, most of the elders lose the red blood cell that lets diseases go out of control. “The costs of air pollution are enormous”, as a fourth grader, Jordan A Cowl, said to on a letter that he wrote for the Newsport News. We need more people like Jordan, only a fourth grader and he has his eyes open while the other half of the world decides to ignore the fact that people are dying because of the burning of fossil fuels.

The burning of fossil fuel by cars is a great factor on carbon dioxide causing global warming. “Data on the long-term CO2 trend show that the CO2 level remained stable around 280 ppm during the last 10,000 years. Then CO2 began to rise around the time of the Industrial Revolution, and is now 38 percent higher than pre-industrial levels.” (Human-Produced Carbon Dioxide Contributes to Global Warming, 3) The first automobile was created during the Industrial Revolution by Carl Benz. When he created that, everything started to change, including the use of fossil fuels by humans. By time, people needed more transportation and more people bought more cars. Then after a while, even bigger brains than Carl decided to create a faster automobile. In order for that to happen it needed a stronger motor and that stronger motor required more fuel than the ones before. As time passed, the automobiles became stronger and bigger and more people around the world bought them. It is quite obvious that the automobile has affected global warming since the day it was invented. Cars are being used everywhere by everyone. The following chart shows the amount of cars sold in the last few years.

Non-fueled cars, such as hybrid and electric cars, lower the risks of all the effects that global warming can cause. We all know that the biggest factor that causes global warming is the automobiles that use fuel. “Some people hope to lower down the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that contributes to global warming”, (Hybrid and Electric Cars, 1). The author says that implying that people want to do something to stop global warming and by doing that, they buy electric and hybrid cars instead of power-fueled cars. If these types of cars start spreading, the temperature of the earth will not be increasing as much as before because they do not run on gas and have no tailpipe. People who drive and electric car save about $13,000 on fuel and use 6,1000 fewer gallons of gasoline. It is more economical in the money and it also doesn’t require gas. If everyone did this, they would be helping the environment in many ways because they are reducing global warming, not including that they would be saving money on gas. They can save at an average of $975 per year when compared to a normal vehicle.

While in the other hand, hybrid cars are very similar to electric cars. Hybrid cars are an alternative solution that doesn’t run on gas, just like the electric cars. When a gallon of gasoline is burned, the carbon dioxide combines with oxygen and makes it twenty pounds of carbon dioxide. Hybrid cars run on electric motors though and they can definitely reduce the dangerous risks that global warming brings to earth. For example, smog -combination of smoke and fog- can be reduced by 90%. Smog is harmful to human beings by harming the respiratory and cardiovascular systems. It can bring heart problems, bronchitis, asthma, and other lung problems to living things and even to a very fit person.

Now some people may argue that these types of cars aren’t just fast enough for them but is it really worth it? If we continue to damage the earth like this, who knows how the next generation are going to control it. “Plants and animals might not be able survive these sudden changes that come from global warming and could become extinct.”(Global Warming, 3) Plants give us oxygen and without them we won’t be able to live on this planet. Animals give us meat, we eat them to stay alive as well not including the loss of farmland as well. “According to World Health Organization, about 7 million people died in 2012 due to air pollution”(Air Pollution, 3) They found connections linking to health problems such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases. The number of these deaths are going to continue increasing because car companies will not stop making cars that run on fuel. So does speed really matter when it comes to 7 million people dying in one year, just from air pollution.

How should the oil and gas industry respond to global warming?

Global warming is a contemporary serious threat to our planet for the combustion of oil, coal, and natural gas contributes in changing the atmospheric balance of carbon dioxide, and other naturally occurring ‘trace gases’ as well as chemicals created by various oil and gas industries. Current threat to global warming is from the oil industries which after burning petroleum products seek ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while looking after investment in sustainable energy.

The oil industry has been periodically threatened by public perceptions as monopolistic, greedy, and, in the later part of the century, insensitive to the natural environment, however this is not the case (Livesey, 2002). On tackling global warming, many suggestions and policies have been adopted up till now of which the most implementable were taxation system on carbon, trading system, or adopting some kind of climate policy so as to devise an effective energy strategy are the most well known (Krauss & Mouawad, 11 Feb 2009). U.S oil refinery was the first to admit the inefficiency of Kyoto Pact, and the failure to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Even sustainable alternative solutions to our oil addiction have been provided to the oil and gas sector like implementing taxes on profits, closing the room escape paying royalties, dedicating fresh revenues to clean energy, establishing strategies, and improving fuel consumption to reduce gasoline demand (Slocum, Sept 2006). Despite all the deployed strategies of oil industry to reduce global warming, Oil and gas sector is yet seeking alternatives to control global warming or greenhouse effect.

Being the world’s largest solar-energy company, British Petroleum seeks ways to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from its refineries and increase use of cleaner natural gas as opposed to oil. When company officials believe they can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions even without compromising either growth or profits, it seems they are in a surrealistic position (Johansen, 2002, p. 110) since British Petroleum’s 90 business units plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions mainly by improving energy efficiency and using new technology have not worked well enough to cope up with the problem. For example, British Petroleum despite installing new technology to enhance oil flow has not completely eliminated a number of pumping stations on various pipelines. No doubt this move has reduced carbon dioxide emissions on sites by 236,000 tons a year but still is not an ideal mode of response to global warming (BP, 2009a). Therefore oil and gas refineries now plans to meet its goals with advice from groups such as Environmental Defense, as well as its own engineers and other employees.

The oil companies wanting to contribute towards global warming phenomenon actually mean that they want to continue to install the process of bringing more alternative sustainable energy sources on-line. In other words it indicates the inability of the oil sector to be involved in lowering emissions which is because they are unable to stop producing oil, at least until their operations and the burning of fossil fuels are 100% neutral in terms of their impacts on climate change (GlobalWarming, 2009a).

European Commission in January was criticised for the increased global warming that has touched off a chain of regional conflicts over dwindling resources including worsening poverty, famine, mass migrations and the proliferation of infectious diseases such as malaria, cholera and dengue fever (Blanche, Feb 2008).

The best what science suggests oil and gas refineries is to maintain a stabilising atmospheric concentrations at safe levels that will require a 60 to 80 percent cut in carbon emissions from current levels over the next century. Since, everyone is aware that our global energy system has been “decarbonising” over the last 200 years, moving to less carbon-intensive fuels and improving energy efficiency, therefore such a maintained rate of change will need to accelerate significantly to meet this objective (Flavin & Dunn, 1999).

Putting an end to oil spilling and toxic wastes

Dumping oil spilling and toxic wastes inappropriately and oil-related accidents cannot be ignored anymore, since this cumulative problem must be put to an end. We are well aware of the fact that world’s demand for this non-renewable resource is increasing with the passage of time and would increase more rapidly than what it is today because of the demand of petroleum products. Recent studies confirm that exposure to airborne particles from combustion of residual oil alters the functioning of fossil fuels burning (Cormier et al, 2006).

In limited circumstances, oil industry often witnesses situations which invite even conventional fossil fuels to enter the category of ‘waste material’, which allows certification as a small power project. Such wastes include natural gas, which is often flared to be utilised as refuse lignite, this when combines with low or medium quality natural gas gives no commercial value therefore it enters as a ‘waste material’ resource (Ferrey, 2003).

Alternative Energy Programs

Alternative energy development programs are already helping oil companies to increase energy availability and efficiency, since energy sources into fossil fuels and nuclear power, as the conventional sources, and renewable and geothermal energy, as the alternatives. There is a need to use conventional and geothermal sources as energy capital, to reduce the future threats so as the renewable energy sources employ energy income (i.e., the stock remains constant).

The contemporary problem in utilising capital appears to be most efficient; however, the true cost of fossil fuel use is misrepresented by market prices. For example, fossil fuel combustion produces emissions that play an active role in global warming and impose costs on society for example, through poorer health. Thus, excessive energy usage results in global warming effect; therefore there is a need to investigate the hidden factors behind environmental crises that renewable energy sources are falsely seen as too expensive because their external benefits to society, such as energy capital maintenance and lower pollution (Shojai, 1995, p. 159).

Private participation in such energy programs has shifted attention of oil refineries from instrumental criteria of performance to efficiency and profitability considerations. Many rural areas have face prolong delays in securing prized energy connections, and meanwhile aggravate biomass depletion and coal based pollution, were it not for important technological developments. Contemporary oil planners have considered decentralised energy production and explored rather than assumed the nature of emerging demand (Chasek, 2000, p. 37).

Transformation

With the help of technological innovation, refineries can transform themselves from traditional renewable energy to fast growing energy sources. Windmills can be used for such purpose to generate electricity, other renewable sources include geothermal energy which serves to increase slowly but steadily with less even distribution, it can contribute towards power generation (Flavin & Dunn, 1999).

Oil and gas refineries should seek renewable energy resources to get the maximum hold on retaining energy and development standards of countries throughout the world. Refineries along with the help of Government can rely on biomass as an attractive energy resource since it uses local feed stocks and labour with contribution from crop wastes, cellulosic biomass, and crops.

Energy crops have been consumed by many countries like Brazil to utilise the energy crops of sugar to produce ethanol for use in vehicles, as an alternate of oil imports. Besides other alternates, Hydrogen serves to be the most less polluting processed hydrant which promises an effective alternative fuel for the future, and is currently produced from natural gas in a less pollutant process with more improved and more economic technology, hydrogen also can be produced from photovoltaic or wind-powered electrolysis, separating hydrogen from water, and from some seawater algae (Ottinger & Williams, 2002).

There is a scope for refineries to utilise in the near-term, hydrogen as a most likely solution to be used in fuel cells that can power vehicles or stationary electric generators. Oil sector should utilise hydrogen combustion for it is virtually pollution free when recombines with hydrogen and oxygen to release water, and the gas is economically transportable in pipelines, minimising the threat of oil spillage. Other benefits include its cost effectiveness in context with reducing the cost of both hydrogen production and fuel cells.

There is a need to build an infrastructure so as to transport the hydrogen along with treating the natural gas pipelines through a distribution network established for vehicle use. However, in order to develop this infrastructure huge initial capital expenses would occur because hydrogen is developed today to the extent to be used as an electric power source.

Political Solution to Political Problem

Fossil fuel energy production in addressing global warming is a logic which has informed the climate strategies of most industrial states and environmental groups. The key reason for why global warming becomes politically so problematic refers to the industrialised nations where CO2 emissions are in need to be reduced immediately by over 60 per cent if concentrations are to be stabilised at existing levels. In most industrialised countries, oil and gas companies have energy lobbies that are politically very powerful, and in most countries a culture exists whereby the assumption is that energy use must grow in order to sustain economic growth.

The continuing political wrangling over the Kyoto Protocol illustrates why the oil refineries are responding so slowly to the impending crisis of global warming. Climate diplomacy remains an arena dominated by competition of special interests in which a few European countries, are taking steps to mitigate greenhouse forcing on their own. While British emissions of greenhouse gases by the year 2000 had fallen between five and six percent compared to the Kyoto Protocol 1990 targets, emissions in the United States rose 11 percent between 1990 and 1998, while several European countries (including Britain) made substantial progress toward meeting the goals of the Kyoto Protocol by reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions as much as 10 percent compared to 1990 levels (Johansen, 2002, p. 254).

Woloski (2006) points out that the main problem is that sky touching global prices of oil which have been driven by various factors including unease in global markets, but this would not be a long-term concern, since the continued fossil fuel use is the expectation that oil reserves will be exhausted by 2045 (Woloski, 2006) and the rocketing prices of gasoline would ultimately escort the global market to search for alternative energy sources.

In one aspect, we can see that the way sustainable development have raised the issue of climate change, is more greater in magnitude and potentially more threatening to oil companies than anything that had gone before. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) points out that the link between global warming and greenhouse gas emissions in context with the oil sector production by the burning of fossil fuels has been one of the reasons of satisfaction of many scientists and government policy makers (Livesey, 2002).

Ever since 1996, British Petroleum (BP) has abandoned the industry coalition while understanding the political advocacy towards fossil fuels and has modified its position on Kyoto. BP this way has cope up in reducing the environmental threats by supporting the principle advocated by IPCC climate scientists that ‘precautionary measures are necessary, BP even has not lagged behind in reducing its own emissions voluntarily. BP along with the Shell Group promises to meet political steps towards reducing global warming and has exceeded even Kyoto guidelines by instituting new businesses in renewable energy and mounted public relations campaigns to announce strategies based on responsible corporate citizenship.

Publishing texts on global warming threats has never been considered enough, since to policy makers, the ads address the complex issue in a conversational style, which presents a view to offsetting, in terms familiar in public discourse, the increasingly dire warnings of climate scientists urged at international climate negotiations and appearing in the popular press. Corporate actors in the political arena have accuses the oil companies of distorting and misrepresenting the ‘science’ of global warming, which to environmentalists have only problematised the issue (Leggett, 2001, p. 16).

The fossil fuels nowadays are the primary sources of energy for industrial, agricultural and community needs. More than 80% of the energy in the world comes from the fossil fuels (Cherian 36). Among them are natural gas, oil, coal and in some cases wood. They are very convenient because they produce enormous amounts of energy when burned. At the same time, fossil fuels exert a significantly harmful impact on the environment.

The Environmental Impact Resulting from the Global Use of Fossil Fuels

The intensive use of the fossil fuels is one of the fundamental reasons of climate change and global warming. The burning of the fossil fuels cause the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. The existing amount of those gases cannot be recycled. That leads to their accumulation in the atmosphere and causes greenhouse effect (Cherian 6). In the following 50 years, the increased level of CO2 emissions may cause more than 2° rise of the world temperature (Finkel 86).

The reduction of air quality because of greenhouse gas emissions leads to serious health problems such as cancer and respiratory diseases (Cherian 160). Air and soil pollution becomes the reason of the crops’ contamination, decreased quality of food and degradation of the agricultural production system. The same can be told about the water pollution (United Nations Environment Program 51). It is often told that future conflicts between the states will be because of water.

The climate change also causes drastic losses of biodiversity. Animal and plant species are killed by the change in temperature regime, desertification, acid rains and contamination (Cherian 29).The process of the fossil fuels production may lead to substantial habitat degradation and fragmentation. Local species may not be able to live in destroyed and polluted area. For instance, the oil spills cause the destruction of the whole marine and ocean ecosystems (United Nations Environment Program 180).

Need to Move to Renewable Energy in Today’s Society

In general, renewable energy or green energy refers to those energy sources that are either inexhaustible or can be replenished in a natural way. Renewable energy can be received from such natural resources as the wind, sunlight, water currents, tides and geothermal heat (Kyro 301). According to the report of the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, or simply REN21, nowadays 19,1% of all energy in the world is produced from renewable sources; 22,8% of the world’s electricity is renewable (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 18).

Among the key reasons for the humanity to move to renewable energy are:

Inexhaustibility. The researchers indicate that the explored oil reserves will be enough for less than 60 years (Finkel 199). The renewable sources, on the contrary, are unlimited from the human point of view. The use of the renewables in the economy helps to save non-renewable sources for future generations.

Security and reliability. The renewable sources are environmentally friendly. While they are used, there is almost no waste and no environmental costs associated with the extraction, processing and transportation of fossil fuels. The supply of the renewables does not depend on the human activities (Kukreja par. 4).

Reduction of environmental pollution. The renewable energy sources do not need to be burned; thus, no harmful greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, hydrosphere and soil. The renewables do not violate the ecological balance of the planet. REN21 notes, that in 2014, “despite rising energy use, for the first time in four decades, global carbon emissions associated with energy consumption remained” (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century 6); that was made possible by the spread of renewable sources.

Free cost of sources. Nowadays such issues as the price for gas and oil become very tough ones for the countries that are poor for fossil fuels. That often is a burden for the citizens to pay extremely high prices to heat their dwellings. The prices of fossil fuels define the inflation rates and influences the country’s GDP. Moreover, the countries-suppliers often exert political pressure on the receivers of their energy. Sun, water and the wind are free sources. The only thing to do is to invest into facilities that can get energy from those free sources. This long-time investment will diminish the country’s dependence on the external energy providers (Kyro 301).

Sustainable development. Renewable energy is an essential component of the sustainable development concept. This concept assumes the need to establish a balance between the satisfaction of modern needs and interests of the people and those of the future generations, including their need for a safe and healthy environment (Twidell and Weir 5).

New job opportunities. The renewable energy industry requires well-educated specialists with solid knowledge, both engineers and technology designers. This industry gives the new tech-oriented generation a chance to realize their potential and bring benefit to the society. Today 7,7 million people worldwide are involved in the renewable energy.

However, there also exist some implications for the widespread use of the renewables. The cost of the facilities for renewable energy production is rather high in comparison with the traditional energy stations. This problem is especially crucial for the least developed countries; they can only turn to the developed ones for help and become more dependent on them. Moreover, the renewable energy facilities can only be located in particular places because they depend much on the weather conditions. That may increase costs for energy transportation (Kukreja par. 11-13).

Overall, it can be said that renewable energy as an alternative to the fossil fuels is the only way for the humankind to save the Earth and to ensure the prosperity of the future generations.

DISOBEDIENCE is a movie about the upward jab of the fossil gas resistance. The film tells the story of activists on the the front lines of the global climate crisis, led by way of everyday humans who are fed up with the power and pollution of the fossil gas industry.The movie used to be launched on April 29, 2016, as section of a marketing campaign to launch, energize, and bring interest to the May 2016 Break Free From Fossil Fuels mobilization. Led via 350.org and a coalition of environmental groups, the May 2016 Break Free initiative grew to develop to be the the greatest civil disobedience motion ever towards fossil fuels, spanning throughout six continents.

The movie DISOBEDIENCE takes a seem to be into our dire local weather crisis, indicates current interviews with climate activists and pictures of nonviolent protests for local weather justice. The movie additionally takes us returned to the roots of nonviolent civil disobedience , revisiting the M.L. King civil rights movement, Gandhi’s Indian independence movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the anti-apartheid movement, and massive. The movie makes a convincing case that the fossil gas resistance movement is now on the rise. This case was once quickly supported after the film’s release, when over 30,000 activists participated in the global May 2016 Break Free From Fossil Fuels mobilization. The movie will be accompanied with the aid of an replace to the May 2016 Break Free From Fossil Fuels mobilization and a moderated discussion.

Disobedience is the story of the fighting to retailer the world. Disobedience is simply like the adaptation of the story of David vs Goliath testimonies the place at present, front line leaders round the world risking existence and limb in the battle for a habitable climate. Interwoven with this riveting verité photos are the most renowned voices in the world conversation round social moves and climate justice for a sequence that is personal, passionate and power. The stakes may want to no longer be higher, nor the missions greater necessary.

DISOBEDIENCE is a new movie that suggests the first-rate things that everyday humans are inclined to do when confronted with the biggest crisis in human history. If politicians won’t do what it takes to spoil free from coal, oil and gas, we will. While organisers in the course of the world prepared for Break Free, a world wave of resistance to keep coal, oil and fuel in the ground, PF Pictures despatched crews to 4 of the biggest moves — in Canada, Germany, the Philippines and Turkey — to inform the story of how everyday people in all locations are working to cease the strength and pollution of the fossil gas industry. The stop end result is a 30 min. long, fast-paced movie that tells the story of civil disobedience and the nearby climate disaster like you’ve with the aid of no ability seen before.

In this modern-day lifestyle the fuel has become a necessity for all human beings. We use fuel to fulfill our various needs like cooking, manufacturing, to produce building material and many more. Moreover, in the last one or two decade, we have started depending on fuel so much that it has become our basic necessity. So, ultimately we are dependent on fuel either we like it or not.

What is Fossil Fuel?

It is the fuel that we use for our consumption. It is made up of dead remains and fossils of animals and plants that are buried deep inside the surface of the earth. Also, it forms under extreme environmental pressure and heat. Besides, it is found deep inside the surface of the earth.

The LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), Petrol, diesel, kerosene, wood, coal, and natural gases are all fuels.

Since the dawn of industrialization, the amount and speed of consumption of fuels have increased many folds. Most of the industries run and function by consumption of fuel.

Moreover, a large part of electricity production depends on coal.

Saving fuel means saving the environment

The industrialization has badly damaged the ecosystem. The modern-day machine and vehicles have become a symbol of prosperity.

Moreover, they use a large amount of fuel every day. But in the long run, we are not seeing the bigger picture that this is causing a huge burden on the environment and to save the environment we have to undergo sustainable development.

Our environment is badly infected by harmful and toxic gases released by combustion of fuel by vehicles. In addition, this causes many problems like ozone depletion, global warming. These things have become a massive threat to life on earth. As the depletion of the ozone layer increases the number of greenhouse gases which are constantly increasing the temperature of the surface of the earth.

Besides, this these fuel are limited in quantity and at the current rate of use, they would likely to be exhausted in a few decades. Moreover, they will take centuries to regenerate.

Ways to save fuel for a better environment

Today’s man has no respect for nature. They waste our natural resources without thinking about the consequences.

Furthermore, there are ways that can help in saving fuel. Firstly, stick to the speed limit as it decreases the consumption of fuel by vehicles. Secondly, turn off your AC whenever not in use as it consumes more fuel. Also, proper maintenance car is necessary so that the car consumes less fuel.

Cooking and reheating of food and beverages consume a lot of fuel as most of people cook food while keeping the utensils open. Besides, we can reduce this use by switching to electric appliances. In addition, the use of good quality wire also saves electricity.

To conclude, if we use the fuel conveniently and sustainably then we can assure the existence of our next generation. Also, sustainable use will likely to help us in saving the environment as it replenishes itself to its original form if not disturbed by external forces.

Having a reliable source of energy is important to the United States’ economy. Energy is required for more than just transportation; it is necessary to power homes and businesses. Currently, the main sources of energy in America are fossil fuels. Though these sources may seem cheaper and more efficient temporarily, in the long-term, they can neither sustain the American economy nor the environment. Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermic power show promise in delivering abundant, safe, reliable energy. However, with the huge amount of subsidies given to fossil fuels, competition is difficult for these renewable resources. The purpose of this letter is to address the problem of how the financial inequality is not only handicapping the development and marketing of renewable resources, but also the American economy.

According to DuPont (2013), fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas, and coal, are the primary energy sources in the United States. While investing in domestic oil will help the United States be less reliant on foreign energy, it will not remove it entirely from the global market. Oil, along with coal, pollutes the environment and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Natural gas is a highly embraced alternative to coal and oil, because it does not produce as much carbon emissions. However, there is much concern involving its extraction. Natural gas is collected by a process called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Millions of gallons of underground water and chemicals are pumped under high pressure into underground rock formations. The pressure causes the rocks to crack open and the gas to travel upwards. Fracking has been shown to pollute drinking water with chemicals and methane. Weeks (2011) reports a study by Duke University where it was found that water within one kilometer from fracking wells contained higher levels of dissolved methane than from wells farther away. Weinhold (2012) reports that even though the Environmental Protection Agency does have some authority over the water pollution under the Safe Drinking Water Act, he expresses concern that the fracking may be detrimental to the Earth’s geological structure and contribute to earthquakes due to fluid imbalances and temperature changes.

One of the reasons for the success of oil and other fossil fuels is the high amount of subsidies given to these producers. Weeks (2011) reports that the federal government supplies the oil industry with $4 billion dollars in subsidies each year. Because of this financial assistance, oil companies have market dominion over renewable energy sources. From the period of 2002-2008, the federal government spent $70 billion on subsidies for fossil fuels, while only spending $29 billion on renewable energy sources.

When Jimmy Carter was president, he recognized the need for alternative energy sources, knowing that fossil fuels would not always be available. President Carter created a Cabinet-level Department of Energy, approved new energy efficiency standards and tax incentives for investments in renewable energy sources, and deregulated natural gas prices to encourage more domestic energy production and allow prices to rise to market level. His policies were successful, as the electricity produced from oil dropped to 20% to 3%, as utilities switched to natural gas and coal. In 1980, the Iraq-Iran war caused concern for oil supplies and then the Reagan administration cut subsidies for renewable energy, removed the solar panels Carter had installed on the White House roof, and increased the deregulation of oil. These factors contributed to the lack of success more than the policies implemented by President Carter.

Promoting the development of fossil fuels is not without merit. The United States relies on fossil fuels, especially oil. Increasing the prices of gasoline would make finances very difficult in this economy. Gasoline is necessary to get to work and to pay for utilities. The development of domestic drilling may help to temporarily reduce costs, establish independence from the global oil market, and help to boost the economy by creating jobs and allowing people affordable transportation. Increasing expenses could be detrimental to the economy and increase poverty and unemployment levels. However as other countries such as Europe and China make the transition to renewable energy sources, the United States would still be reliant on foreign imports. The short-term benefits would be negated, as jobs are lost due to the lack of demand.

There are many ways to promote the development of renewable energy sources. One method would be to implement policies which would force fossil fuel companies to pay extra for their pollution. A cap-and-trade program would create incentives to convert to greener energy sources by having fossil fuel companies pay to cover carbon dioxide emissions. Another potential solution would be to implement a clean energy standard that would require that companies which produce electricity to generate a set amount of their power from low-carbon sources. Another potential solution is for Washington to raise the taxes on gasoline and require that newly manufactured vehicles accept biofuels in addition to gas and diesel.

Another policy which may work is not so much to penalize fossil fuels, but to simply remove federal assistance. President Obama proposed the termination of eight programs which benefit oil companies. One program would terminate tax write-offs for drilling costs, including labor and drilling fluid expenses. Ending these write-offs would generate $1.9 billion federal tax revenues, and save the United States $125 billion from 2012-2021. The Obama administration also wanted to end the depletion allowances that permit producers to deduct 15% from their gross income. Oil companies would pay $607 million more in taxes per year and $11.2 billion from 2012-2021. The deductions for domestic manufacturing currently allows oil and natural gas companies to deduct 6% of their net income for production in the United States. This termination would reduce labor costs, increase employment, and generate $902 million in tax revenues and $18.3 billion from 2012-2021.

Supporting the Obama administration in reducing these subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies is one way to help even the competitive market. The excess funds can be used to promote the development of renewable energy sources. Already, major corporations such as General Electric are investing in the development of renewable resources. Renewable energy sources have problems and the extra finances may help to overcome them. Some sources such as solar and wind power can be expensive due to their specific locations and can require a lot of land. A study by Bunger, Krahl, Schroder, Schmidt, and Westphal (2013) found that even though the combination of biofuels and diesel fuels significantly reduced greenhouse gas, the potential for hazards to human health was increased due to the higher production of nitric oxide.

By transferring subsidies from fossil fuels and giving a significant portion to more renewable energy, it would give these green sources a better chance of development. Removing subsidies from fossil fuels will indirectly penalize these companies; however they will not have to pay extra, which will be more beneficial to the consumers in the United States. Consumers will still have options, and the United States can be gradually weaned from their dependence on fossil fuels while slowly acclimating to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources.

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (999) 555-1212 or email me at johndoe@gmail.com. Thank you for your consideration.

The planet’s temperature is rising rapidly, faster than ever before. As a species, we are running out of time. We need a solution for the crisis we are currently in since the effects of climate change have begun to take their toll. Luckily, we have an alternative fuel that burns cleaner, it’s accessible, and could slow or eventually put a halt to the rising temperature of the planet. It’s name is biodiesel.

Biodiesel can play a big role in helping slow the effects of climate change if we give it the opportunity. We will also eventually run out of fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, biodiesel is renewable. This means that we can produce biodiesel for an unlimited amount of time. Not only do biofuels benefit the consumer and the environment, but they also benefit the United States economy as well. Biofuels could also create thousands of jobs in the near future. Since fossil fuels will eventually be depleted, the main source of fuel will eventually come from a renewable source such as biofuel or solar.

Even though biodiesel does have many benefits, fossil fuels still have many advantages when compared to biofuel. The fossil fuel industry has been established since the 1800’s, and has provided by far the largest source of income in the United States. The United States has been the world’s leading producer and exporter of fossil fuel. The fossil fuel industry has been responsible for 1.9 million jobs and billions of dollars in revenue as well. Fossil fuels have been the U.S. number one source of income, raking in hundreds of billions of dollars a year. It is so profitable, in fact, ExxonMobil is worth $425 billion dollars alone according to their website.

Biofuels have been on the energy scene for many years now, but have only been recognized by many as of recently. Biofuels such as biodiesel are made from feedstock like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fats. Biofuels are all natural, biodegradable, and burn cleaner than standard crude oil based fuels. These fuels have the opportunity to help slow and neutralize the effects humans have brought upon the climate since the industrial revolution of the 1800’s.

Let’s go back about 40 million years to when dinosaurs roamed the earth. During that time period, we have discovered that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now. When the asteroid impacted the earth and wiped out almost all of the biological life on the surface of the earth, the fossilized remains absorbed the majority of the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere and were buried underneath many layers of sediment. Humans found a way to drill down deep into the earth’s surface and extract the oil from the fossils and process it to turn it into fuel. This means that the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is approximately 40 million years old. This means that over time, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase to the level it was at 40 million years ago. This level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unsuitable for humans, and will cause major problems for us in the future such as deforestation, extinction of some species, and rising sea levels. Biodiesel, on the other hand, is a has a closed-carbon cycle. What is a closed-carbon cycle, you might ask? A closed carbon cycle means that all of the carbon dioxide released by your engine is absorbed by the plants in the process of photosynthesis. This means that there is no net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

A hard fact to face is that eventually, we will run out of fossil fuels. Since biofuels are made from natural resources that can be reproduced, in theory we will never run out of biodiesel to fuel our engines.

Over time, gasoline and diesel from crude oil can corrode a car’s engine. Unlike gasoline or diesel however, biodiesel is a very slippery fuel. This means that when biodiesel flows through your engine, it lubricates and protects the engine’s parts, which in turn extends the life of your engine. It’s so slippery that adding ½ of 1% of biodiesel to a tank of standard diesel would improve the lubricity of the fuel ten-fold.

Since biofuel can be produced domestically, the U.S. government will not have to pay to have oil drilled and exported to the United States. This also means that people won’t be killed over oil. On January 23, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed The Carter Doctrine. The Carter Doctrine made the protection of oil in the Persian Gulf a matter of national security. In the Persian Gulf sits the Ghawar Oil Field, the largest oil field in the entire world and the United States’ main source of oil. The Ghawar Oil Field is so big, in fact, it holds around ⅔ of the entire world’s oil supply. Carter stated that any attempt to steal oil from the Persian Gulf would be considered an attack on U.S. national security, and would be met with military force.

Even though biofuels offer many economic and environmental benefits, fossil fuels still excel biofuel in availability and reliability. Fossil fuels have been used by humans for over 200 years, and we will not run out anytime soon. In 2018, the total amount of barrels in oil reserves across the entire world was 1.73 trillion. If worldwide energy use remained at the same number it is today, the oil in reserves would last the entirety of the human population approximately 50 years. In the United States alone, the amount of oil in reserves currently sits at around 36.4 billion barrels. Since the amount of oil in the earth’s crust is still relatively abundant and oil reserves can last the entire world population 50 years, we are not in dire need of an energy solution yet.

Biofuels have proven themselves to be much more expensive than fossil fuels by a vast margin, both at the pump and at the plant where it is processed. At the pump, biodiesel costs around $4.13, where standard diesel costs an average of $3.17 depending on what state you’re currently in. The price of standard diesel and gasoline at the pump is much more appealing to consumers than the steep price of biofuel. This makes biodiesel less likely to be accepted by the public than fossil fuel. Since fossil fuels are so cheap and so plentiful, the appeal is much higher when compared to biofuels. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, approximately 147,000 full time jobs related to the production of coal. The fossil fuel industry is a much more stable and established industry which will be in economic favor over biofuels for the time being.

Since biofuels are created by harvesting feedstock such as soybeans or corn, vast quantities of water and crops are used in the production of biodiesel. ‘Green Living’, a website that considers themselves experts in the field of natural solutions and other nature related topics, stated that in 2010 400 million gallons of water were used in the production of biodiesel in the United States alone. As for feedstock, the land required to grow the crops used to produce biodiesel take up many acres of land.

Since fossil fuels are already inside the Earth’s crust, the land required to harvest the oil is much smaller when compared to the land used to harvest biodiesel. According to ‘How Stuff Works’, a website dedicated to explaining countless topics to the general public, they say that if the United States government decided to replace all diesel fuel with biofuel, they would have to dedicate 675 million acres of land to grow feedstock for biofuel production. Those 675 million acres make up around 71% of the farmland in the United States. This means that 71% of the farmland in the entire continental United States would be used exclusively by biofuel companies to grow corn, soybeans, and other types of feedstock used in biofuel production. This could mean that farmers will have to grow and harvest at a much faster rate than normal to keep up with the United States food supply.

Coal is a fuel source that can be converted into many different forms to power many different types of machines and engines. Coal can be converted into gasoline and diesel. It can be transformed into a gaseous state which allows for a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The same effect would occur if coal were to be processed and refined into a liquid fuel as well. Standard diesel and gasoline can also be blended with biofuel in an effort to increase fuel lubricity, energy output, and reduce emissions. An effort to make this a reality happened in December of 2007. George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 as a way to encourage and increase the production of biofuel with the intent of blending it with gasoline and diesel fuels. It also incentivised car companies to create hybrid style vehicles to encourage people to make the switch to cleaner energy.

While biofuels have shown their benefits opposed to fossil fuel, oil still has many advantages over biofuel including efficiency, reliability, accessibility, and cost at the fuel pump. The fossil fuels industry has been established since the Industrial Revolution of the 1800’s. Coal and oil have been used for centuries to power our homes, factories, and businesses. Since fossil fuel is a more established business than biofuel, it is less likely to face a financial crisis.However, I still believe that biofuels can be a reliable option as an alternative to fossil fuel. In my opinion, the pros of biofuel have many desirable benefits such as lower emissions and higher energy output. With the rising temperature of the planet and the dire circumstances we face as a species, a solution to the rising temperature must be found fast. I think that the adoption of renewable fuels such as biodiesel by the general public can affect mankind for the better in the long haul.

Prior to my research on the topic of biofuel, I believed that biofuels were vastly superior to fossil fuels in many different ways. I believed that in many more ways than one, biodiesel was a superior fuel source as opposed to fossil fuel. After conducting my research, I have discovered that biofuels do indeed have multiple benefits over fossil fuels, but fossil fuels still beat biofuels in many different ways such as reliability, availability, and overall convenience.

̈Americans rapidly increased how much energy they were using in the mid-20th

century, their reliance on oil, natural gas, and nuclear power grew ̈ (Blumsack). The United States has grown its economy and manufacturing industries by using fossil fuels. Therefore, fossil fuels are used to power Americans’ everyday lives and inevitably are the foundation for the lives we have today. In order to replace America’s use of fossil fuels is nearly impossible. It would be incredibly costly and many people would lose their jobs. The Green New Deals’ goal is to eliminate fossil fuels and uses green energy to create a new economy with green-collar jobs. Even though the Green New Deal has the potential to create new impactful jobs, it is next to impossible to replace fossil fuels and would be extremely expensive.

Some people believe the Green New Deal is beneficial and has the potential to improve environmental quality. First, the Green New Deal can potentially create green-collar jobs. These jobs are manual labor jobs that directly improve environmental quality. Some of the new jobs include green building architects and environmental engineers. These positions would help to use ̈green ̈ energy instead of fossil fuels and help improve urban communities. Some improvements would include waste reduction, materials reuse, green building, and water efficiency (Gerdes). Second, the Green New Deal would ¨Help communities mitigate costly damage by investing in urban green spaces ̈ (Zorn, Beachy, and Gunn-Wright). Urban green spaces help decrease the effects of natural disasters, including the prevention of flooding, restoring wetlands to buffer hurricanes, protecting houses from forest fires, and shielding coastlines from sea level rise. Doing this would help decrease the cost of natural disasters, which then improves environmental quality. Though the Green New Deal could improve environmental quality, its goal of eliminating fossil fuels would be next to impossible.

Eliminating the use of fossil fuels would be extremely difficult. First, the replacement of fossil fuels would require action on the part of hundreds of millions of people (Blumsack). People would need to upgrade or replace their everyday appliances and homes. Except many do not see the importance nor have the willingness in doing so. Second, (Swenson) says transferring to green energy will create winners and losers. Fuel-producing states, companies, economies, etc. will struggle with the transition. Many people will lose their jobs in fuel industries and will have to be retrained to learn how to work in these new green industries. In doing so, people will lose their jobs and it will take time and money to replace fossil fuel industries.

The Green New Deal has the potential of being extremely expensive. First, fossil fuels are actually cheaper than alternative energy sources. MIT and University of Chicago researchers conclude that alternative energy sources will actually be more expensive than using fossil fuels (W. Stauffer). With newly founded technology it gains easier access to new and old fossil fuel deposits. Therefore, it will now be cheaper to exploit and utilize fuel deposits rather than use alternative energy. Second, eliminating fossil fuels would not be cost-effective. A new study has found that replacing fossil fuel industries in the U.S. could cost up to $4.7 trillion and about $35,000 per household (Lynn). Many consumers and businesses do not want to spend their money on such a large investment. For that reason, replacing fossil fuels would not be efficient. Thirdly, (Talgo) states, ̈After its launch in 1933, unemployment worsened, the federal debt increased monumentally, and the Great Depression lingered for years.¨ Previously when the Green New Deal ́s policies were launched the U.S. actually lost money and many people were affected. Implementing the Green New Deal could potentially send the U.S. into debt. With that being so, the New Deal comes with a high price tag and would be very costly for the U.S.

In the last several centuries the world has been significantly changing due to the technologies and energies, opening an era’s face with high living standard. Of course, energies play a huge role in varying the world, likewise fossil-fuel gasoline, it has been utilized for thousands of years in daily life and industries. However, this kind of power has great concerns to environment that causes climate change and pollution. In meantime Cambodia is one of an unsuspecting victim that is utilizing this kind of energy great enough and worsening the air quality in atmosphere. These problems lead people to have different ideas, some people believe that utilizing fossil-fuel gasoline should not be made illegal while others believe fossil-fuel gasoline usage should be banned in order to reduce carbon dioxide emission and save the world before it is too late. These views are not wrong in their own perspectives. Nevertheless, in my personal thinking, I absolutely agree that coal, petroleum, oil and natural gas ought to be made forbidden and be banned. In this below, I would like to illustrate my three reasons to prove that.

The main reason that I would like to mention and everyone also fears about is the great degradation of fossil-fuel gasoline power to the environment. This kind of energy has huge pollution when it is burned, it directly liberates carbon dioxide into the air that mitigates the air quality, moreover, searching for it to consume, wisely pollutes land and water as digging the land and unleashing its waste to the water, so the more utilizing it the worse links to global warming, making fossil-fuels very unfriendly to the health of our planet. For example, in China, thousands of industries are highly utilizing this kind of power and it destructs the air quality until the state limited the time producing products in order to reduce much pollution. Additionally, in Cambodia, there is an increase of vehicles every year and the weather is getting hot day by day, but there are less people doing action or speaking out about this kind of problem to the government and I think this a dilemma that government should take action then publish that utilizing this kind of power is wrong, illegitimate, and should be banned. However, there are some people who still believe that made this power illegal would also produce tons of wasted equipment that are designed for extraction of fossil-fuel. That reason is logic and will be a problem in the short-term as they mentioned, even so my reason is much more efficient that would save Cambodia from this problem in long-term.

Another assertion that is pretty right for Cambodia to banish that kind of energy is about expensing money and public health issues. Cambodia is one of the most imported countries, it imports almost everything and fossil-fuel stands in a great amount imported product in Cambodia, every year this country spends a lot of money to buy this fossil-fuel power to utilize in industries and transportations, whereas fossil-fuel is dangerous to environment, it is also expensive and liberating smoke that affects public health as well. Its smoke consists nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxide and heavy metals, these are the air pollutants that will cause you to have a harmful health problem, such as cancer and asthma. For instance, if Cambodia stopped importing fossil-fuel gasoline, Cambodia could have saved millions of money every year and we could have used those moneys to invest on another useful project or expense on other efficiencies, like developing country and technology. More than that, millions of people, especially children who have been suffering from lung cancer and asthma, according to the WHO seven million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution. So if Cambodia banned this fossil-fuel usage, we could save many people that have been fighting with that disease. Even though, there is still a small thought concerning about thousands of employees will lose their job if we made fossil-fuel gasoline usage as prohibited. This claim is true, but it has less concern than millions of innocent people have died every year that we expense a lot of money to import and cure ill people.

One another reason is fossil-fuel gasoline is finite energy source, sooner or later it will be mortal and will vanish from our eyes, fossil-fuels take million years to decompose and from back, utilizing and depending too much on it will cause a great concern in the future if lacking of energy used. Unlike sunlight, water and wind fossil-fuel cannot be renewed fast, but sunlight, water, and wind they are mortal. For example, if Cambodia replace fossil-fuel power to solar power, wind power, and water power we do not need to worry about lacking those source, they are already everywhere and they are cleaned energy, it has no affection to health and environment, we also do not need to export it every day, once we finished setting it up, we use it twenty to thirty years. However, some people have negative thought about my assertion, they think solar power, wind power and water power are very expensive to build up and they think it is such a waste to banish fossil-fuels which are not expensive as solar power, wind power and water power. Of course, I agree those renewable powers are expensive, but it is better to invest money for long-term benefits rather than short-term benefits like fossil-fuel power.

In general, banning fossil-fuel energy would immediately cause some problems to industries, transportation, etc. and of course, it could cause great concern to million people, but utilizing fossil-fuel energy is extremely dangerous and very harmful to lives on earth in another hundred years. We understand the concern of stop using it immediately, but as the reasons were mentioned above, those are reasons have better assertive in illustrating why we should ban fossil-fuel, more than that we can reduce our way of utilizing it from day by day, step by step, country to country, and trying to find another alternative powers that is friendly to environment. Then, not much longer, our environment will become a better place to live.

In my conclusion, the reasons listed above are helping Cambodia to prevent pollutions, money waste, health issues. Compare to those negative opinions, I personally believe that my ideas that I mentioned about banishing fossil-fuels usage are extremely efficient for Cambodia, as it could save environment, money, human health, and developing another level of energy in the future. So it is better to follow my opinions which I carefully think about the advantages and disadvantages in the long life spin of Cambodia. These findings are important because it made us discussing about climate change, pollution of fossil-fuel in Cambodia. I found this is significant, the world should have pay more attentions on climate change, pollution and together finding solution to prevent the disaster come to destruct us. We should do it before it is too late.

Fossil fuel derivatives are produced using plant and animal deposits. These sources are found in the earth’s deep layer and contain carbon and hydrogen, which can be singed for energy (Strand, 2007). Coal is a solid raw material that is formed for an extended period by the rot of land vegetation. When layers are compacted and warmed over the long run, stores are transformed into coal (Sriramoju et al., 2020). Coal is generally extricated in mines. Coal has all the earmarks of being an ignitable dark or tarnish dark sedimentary stone. Before preparing and subsequent refining, it is filtered and squashed into small pieces that remind granules (Kumar, 2018). Coal refining includes pre-ignition medicines and cycles that change coal qualities before it is scorched (Kumar, 2018).

Oil is the most broadly utilized petroleum derivative. It is a fluid, non-renewable energy source shaped from the remaining parts of marine microorganisms saved on the ocean bottom. Following many years the stores end up in rock and residue where oil is caught in tiny spaces. It tends to be separated by substantial penetrating stages. Its viscid fluid color ranges from colorless to brownish-black. Raw petroleum comprises various natural mixtures changed to items in a refining interaction (Hsu & Robinson, 2019). Petroleum processing plants have three fundamental strides as a partition, change, and treatment which change oil into usable oil (Hsu & Robinson, 2019).

Natural gas is a moderately new kind of fuel source. It is a vaporous petroleum derivative that is adaptable, bountiful, and generally clean contrasted with coal and oil. Like oil, it is framed from the remaining parts of marine microorganisms. Petroleum gas essentially comprises methane (CH4) (Kidnay et al., 2020). It is profoundly packed in little volumes everywhere deep in the earth’s crust. Like oil, it is brought to the surface by drilling. Crude petroleum gas is generally gathered from a gathering of nearby wells. It is first prepared in a separator vessel at that assortment point for evacuation of free fluid water and flammable gas condensate (Kidnay et al., 2020). The condensate is typically then moved to a petroleum processing plant, and the water is treated and discarded as wastewater (Kidnay et al., 2020). The crude gas is then channeled to a gas preparing plant where the underlying purging is normally the expulsion of corrosive gases. Thus, the final look of the gas is clearer in color than it was before processing.