|
I don't think it's so much that we've become dependent on oil use per se, we've become addicted to prosperity and its ability to insulate us fragile humans from the harsh realities of nature. Oil (and coal to a large degree) is only the present means by which we achieve that prosperity and the lifestyle it affords.
Bennelson is right, our cultural attitudes are largely a problem and a shift in those attitudes can reduce wanton waste, but will not magically contribute to whole-scale elimination of the use of "fossil fuels." I support an energy policy of "more, cheaper, cleaner." Cheap energy is the engine of prosperity, more energy makes it cheaper and available to a wider segment of global population, and more people with more cheap energy will then be able to contribute to a cleaner world. Environmentalism is a luxury for "rich" nations while people in poor nations are forced to strip whatever they can from the earth to make their existence less brutal or even just possible.
The reality is that in the near term we will require additional oil to continue our way of life until technological breakthroughs enable larger portions of people to do more with less energy or enable us to use different forms of energy. I would much rather more of that energy come from within the USA/Canadian borders where I expect environmental oversight and regulations are far more strict than they are in the Middle East or Russia.
Mandating or price manipulating energy use into minimal levels slows technological breakthroughs, reduces availability of energy to the poor, and diverts money from "green" pursuits into replacing the functions that cheap energy once allowed. All in all, less more expensive energy I think is more likely to harm the environment than help it.
__________________
|