


Companies from the oil and fossil fuel industries have been backing politicians for decades, each choosing their supported candidate based on how well that candidate can help further their own agendas.
In the 2008 election, and in future elections, nothing will change because politicians (both Democrats and Republicans) need the financial aid from these industrial big shots.
One thing our politicians keep dancing around and ignoring, however, is the continuing failure of natural resource and oil companies to find additional fossil fuel reserves.
The fact of the matter is, oil reserves are dwindling and natural gas has to be imported because we’ve all but depleted our resources in America.
In the early 1970s, American oil production hit its peak and each subsequent year has brought less and less oil because the taps are running dry.
Saudi and Iraqi oil are the only oil sites that have not reached its peak yet.
Environmental biologists are predicting that it’s only a matter of time before these reserves peak and production plummets.
There are two major thought processes about the predicated doom of industrial nations (the consensus seems to be 2025): the Republicans ignore it and the Democrats preach doomsday epics.
Republicans prefer to ignore the problem, saying it’s only a matter of time before new reserves are found.
Democrats believe in finding alternative energy sources and arguing that the government should do something about the energy issue.
I’m a true blue Democrat (and I agree with investing in alternative energy sources), but waiting for the government to address the energy crisis is suicide.
Instead we should be taking notes from Cuba and Third World countries, as well as Richard Heinberg’s “Powerdown.”
Possible alternative energy resources aside, the process of powering-down is what we should be aiming for, both individually and as a global society.
Heinberg explains that powering-down can help conserve the resources we have left because it forces people to use less; it teaches people how to be productive without the constant need to lap up fossil fuels.
Heinberg also points to Cuba and Third World nations as protocols in energy conservation.
Developing nations typically use far less energy than industrial nations.
They don’t need the fossil fuels because they haven’t developed into nations that worry about luxury items. They also don’t need gas-guzzling vehicles, gas-heated homes and stoves, nor do they worry themselves with cross-country traveling like people in industrial nations.
Cuba has always been a nation that is criticized by the U.S. because of the way its leaders treat its citizens.
For all its downfalls, the Cuban economy has its good points. Cuba has shut itself off from the outside world, depending solely on the commodities it can produce.
The Cuban people have had to find ways to work around using oil and natural gas as a staple in their economy.
By establishing a means to be a productive economic entity without relying on fossil fuels, Cuba and developing nations are far more ready to deal with a time when fossil fuels are rare commodities.
While powering-down is a definite possibility to move toward in order to survive in a post-carbon world, it isn’t the easiest option for one main reason: industrial nations are dependent on oil and natural commodities.
We have become so inaugurated with our luxury commodities that the likelihood for industrial nations to give up these items is very unlikely.
It’s a shame that in order for powering-down to become a real solution, it will first have to become popular among the populace before politicians will readily support it.
Powering-down is a solution worth looking at, if we can only overlook our obsession with material things.
We don’t necessarily have to backtrack to achieve powering-down.
Ultimately, as a global society we must think green and find ways to live our lives without draining our resources.
SAMANTHA BROOKS
Opinion Writer