"Senate Rejects Exploration of Oil and Gas Bill" Response

On May 18th, the Senate rejected a bill for off-shore drilling for gas and oil and a speedier process of approving permits for drilling.  One of the greatest reasons cited was the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last summer. Though the Republican bill included plans for cleanup and containment in the case of a spill, it was still voted down 57 to 42.  Many Democrats felt that this plan was reckless and that it would damage the delicate coastal areas.
Before watching Gasland and learning about the mining processes that are used to get to oil and gas, I probably wouldn't have cared too much either way.  The documentary really brough to light that seriousness of the situation and how much is at stake if these coastal areas are damaged.  I completely I agree that this bill would have made it too easy to recieve drilling permits and find the Republican reasoning that it will lower gas prices to be weak at best.  The short-sightedness is concerning and makes me wonder what experts are telling them that this bill wouldn't do any lasting damage to the environment.

Waste=Food

I try to not waste things in my house, but I never really thought about how all of the things that I do through away just end up in a landfill.  I think that the waste=food thought process is a really innovative way of thinking.  Not only is it beneficial for the environment, but I was surprised to find out that people have found a way to make it  a socially and economically viable option as well.  It was really interesting how the green changes in the buildings led to greater productivity and better attitude overall at work.  With results like that, it makes sense that multibillion dollar companies are using these methods in their production plant.  On top of that, they began to develop more environmentally safe products that can be broken down and reused.  They used their pull as a huge consumer to push their raw product vendors to make better materials that can be reused and made into something of equal or greater value.  The movie did a great job of pointing out how recycled products are often used for things of lesser value, like all the paper we recycle doesn't turn into more notebook paper, but instead in turns into toilet paper, which then turns into waste.  My only concern is that creating these green buildings seems to be too expensive for the smaller companies to invest in.  I wonder if many of those companies would find it worth it to undergo that new construction.

Nuclear Energy

       I don't think that nuclear energy is the solution to the upcoming energy crisis.  To begin with, the risks that surround it far outweigh any benefits that could come from using nuclear energy.  Accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl may be rare occurrences, but the fact that a simple mistake could cause billions of dollars worth of cleanup and health concerns for many people. In addition, the mining for uranium and  the transport of all of the materials needed to run a plant take a shine off of the idea of nuclear energy being our clean solution.  While pollution and radiation is a scary thought, even more so is what could happen with the left over nuclear waste.  It could be used to make weapons that wipe out entire cities.  The threat of terrorism is a very strong proponent against the nuclear energy question.
      Instead of using nuclear energy, I think it would be a wiser solution to invest in other methods such as wind and solar powered energy. Unlike coal, there is a guarantee that we will have the resources to power these types of energy.  Unlike nuclear energy, there isn't any radioactive waste that could poison people's health or be used to make weapons. 

Oil Crisis?

After reading the two articles on whether on not there was an oil crisis that would change the way the world works, I was caught somewhere in the middle of the two views.  On one hand, I definitely agree that we have quite a bit of time before oil becomes a serious issue, but at the same time, I think that we need to be finding new energy sources that could replace it.  The time lag between where we are now and when oil becomes too expensive to become economically efficient should be used to explore and perfect the alternative energy sources we do have.  What concerns me the most is that people will wait until oil does become a serious problem and won't have another stable energy source to fall back on.
I don't believe that the world will ever be as extremely altered as either article predicted.  The image of empty highway and food only being from local sources seems highly improbably to me.  It might decrease as prices increase, but I don't think that it will ever reach the levels that the author predicted it will.  I do agree, however, that mass transport, such as trains, will become more and more popular, especially with the shipping industry and work commute.  The poor economic situation that has been persisting for the past few years has shown that when people will make the more cost effective choice when it comes to traveling.
Overall, I think that the views presented in each article were extremes.  Especially when they are placed right next to each other, it's easy to see how people are confused over whether they should be worried or not.  Despite the convincing evidence used to support each point of view, I think that what will really happen is a combination of the two, including more mass transport, but also an increased use of technology that will play a vital role in the world after oil becomes economically inefficient.