As we know that there are many energy that use in daily life, such as solar energy, wind energy, water, or fuel. 30% of the energy, we cannot bring them back or these energy is finite energy. How can we handle with these energy? Mortimer B. Zuckerman decries the “special-interest-driven politics” that imperative energy is fossilized-based and renewable fuels. He considers about what are there the ways to protect these energy.
Zuckerman states that Expanding domestic supplies and restricting domestic consumption will protect losing of imperative. There is $120 billion tax rebate has been wiped out to enemies of America, such as the oil autocrats of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. I agree with Zuckerman, because protecting energy is not just producing …show more content…
And the Congress has attempted to raises taxed on gasoline to reduce consumption but it is failing. So, America has grown corn for producing fuel, but it makes the price of food higher of the amount. Oil lobby also has increased the subsidies and tax breaks under the Bush administration that means money to purchase food will higher than the original. I agree with this because nowadays most people have their own car, that means 100 million people, 100 million cars. And every car needs to use for fuel for their car. The energy will lose faster and faster, finally, it will be disappeared forever.
The benefit also exceeds the costs, The United States choose to lock up their natural resources for Fixing $4-a-gallon gas set to future expectation. Because they want to reduce the barrier to building or expanding our refineries. I agree for this purpose that they want to reduce the barrier, but I think the better way to solve this problem is we have to build a car that no need to use fuel, or maybe we can use trash instead of fuel. It means we do not need to produce fuel
Zuckerman states that Expanding domestic supplies and restricting domestic consumption will protect losing of imperative. There is $120 billion tax rebate has been wiped out to enemies of America, such as the oil autocrats of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. I agree with Zuckerman, because protecting energy is not just producing …show more content…
And the Congress has attempted to raises taxed on gasoline to reduce consumption but it is failing. So, America has grown corn for producing fuel, but it makes the price of food higher of the amount. Oil lobby also has increased the subsidies and tax breaks under the Bush administration that means money to purchase food will higher than the original. I agree with this because nowadays most people have their own car, that means 100 million people, 100 million cars. And every car needs to use for fuel for their car. The energy will lose faster and faster, finally, it will be disappeared forever.
The benefit also exceeds the costs, The United States choose to lock up their natural resources for Fixing $4-a-gallon gas set to future expectation. Because they want to reduce the barrier to building or expanding our refineries. I agree for this purpose that they want to reduce the barrier, but I think the better way to solve this problem is we have to build a car that no need to use fuel, or maybe we can use trash instead of fuel. It means we do not need to produce fuel