In an era of massive energy consumption, our society faces a critical dilemma – the
fuels upon which we depend are running out. Although our daily lives are heavily
predicated on the availability of energy sources, many of these sources are both
detrimental to the environment and utterly unsustainable, particularly in the case of
fossil fuels. Our nation needs energy alternatives that can provide the stability and
sustainability our current energy systems are lacking.

The recent unveiling of U.S. Senate candidate and former Wisc. Gov. Tommy
Thompson’s “Restore America” energy plan underscores the reality that many
legislators remain ignorant to the energy crisis that lies ahead if dramatic changes
are not made to alleviate America’s dependence on fossil fuels. According to the
recent article “On Politics: Thompson Rolls Out Energy Plan” in the Wisconsin State
Journal, “Restore America” is a three-pronged energy plan that discourages the
pursuit of alternative energy sources such as wind and solar in favor of increased
harvesting and usage of fossil fuels.

One of the central issues addressed by the plan is the construction of the Keystone
Pipeline, a pipeline system that would transport crude oil from oil sands in Alberta,
Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. However, this pipeline can only
serve its purpose so long as there are fossil fuels to transport.

In addition, Thompson’s plan proposes the opening of new sources of oil, increased
natural gas drilling and the expansion of natural gas extraction via opposition to
current regulations – all proposals aimed at preserving the status quo in regard to
energy consumption practices. These plan provisions bring to light an overall failure
to acknowledge and account for the conditions in which we live, and the potential
risks of failing to alter these conditions in order to achieve greater sustainability and
security for future generations. In this sense, the plan advocates complacency, for it merely seeks to perpetuate the dangerous trend of fossil fuel
consumption in this country rather than looking for innovative energy alternatives.

Time and time again, legislators put forth plans with the objective of remedying
American shortcomings. However, history is telling in regard to the fact that far too
many of these proposals are designed to cope solely with our needs for the present
and the immediate future. Such plans can effectively mask the reality that long-term
solutions must be actively pursued in order to alleviate persistent problems. Indeed,
in the case of American fossil fuel dependence, the problem will continue to persist
until dramatic efforts are made to curb this dependence and cultivate renewable
energy sources.

Although energy consumption is primarily perceived as a national issue, it is critical
to understand its repercussions on the state and local levels in the context of this
broader national scope. If this plan were to be implemented, Wisconsin would undoubtedly be adversely affected. After all, it will be government and industry at
these levels that will be forced to comply with the provisions of this plan. However,
it is also crucial to bear in mind that the momentum necessary to decrease reliance
on non-renewable energy must begin on a small scale in order to alter overall
demand.

Based on the potential ramifications of implementing this plan, it seems starkly
ironic that the plan should be titled “Restore America,” for the term “restore”
implies that there is an ideal point in history to which we as a nation should return.
In fact, the dilemma at hand began at the dawn of industrialization – a turning point
at which this nation began a course of escalating dependence on non-renewable
fossil fuels. Although we will certainly never return to our pre-industrial state, we
must come to terms with the reality that trying to maintain a lifestyle that depends
almost completely on fossil fuels is unsustainable and short-sighted.

Hannah Sleznikow ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.