This paper explores the relationship between human activity and energy consumption, arguing that energy conservation must be pursued simultaneously by individuals, industries, and government. It surveys federal programs such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and evaluates their varying effectiveness across transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The paper also outlines a comprehensive mitigation framework addressing environmental protection, alternative energy, and hybrid vehicles, while critically examining political obstacles — including the controversy surrounding the 2001 White House energy plan. The analysis concludes that successful energy conservation requires coordinated support at both local and national levels.
People are directly responsible for energy consumption and, therefore, for energy conservation. The human negative impact manifests through increased — and most often useless — energy consumption, which leads to serious consequences including increased risk of droughts, flooding, and excessive water use. Human health could also be severely affected. This negative human impact can only be lessened by a positive one rooted in energy conservation. Energy conservation must be implemented by each individual as part of their lifestyle, by industrial consumers, and by the state through its energy policies and programs.
Energy conservation strategies are usually developed for each sector that consumes energy. In 1975, the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program was implemented in the transportation sector. As a consequence, fuel economy significantly improved. However, the program's benefits were somewhat reduced after 1990 due to shifts in individuals' vehicle preferences.
Programs in the residential sector have not been as successful, since the size of houses built in the United States continues to increase, as does the percentage of homes with central air conditioning. The commercial sector does not present any significant improvements related to energy conservation following the implementation of certain governmental programs. However, these programs have proven successful in the industrial sector, where overall energy consumption values are declining (Buildings Energy Data Book, 2007).
Any mitigation plan regarding energy conservation should address three parties that must take action: households, industrial consumers, and the state through government. First, the plan should address the environment. Some actions in this direction include: implementing noise control ordinances in accordance with acoustical standards; preparing comprehensive watershed management plans; creating environmental advisory groups at the local level; preparing inventories of environmental resources; providing protection of groundwater supplies; developing strategies to preserve and manage forested lands; encouraging cluster development provisions; encouraging the preservation and protection of natural areas; and implementing farming conservation measures (USEPA, 2006).
These measures can be undertaken by individuals within a community. Additional actions within a mitigation energy conservation plan should address alternative energy sources, hybrid vehicles, and reduced consumption for both households and industrial consumers.
"2001 White House plan favored industry over public"
"Local, corporate, and government coordination required"
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.