Although it has been argued that the nuclear disaster of Fukushima Daiichi would have a direct impact on the nuclear policy of the United States of America, this disaster should not have any effect on the US Nuclear Energy Policy.
According to LaMonica, debate on this issue may affect long-term relationship between the two countries, especially, on the use of nuclear energy (news.cnet.com). It is also evident that a survey conducted in the US shows that majority of Americans opposed the use of nuclear energy immediately after the disaster.
However, the percentage of those who are in favor of nuclear energy power have increased over the recent past. According to Gallup’s analysis, short term worries over the nuclear disasters should affect the US Nuclear policy and supporting energy power over long term.
Furthermore, a report by the Associated Press quoted Steve Chu who is the Energy Secretary to assert that “…any time there is a serious accident; we have to learn from those accidents going forward” (news.cnet.com).
The third argument presumes Japan’s disaster as a hard lesson for Americans. Nevertheless, the disaster should be viewed as a lesson in a positive way and not as an effect over the use of nuclear energy.
When nuclear plants are well regulated and handled with utmost care, it would eliminate the fear posed by disaster effects. American Government should formulate Energy Policy in a way that is able to regulate energy plants.
Since Japan’s disaster should have any effect, it is clear now that the interest in reducing American dependence on foreign oil does not justify the risk. They should handle the existing plants properly not to justify the risk of nuclear disaster, but to cut down their imports on foreign oil.
History proves that America has been never energy independent. Argument six has opened a door in which the nation can be self sufficient by not importing foreign oil. However, America has on energy resources for a long time relied.
It is clear that in spite of many promises by the US authorities to be independent, the country continues to import oil. They have tried to cut oil imports in order to be sufficient, but could not function without foreign oil. In addition, both past and present presidents have voiced for energy independence (Hakes 6).
The problem that Americans face even today is that about 70% of oil importation is mainly used to fuel personal vehicles. Though one of the ways that can be used to reduce the dependence on foreign oil entails its minimal usage, use of refined oil is still the main source of energy in the automobile industry.
This trend may not change in the near future. So far, there is a designate call in America to fight for energy independence in the country, although foreign oil is still used rampantly.
The disasters will not tip the balance for renewable energy solutions largely due to the fact that the course in which America can undertake to have energy independence is not easy contrary to the perception of the American public.
In fact, it depends meticulously on the ability which the nation has to produce its own renewable energy solutions. Additionally, the balance for renewable solution does not rely on disasters but on economical improvement through nuclear energy. The real facts should not be based on what had happened in Japan.
In a nutshell, it is imperative to underscore the fact that there are major emerging view points and extreme divide on this debate. In spite of these divergent views, it is agreeable that Americans remained worried about a result of Japan’s nuclear disaster.
Works Cited
Hakes, Jakes. A Declaration of Energy Independence. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2008.
LaMonica, Martin. Will Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Affects US Debate? 20 Mar. 2011. Web.