I devoted my Civic Issues blogs to one of America’s major problems: the future of energy. I noticed a few other classmates did similar topics, such as alternative energy sources, and it’s nice seeing that many people are aware of the potential danger if we do not sort out this energy mess. Replacing the efficiency of fossil fuels with cost-effective alternative energy sources is something that has baffled the country for decades, and will continue to. In my own opinion, I do not see a significant shift to cleaner energy sources in the near future mainly due to the price of these methods. What seems more feasible is to take action that will decrease our need to import so much oil on a daily basis.

One of the primary issues is that we are overly reliant on foreign regions, especially the volatile Middle East, for our oil supply. Although there is not much that can be done to stop relying on these countries for oil, there is more that we can do within the country to diminish the need for foreign oil. While many people have discussed alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear (to name a few), an interesting solution may lie in unconventional oil and gas.

Unconventional oil and gas activity is already revolutionizing America’s energy future and bringing enormous benefits to its economy. Unlocking unconventional energy will generate millions of jobs and billions in government receipts. Against a backdrop of a historically slow economic recovery and persistently high unemployment following the Great Recession, the surge in spending associated with unconventional oil and natural gas activity is proving to be an important engine for jobs creation.

Shale oil and natural gas industries will continue to boom, allowing domestic production to reach an all-time high. By exporting the natural gas extracted within the country and importing liquid natural gas, we will be able to shift to cleaner natural gas. This will keep carbon emission levels from rising, and actually start an overall decrease. But the revolution in U.S. energy isn’t just about fracking and other new forms of production. Behavior change can also alter the way we use energy. This will work exceptionally if the Obama administration is able to keep the motor industry towards reaching the goal of 54.5 MPG by 2025. But the thing about the future is that it remains remarkably unpredictable, and we’ll never really know until the time comes.

So throughout this semester’s Passion Blogs, I have brought up numerous conspiracies, many of which were drawn up by our own government. It may seem as though I’m skeptical of everything the government does, but I just find it interesting what measures they would go to in order to maintain what they call “order.” For my final conspiracy, I will talk about the Heart Attack Gun. That’s correct, a gun that almost instantly will cause a heart attack.

This weapon exists, and it was the CIA that actually invented it… with taxpayer’s money. It was not disclosed until 1975, when Senator Frank Church displayed it to a committee investigating the CIA’s illegal activities. They are specifically forbidden from directly killing anyone in the performance of espionage. It fires a bullet made of ice, about 0.11 inches wide, which has been laced with a tiny amount of shellfish toxin. The gun was designed to be untraceable, and this toxin induces a myocardial infarction in any human, regardless of their health. The bullet then melts leaving no trace, and leaves an entrance wound the size of a mosquito bite. Autopsies would discover the presence of shellfish toxin in the bloodstream, but if the victim has died of a legitimate heart attack, unnaturally induced or not, an autopsy is unlikely.

There is no consensus if the CIA has assassinated anyone with this gun, but they do everything in their power to hide things like these. A possible victim of this gun is Andrew Breitbart, a conservative media mogul who published less than flattering stories about President Barack Obama. He had promised in the months prior to his death that he would publish proof that Obama’s presidency was illegitimate. Breitbart collapsed on the sidewalk in a Brentwood neighborhood of Los Angeles on March 1^st, 2012, and was taken to a hospital where he died of a heart attack at the age of 43, despite being relatively healthy his whole life. He was not obese, but coroner report states that cardiomegaly caused his heart to fail.

Another possible victim is Mark Pittman, the financial journalist who, in 2007, predicted the ongoing American economic recession, which was caused by subprime mortgaging. During the subsequent federal bailouts of major financial companies, Pittman sued the Federal Reserve for mishandling taxpayer money. The case is still on appeal. Pittman, however, died on November 25^th, 2009, in Yonkers, New York, in the very same circumstances as Breitbart–he was walking down the sidewalk and collapsed from a heart attack.

Possible victims notwithstanding, the heart attack gun does exist, and the CIA invented it. They could have had only one purpose in store for it, silently assassinate whomever they pleased. Well I hope this had made you weary of our government, but remember, not every conspiracy theory is true.

When the stories of the NSA surveillance came out, it made me wonder what else does the government try to do. Ever heard of those stories about the government trying to control everyone’s minds? Well, it’s a real thing. The CIA conducted something from 1953 to 1964 called Project MKULTRA, which was intended to “develop a capability in the covert use of biological and chemical materials.” It was actually a series of CIA experiments in which they tried to figure out how to control your mind, by conducting dozens of experiments on the effects of biological and chemical agents on American citizens without their knowledge.

The project started out as a response to rumors of Communist mind control being used on American prisoners from the Korean War. Afraid of being left in the enemy’s pseudo-scientific dust, the CIA quickly jumped on the mind control bandwagon. However, they got their procedures wrong in one crucial aspect; instead of experimenting on enemy prisoners that the national media wouldn’t miss, they decided to go ahead and start jamming probes and shooting drugs such as LSD and aerosols into unwitting United States citizens.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, almost no records remain of the 10 years of covert activity. As far as anyone can tell, they were unable to succeed in finding a way to control the way people act or think. Though we’d probably say the same thing if they had succeeded.

An issue in the energy industry in America is the differences between federal and state laws regarding energy. How much should the federal government be involved in controlling how states produce their own energy, and supply energy to their citizens? That complex question has political questions that remain open as energy problems become more complex.

Energy policy issues are among the most difficult ones to untangle in a modern economy. Federal policies encourage the use of renewable resources, while at the same time the national government may seek power to regulate traditional energy products that states have controlled for decades. One prime example of this is hydraulic fracking. Currently, individual states mostly control policies about how operators use technology to extract natural gas and oil by pumping chemicals into the ground, and extracting the chemicals along with the energy products.

There are concerns with fracking itself, and whether it will help the United States avert an impending energy crisis. Fracking has been hailed as a “bridge” solution. However, there are long-term dangers that are hard to predict, such as if the chemically tainted water will remain underground or begin to filter into rivers and streams.

 While some states see hydraulic fracking as a method for the United States to be less dependent on other countries for energy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to become more involved in regulating fracking. The EPA has a mandate to ensure Americans have access to safe drinking water, and it plans to release a public study on hydraulic fracturing in the future. States that regulate hydraulic fracking also face legal challenges from local governments who have safety and policy concerns.

SOURCES: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2252418/davos_fracking_wont_avert_energy_crisis.html

http://energyindepth.org/national/how-anti-fracking-activists-deny-science-water-contamination/