Should they open up nature reserves and other government land for the exploration of natural resources, mainly oil and natural gas, or should the government promote and endorse other forms of energy that works with the environment such as bio-fuels electricity, wind power?
I agree that they should leave nature reserves alone and promote alternative forms of energy very, very seriously. Before the sceptics disagree, though, I have some tricky points which need to be considered:
Biofuels are grown in the countryside, on land which may formerly have fed the local population. Wind turbines have to be built in windy places, often on beautiful hilltops or other natural spaces. Hydro-electric power needs mountains and rushing water, so is bound to be created in areas of natural beauty.
You may think that means I disaprove of your suggestions but I don't, I think you're right. But we have to realise that our human needs are going to disrupt nature even when we try our hardest, and we have to get the balance right. Fossil fuels definitely cause more harm to the environment than good. But even the 'kind' forms of power generation are going to affect our environment a bit.
I think they should do both.
We need to develop more oil and gas fields to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is one of the driving forces behind the inflation we are seeing.
We also, by governmental mandate, need to improve vehicle mileage (all vehicles) and create more efficient utilization of oil for heating and electrical generation purposes.
I kind of think I am against bio-fuels because it is taking away food resources which the world drastically needs.
Just as the government has subsidized farmers, I think they should subsidize innovators of new technology that helps to reduce dependence on oil.
Leave the nature reserves alone,& endorse otherforms of energy.
they should definitely promote alternate forms of energy
yes, save what we have left of the wrld