Questioning Critically “Local Government in a Time of Peak Oil and Climate Change” by John Kaufmann

While I was reading “Local Government in a Time of Peak Oil and Climate Change” by John Kaufmann, I came to an understanding that Government is miserable; therefore, we must not take it into account instead we should support them because they are not strong enough to deal with the issue of climate change neither they can reduce the usage of oil because there is a dire need of such energy since oil contributes to one-third of the world total energy supply while adding gas reduces it to half. Therefore, governments cannot apply immediate solutions to environmental pollution. However, What I believe is that the function of governments is to make applicable sustainable policies, and implement them. This paper critically analyses the observations considered, the logical inferences, and the conclusion drawn by the author Kaufmann.

To evaluate, the author’s central idea is that “people should stand shoulder to shoulder with the government” in reducing oil consumption, finding alternatives, and controlling climate change through sustainable solutions. The author has emphasized that since the issue of oil consumption and climate change is of broader consideration and perspective; therefore, it is not only the duty of the government but it is a shared responsibility of the government, society, and the organizations that they should collectively respond to the issue accordingly. It is a process where alternatives to oil and gas can be discovered through collective efforts and investments. For instance, he concludes, “Ideally, all would cooperate with one another while fulfilling their unique roles and responsibilities” (Kaufman).

The author has built his theory on the foundations of logic and reason. He helps the readers in the identification of the root cause of the problem, the role of society, and the role of government. He has well elaborated on the issue through logical arguments. For example, he tells what functional structure the government has, what its duty is, and what its limitations are. Similarly, he has also defined that society can help the government in two ways. Firstly, society can help the government in their struggle to reduce oil consumption by identifying their own mistakes, i.e. he tells how everybody should take care of excessive usage of oil, and also adapting sustainable ways of running daily life business. Secondly, society can help the government by making them work efficiently. This can be done by making the responsible officers, departments, and local members, lodge complaints where there is a glitch on the side of the government.

To evaluate, the issue is of a broader concern. It is not as simpler as it may seem. For instance, we have industries that must need oil and gas to run their business; we need oil to make our transportation functional; we need oil and gas to produce electricity; therefore, no immediate solution is available. For instance, the author claims, “Peak oil and climate change are energy problems” (Kaufman). To evaluate, energy is a need that cannot be ignored. He suggests, “There are no solutions, just intelligent responses” (Kaufman). This may mean that we will have to make strategic planning concerning the issue.

To reflect, the reading helped me in understanding that such global issues can only be tackled when there is awareness at all a level of intellectuality. To evaluate, no fraction of the whole society alone can deal with such issues until and unless everybody is aware of the gravity of the issue and makes contributions to fighting such issues. The author seems to be advocating the idea that the habits of the public should be changed; making them adjust to the practices where people could consume a few amounts of oil and gas. Also, I found it interesting that the author shows a bit of bias toward society, and a favor to the government. Throughout the article, the author mainly puts the burden on the shoulders of the public considering them even responsible for the idea that if the government seems non-functional in the area then people should make them pay attention. I oppose this core idea for several logical reasons.

Why not the government should be criticized and should stand responsible for not delivering so efficiently that issues like climate change be fought and solved? The rationale behind this argument finds its strength in the fact that common people choose a government for the reason that it will help them in their well-being. It is not the function of society to give recommendations or implement the policies made by governments. The government has the writ. People should complain but I cannot understand what the author means when he proposes the idea that people should write to government officials. Are they sleeping? I question this because people support when there are incentives when they take things as their moral and ethical duty. They put their share when they see that the government is struggling. It is all about priorities. When the government prioritizes this issue, presents alternatives, and meets with the public to include them in the decision-making process then we can say that the government has done something significant. If the priority of government is something else then people cannot contribute to the solution origination process.

To summarize, we need an optimistic approach. I have a question, which I would like to discuss,  that is: Do we have sustainable ideas concerning energy production without involving gas and oil? As for me, we should arrange community-based competitions powered by several affordable incentives; in these competitions, we should allow people to present their ideas, and hold debates concerning the issue. I know that this is being done through several campaigns but I am pointing toward the general public that is by no means fully aware of the complex dimensions of the issue. We all need to know what can be done and what cannot be done. And, we must make resolutions that we will make a movement of creating a healthy world where needs would be our first priority and luxuries will be neglected for our future generation considering it our ethical duty that the coming generation must have a healthy earth.