The problem in this case regards the best alternative form of energy for the United States. While some people propose to continue using the usual form of energy, oil, others opt for new methods such as wind and, or solar power. I personally think that using alternative sources is the best thing to do to save planet earth from the harm caused by the gases emanating from the use of oil and oil products. A change is as good as a rest, and I think that is what our planet deserves, a rest from the explorations damages caused to the ozone layer that protects us from the harmful rays of the sun.
Those opposing this view think that it is an expensive exercise and for this, I fully understand their concerns. The cost of buying new building materials for windmills, solar panels and hiring experts to advice on which way to go about finding the best location for building is considerably high, but I do not accept the view that it is unnecessary. They are talking of exploring new places, and this will only add on to the costs. In addition, the probability of finding oil in these places is not certain. This to me is unnecessary. My view is that there is a considerably high probability that using wind and solar power, we can get enough energy to sustain various processes. Therefore, those funds that would have been used to explore for new oil reservoirs can be allocated to creating new sources of energy.
In looking at this debate, however, there are perceptual blocks that can hinder my thinking. These blocks may prevent me from clearly perceiving the problem or information that might help to solve the problem and thus having an over-narrow focus of attention and interest. One of these blocks is stereotyping, which entails putting a label on something as either good or bad (Virine & Trumper, 2008). In this case, for example, I have labeled oil as a bad product thus no matter how much the other party might try to convince me, I will only be seeing oil as bad and alternative sources, wind and solar power, as good. With this view in mind, I might also be unable to defend my view simply because I will be looking at the good points of using alternative sources of energy and not the disadvantages.
Another perceptual block that I may encounter is that of seeing only what I expect to see (Virine and Trumper, 2008). Here the only thing that I get to see about the debate is that alternative source of energy is the only way out. This blocks my thinking capacity to see only the demerits concerning oil and the merits in alternative sources of energy. With such a mindset, I would not accept opposite views and even convincing others otherwise is impossible because I do not want to accept first their view.
In order to overcome such problems, it would be wise to discuss my views with other people with the same opinions as mine so that they may help me see what I might have blocked out and thus, allowing me the ability to incorporate all my ideas and have a clearer view of the topic. I also believe that if I brainstorm with other people, the probability of having fresh and better solutions to the problem would be much more probable (Virine & Trumper, 2008).
Another problem that might arise in my thought process might be that of perception. Every now and then, there are broadcasts of how oil and oil products are damaging the environment and some governments have put in place laws to prevent the use of certain types of oil products in industries and the discharge of gases into the atmosphere caused by the use of these oil products. With such type of broadcasts being brought into my thought process, the only opinion I will have about oil is a bad one and thus I will be allowing perception to interrupt my thought process (Akins, 1996).