Renewable Energy Sources: Necessary for the Survival of the Planet

Liz Kelly

ENGL 102-057

Causal Argument Essay

24 January 2013

Renewable Energy Sources: Necessary for the Survival of the Planet

            The world is changing at a rapid rate.  Now more than ever, humans are dependent on the earth’s natural resources, particularly fossil fuels.  In fact, 82 percent of the energy used in this country emanates from fossil fuels (“Institute for Energy Research”).  Oil, coal, and natural gas heat our homes, power our cars, generate electricity, and essentially run America's industries.  However, at the rate we as a human race are consuming these resources, how much longer will it be before we have drained the earth dry of these natural resources?  Already, there are fewer and fewer oil reserves.  Not to mention the terrible consequences using and burning these fossil fuels are having on the environment, particularly global warming, bizarre weather patterns, and the horrible effects that take place in the event of an oil spill.  In order to ensure the survival of the planet and in turn the human race it is necessary to switch to forms of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal; switching to these sources will have the nation no longer dependent on foreign oil, significantly reduce global warming, and allow us to live independently as well as in harmony with our environment indefinitely.

            Our dependency on foreign oil threatens our national security as well as our nation’s economy.  Of the imported petroleum Americans consume, 68 percent is supplied by countries that are on the edge of instability.  Oil dependence provides leverage and money to potential adversaries, and risks ensnaring the U.S. state in endless conflicts abroad to secure access to oil (“American Security Project”).  U.S. defense spending is the highest in the world. Much of this expenditure is spent securing sea-lanes for oil ships.  Other developing countries that depend on oil and gas for growth may seek to challenge the United States’ naval dominance.  For example, as China seeks natural resources to foster growth, it could come into military conflict with the United States if shipping lanes become areas of contention.  More importantly, however, the world’s dependence on oil empowers foreign leaders. The transnational sale of oil enriches a select few within the exporting country (Fay).        

            As for economically, Americans send over $1 billion abroad every day to pay for oil.  The outcome is lost jobs and growing dollars in the hands of foreigners who we increasingly depend on to finance our deficits.  The U.S. borrows money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis, causing greater national debt and dependence on the goodwill of others to allow its economy to function (“American Security Project”).  Renewable energy sources will enable us to be self-sufficient and not be reliant upon other countries for a limited resource.

            Another issue that may soon be solved by switching to renewable forms of energy is global warming.  By the end of the century, if recent trends carry on, the global temperature could rise so high that the climate and weather patterns that have given rise to human civilization would be drastically altered.  However, this is not simply a natural process that has happened on its own. We are driving climate change by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil (“Greenpeace USA”).  Wind, water, and solar energy would reduce world power demand by 30 percent, thereby avoiding 13,000 coal power plants (Bergeron).  In fact, coal-fired power plants are the single largest U.S. source of global warming pollution (“Greenpeace USA”).  Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other pollutants, primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels collect in the atmosphere, trap heat from the sun, and cause the planet to warm. Global warming has adverse effects on weather patterns, (as seen with the recent devastating effects of Hurricane Sandy), human health, wildlife, sea levels and the glaciers (Abbott).  With current technology, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal can provide 96 percent of our electricity and 98 percent of our entire heating demand which would account for almost all of our primary energy demand (“Greenpeace USA”).  More than half of U.S. states have adopted a renewable electricity standard which is a policy that requires electricity suppliers to progressively increase their use of renewable energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, and bioenergy. These states are demonstrating that renewable standards are an affordable solution to reduce carbon dioxide and other unhealthy air emissions, while relieving the harmful impact that fossil fuel extraction, transport, and use have on land and water resources (“Clean Energy”). Investing in renewable energy could jumpstart our waning economy, creating millions of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. It could put the U.S. back at the forefront of the 21^st century economy, ahead of China, which in 2009 became the largest global investor in renewable forms of energy.  Then, with significantly decreasing global warming comes the protection of countless wildlife species particularly in the northern regions.  Oil spills contribute to global warming as well as can damage the ecosystem beyond repair, as seen with the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.  Switching to renewable energy will significantly decrease global warming as well as save countless ecosystems from potential environmentally hazardous oil spills.

            With these alternative energy sources comes the reassuring reality that they are in fact renewable.  Renewable energy is energy derived from natural resources that replenish themselves over a period of time without diminishing the Earth's resources. These resources also have the added benefit of being plentiful, available in some capacity virtually everywhere, and they cause little, if any, environmental harm.  For example, these include energy from the sun, wind, and thermal energy stored in the Earth's crust.  In contrast, fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas are not renewable, since their quantity is limited.  Once we have extracted them from the earth, they will cease to be available for use as an economically-viable energy source. Although they are produced through natural processes, these processes are too slow to replenish these fuels as speedily as humans use them. Therefore, these sources will run out sooner or later (“Green-e”).  Renewable energy sources are the key to securing our planet’s future. 

            The strongest opposing arguments against switching to renewable energy sources are that it is costly to do so and therefore we should be tapping into our domestic oil supply first before we fully invest in renewable energy.  The preproduction expenses to construct a renewable energy plan are tremendously high, much more so than the conventional power resources we have grown familiar to.  The time it will take to recover these preliminary costs is around ten to fifteen years. This is a good deal of money for private capital investors to support while they wait for a return on their money (“Renewable Power News”).

            However, switching will ultimately save money in the long run since we will not be paying extremely high amounts for what oil is left in an eventually depleting market.  Also, $56 billion worth of grants and tax incentives is already available to the renewable energy and efficiency industries, in the U.S. alone (Hodge).  Although high, the initial cost is worth the outcome.  Once this initial investment has been made, materials are generally free. As a result, the only costs associated with renewable energy production are maintenance, labor, and regulatory fees (Climatepedia).  Furthermore, tapping into our own domestic supply of oil will only sustain us temporarily, as it is not a long term solution.  Also, these oil reserves would include national wildlife reserves that are currently legally protected.  Imagine the devastation if an oil spill were to occur on the ANWR, the effects would be catastrophic.

Fig. 1. This image illustrates the striking effect switching to renewable energy sources will have on the environment (Google image).

            The world is not the same as it was 500 years ago, and in more ways than one.  The changes are not all positive and as a result of human activity on this planet, earth is heading down a dangerous path.  Renewable energy sources, however, provide a reasonable, doable way out of our dilemma. Barack Obama discussed the importance of change to renewable forms of energy as a nation in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress in 2009.  In this speech, Obama stated, “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.”  These resources allow us the ability to be independent of other countries’ oil supplies, reduce global warming, and to stop aggressively taking from our planet what cannot so easily be replenished. 

 

 

Works Cited

Abbott, Billie. "Green Living: Ideas to Help Reduce Global Warming." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 3 Feb 2013.   <http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/actions-people-can-stop-global-warming-2441.html>.

"Arguments for and Against Renewable Energy." Renewable Power News: News about Solar,

            Wind, and alternative green power technologies. Renewable Power News, 17 Dec 2009.      Web. 3 Feb 2013. <http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/704>.

Bergeron, Louis. "Shifting to 100% Renewable Energy Would Save Money." Renewable

             Energy World. Renewable Energy World.com, 21 Oct 2009. Web. 3 Feb 2013.           <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/10/shifting-the-world-to-100-            renewable-energy-by-2030-may-reduce-world-power-demand-by-30>.

Fay, William. "US Too Dependent on Foreign Oil." Daily Trojan. N.p., 27 Apr 2011. Web. 3 Feb 2013. <http://dailytrojan.com/2011/04/27/us-too-dependent-on-foreign-oil/>.

"Fossil Fuels." Institute for Energy Research. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2013. <http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/fossil-fuels/>.

Hodge, Nick. "These Numbers Don't Lie: Live from the Renewable Energy Finance Forum Wall Street." Energy and Capital. Angel Publishing LLC, 24 Jun 2009. Web. 10 Feb 2013. <http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/renewable-energy-statistics/900>.

Obama, Barack. Address to Joint Session of Congress. House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.. 24 Feb 2009. Address.

Renewable Energy. 2006. SBC: TechnologiesWeb. 5 Feb 2013. <http://www.sbc-technologies.com/sbc-technologies-renewableEnergy.php>.

 "Renewable Energy: Knowledge." Climatepedia. N.p.. Web. 10 Feb 2013. <http://www.climatepedia.org/Renewable-Energy>.

"Renewable Energy Standards-Mitigating Global Warming." Clean Energy. Union of Concerned Scientists, 12 Feb 2009. Web. 3 Feb 2013. <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy.html>.

"Stop Global Warming." Greenpeace USA. N.p.. Web. 3 Feb 2013. <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/>.

"U.S. Oil Dependence Threatens Security, Economy,Environment: New Joint Report Shows the      Problems with and Solutions to U.S. Oil Addiction." American Security Project. N.p., 27 May 2010. Web. 3 Feb 2013. <http://americansecurityproject.org/press-releases/2010/u-s-oil-dependence-threatens-security-economy-environment-new-joint-report-shows-the problems-with-and-solutions-to-u-s-oil-addiction/>.

"Why Renewable Energy?." Green-e. N.p.. Web. 3 Feb 2013.                 <http://www.greene.org/learn_re_why.shtml>.

Homework 2/8/13

Homework 2/8/13

Exercise 12.1à”The Wife-Beater”

1.)    Thesis- Everyone wears the stylish tank-style underwear shirt, however, it is their name that is the issue as they are known as “wife-beaters”

2.)    3 problems associated with defining the term wife-beater

-          Odd name for an undershirt

-          Ugly stereotypes behind the name are both obvious and toxic

-          It appears to be cool to say the name without fear of (or without caring about) hurting anyone

3.)    She includes dictionary definitions of wife-beater to show that the name is fueled by stereotype is now an academically established fact.  Her definition is different than these dictionary definitions because she sees the tank style shirts as a piece of clothing that can make both men and women look sexier and as such should have a name connotation of flattery not violence

4.)    She introduces a possible objection to her argument when she says wearers under 25 do not seem disturbed by the name and ignore the overtones of the term wife-beater. She refutes this, however, by providing the statistics that more than 4 million women are victims of severe assaults by boyfriends and husbands each year and that the average age of a batterer is 31.  This, especially the last statistic argues that the name should be changed and that the connotation behind it is not so easy to ignore.

5.)    I think this image would strengthen her argument. She states that “manly” should not equal “violence” which is what many women associate with the shirt.  I think by showing a strong man wearing the shirt can either imply one of two things depending on how the shirt is defined. If defined as a wife-beater it is easy to see this man as potentially being abusive especially because he looks tough and isn’t smiling, which is the exact negative connotation Smith is talking about. However, if the name was different or if it was simply called a tank top, then the man just looks strong and manly with no negative connotation to it.   

Homework 2/5/13

Homework 2/5/13

“Identifying the Elements of Argument”

1.)    Marvel Comics were good for him as a kid because they were juvenile and violent; freed him in a way

2.)    –    bond with other kids, made new friends

-          self-confidenceàhad a “fantasy self” who was unafraid of his desires and the world’s disapproval; eventually led him to become a writerà “arrogant, self-exposing, self-assertive, superheroic decision to become a writer”

-          allows people to pull themselves out of emotional traps by immersing themselves in violent storiesàmakes them braver in scary situations, a way to conquer fear that we all encounter in our lives

-          according to psychologist Melanie Moore, “Children need violent entertainment inn order to explore the inescapable feelings that they’ve been taught to deny, and to reintegrate those feelings into a more whole, more complex, more resilient selfhood”

3.)    -    pop psychologists insisting that violent stories are harmful to kidsà “Fear, greed, power-hunger, rage: these are aspect of ourselves that we try not to experience in our lives but often want, even need, to experience vicariously through stories of others”

-          Found that every aspect even the trashiest pop-culture story can have its own developmental functionàpretending to have superhuman powers helps children conquer the feelings of powerlessness that inevitably come with being so young and small

4.)    When parents try to protect their children from their own feelings and fantasies, they don’t shelter them against violence but against strength and selfhood

 

Exercise 2.3àHighlighting

Important points:

-          Makes kids feel powerful and strong

-          Gives kids the courage to conquer their fears and to not fear being afraid but to face fear head on

-          Superhero stories help kids negotiate the conflicts between the inner self and the public self as they work through the early stages of socialization

-          Allows them to utilize rage, which is a natural emotion constructively, rather than suppress it and make it worse

 

Exercise 2.4àAnnotating

-          I agree that comic books, particularly superhero ones, can help kids with their self-confidence and feel powerful

-          However, while a certain degree of violence can be beneficial in child development, a lot can be detrimental which the author does not mention; too much violence can lead to kids becoming desensitized to it and thinking it is okay to punch someone when they have a disagreement for example, especially if the kids do not have someone to explain that the comic strips they are reading are in fact just thatàjust for fun; they can look up to the characters and let them make them feel stronger but in the real world they cannot go around beating people up; it’s good for them to pretend to be a superhero and channel rage that way but parents must still stress violence is not the answer

-          I also disagree on the amount of violence he ultimately says is okay, especially when dealing with blood; comics shouldn’t be glorifying bloody altercations, that is just asking for troubleàfor example the video game black ops is violent media that kids should not be exposed to due to its extreme violence and gruesome images

 

Exercise 2.8àWriting a Critical Response

            According to Gerard Jones, violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it enables kids to feel powerful and gives them the courage to conquer their fears.  Jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because they help kids negotiate the conflicts between the inner self and the public self as they work through the early stages of socialization.  Jones makes some good points.  For example, he says he has found that every aspect of even the trashiest pop-culture story can have its own developmental function: pretending to have superhuman powers helps children conquer the feelings of powerlessness that inevitably come with being so young and small.  However, he is not going to argue that violent entertainment is harmless.  All in all, trying to protect children from their own feelings and fantasies does not shelter them against violence, but against power and selfhood.

 

 

Homework 1/30/13

Homework 1/30/13

New York Times, “In Praise of Tap Water”

1.)    It is unnecessary to be spending so much money on bottled water (consequently damaging the health of our planet) when this country has some of the best public water supply in the world

2.)    - Spending about/ up to $1,400 annually on bottled water where you can get the same amount of tap water for 49 cents

-          Environmentàmade from natural gas and petroleum; about 1.5 million barrels of oil to  make water bottles Americans use a year; could fuel 100,000 cars a year instead; only about 23% are recycled

-          Water in America is so good , no one needs to import bottles

3.)    The real change will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save the planet by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap.

4.)    - He doesn’t really consider water in poor cities in America, however, this could easily be fixed if government is truly on board with switching to tap wateràmake sure its safer

-          Also, sometimes when out, easier to buy bottled water but people can easily carry reusable containers

5.)    To leave the determining up to the reader; for them to decide for themselves

 

“Defying the Nalgene”, Zak Moore

1.)    The most common environmental arguments for eschewing bottled water are based on the waste of producing and disposing bottles as well as the high cost and insufficient health benefits of bottled water; however, these are not major problems.

2.)    – waste of producing and disposing bottlesàsays “plastic is cheap and not expensive to put in landfills”, however he does not consider the environmental impact; not very convincing

-          Cost; more convincingly refutedà”24 pack for 4 dollars”

-          Healthieràcompanies have an incentive to make sure the water is safe

3.)    –inconvenient to walk around with Nalgene

-          If people stopped buying water, people in undeveloped countries would be hurt (competition)

-          Another one might be supplying jobs

4.)    There is not much hard evidence as to why you shouldn’t drink bottled water so, might as well keep enjoying the comforts of it

5.)    Yes, he should have, maybe he didn’t to make it sound more “out there” rather than just saying a simple stainless steel water bottle that really isn’t an inconvenience to carry at all

 

“Poland Spring Water”

1.)    Not everyone recycles; many don’t; easier to throw away

2.)    Still requires a labelàcosts money

3.)    Still requires the use of plastic; made from natural gas and petroleumàa lot of oil, hazardous to environment

4.)    Many non-plastic water bottles are easy to carry, and just as easily fit in your purse or briefcase or clip onto your backpack

5.)    That is if the user even intends to recycle the bottle; many found in wastebaskets, on side of road, on the beach, etc.