ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The demand for oil in the past century has skyrocketed while the world's oil well supply has only dwindled. Due to its finite and geographically specific nature, just a few countries control the supply of the commodity while at the same time every country in the world has an insatiable demand for it. The argument that the need for technological and infrastructure investment into alternative energy does not address two important facets about oil: its finite nature and the negative environmental effects it offers.
Fossil fuel, as oil is commonly referred to, is a finite natural resource that requires tens of millions of years to form through the decay and compression of organic material. As a result, it cannot be renewed or created by humans for consumption. The argument states that the "supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out", yet does not mention that the complete use of the world's oil is inevitable. As the world supply for oil begins to falter in the future as the easy access oil wells are dried up, the price of oil will no doubt increase reducing the viability of depending on natural gas as a cheap energy solution. Investments into other alternatives, however, could yield energy methods that are both cheaper and offer an infinite supply for consumption.
The argument also depends on the assumption that natural gas does not create any negative externalities from its use. Environmental experts have long maintained that the burning of fossil fuels releases an unnatural amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and could cause long term global warming. That possibility, coupled with the more immediate issues of smog and lung diseases in car congested cities further suggests that the consumption of oil is hazardous for humans. While investment into other energy alternatives may be expensive and time intensive, the benefit to the human condition would be invaluable and better for the planet's health.
In conclusion, while the argument does make a valid point that the cost to divert to alternative energy solutions could be substantial in the near future, the long term benefits and potential cost reductions does not support the rational to stick with oil. Had oil boasted of an infinite supply or been renewable with no foreseeable cost increases, then the argument to keep the century old infrastructure could be valid. However, due to its limited and hazardous nature, the oil infrastructure argument is simply not logical.
The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:
"The claims of some politicians that we are on the brink of an energy crisis are misguided. We have enough oil in reserve to see us through any production shortage and the supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out any time soon. There is thus no need to set aside the technology and infrastructure of a century of oil-based energy."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The demand for oil in the past century has skyrocketed while the world's oil well supply has only dwindled. Due to its finite and geographically specific nature, just a few countries control the supply of the commodity while at the same time every country in the world has an insatiable demand for it. The argument that the need for technological and infrastructure investment into alternative energy does not address two important facets about oil: its finite nature and the negative environmental effects it offers.
Fossil fuel, as oil is commonly referred to, is a finite natural resource that requires tens of millions of years to form through the decay and compression of organic material. As a result, it cannot be renewed or created by humans for consumption. The argument states that the "supply of in-ground oil is in no danger of running out", yet does not mention that the complete use of the world's oil is inevitable. As the world supply for oil begins to falter in the future as the easy access oil wells are dried up, the price of oil will no doubt increase reducing the viability of depending on natural gas as a cheap energy solution. Investments into other alternatives, however, could yield energy methods that are both cheaper and offer an infinite supply for consumption.
The argument also depends on the assumption that natural gas does not create any negative externalities from its use. Environmental experts have long maintained that the burning of fossil fuels releases an unnatural amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and could cause long term global warming. That possibility, coupled with the more immediate issues of smog and lung diseases in car congested cities further suggests that the consumption of oil is hazardous for humans. While investment into other energy alternatives may be expensive and time intensive, the benefit to the human condition would be invaluable and better for the planet's health.
In conclusion, while the argument does make a valid point that the cost to divert to alternative energy solutions could be substantial in the near future, the long term benefits and potential cost reductions does not support the rational to stick with oil. Had oil boasted of an infinite supply or been renewable with no foreseeable cost increases, then the argument to keep the century old infrastructure could be valid. However, due to its limited and hazardous nature, the oil infrastructure argument is simply not logical.
