Cleaner Renewable Resources, vs. Fossil Fuels
Cleaner Renewable Resources, VS. Fossil Fuels By Michael Lawson Assignment: To Drill or Not to Drill
Renewable energy is a debatable issue because on one hand, it could potentially reduce the need to Burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels for energy releases much of the harmful gases that exist today. Scientists estimate that about 35 percent of the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, being released into the atmosphere are from the United States (Renewable Energy Is Beneficial for the Environment, May 2013). Less fossil fuels being burned the less threat pollution will have on the earth. However, the opposing side feels that in order for renewables to contribute meaningfully to energy production, they would use up vast amounts of land and cause serious environmental damage (Ausubel, Jesse H. Renewable Energy Is Not Beneficial for the Environment, May 2013). I thought I was for the renewable side 100 percent. The reason why I was for it is, it would be healthier for not only humanity but for animals as well. After reading the opposing side I am now split because of how much sense they make. I would have to do more research to actually find the better of the two. The reason I am even debating on wanting the opposing side is because of how much room we would take up building windmills, solar stations, and dams for hydro power. I do feel that solar energy would be the best way just hook up panels to every homes roofs with a battery that can hold a decent charge until the sun come back up to charge them.
The perceptual blocks and habits that hinder my thoughts when deciding to use renewable resources, is the fact that in order to use these sources we may have to take away from nature. Society will eventually allow building on lands, which are meant for the animals to run free. It could even interfere even more with the rain forest. I cannot get past the fact that in order to reduce pollution we must take even more away from animals that do not
Renewable energy is a debatable issue because on one hand, it could potentially reduce the need to Burn fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels for energy releases much of the harmful gases that exist today. Scientists estimate that about 35 percent of the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, being released into the atmosphere are from the United States (Renewable Energy Is Beneficial for the Environment, May 2013). Less fossil fuels being burned the less threat pollution will have on the earth. However, the opposing side feels that in order for renewables to contribute meaningfully to energy production, they would use up vast amounts of land and cause serious environmental damage (Ausubel, Jesse H. Renewable Energy Is Not Beneficial for the Environment, May 2013). I thought I was for the renewable side 100 percent. The reason why I was for it is, it would be healthier for not only humanity but for animals as well. After reading the opposing side I am now split because of how much sense they make. I would have to do more research to actually find the better of the two. The reason I am even debating on wanting the opposing side is because of how much room we would take up building windmills, solar stations, and dams for hydro power. I do feel that solar energy would be the best way just hook up panels to every homes roofs with a battery that can hold a decent charge until the sun come back up to charge them.
The perceptual blocks and habits that hinder my thoughts when deciding to use renewable resources, is the fact that in order to use these sources we may have to take away from nature. Society will eventually allow building on lands, which are meant for the animals to run free. It could even interfere even more with the rain forest. I cannot get past the fact that in order to reduce pollution we must take even more away from animals that do not