Summary And Evaluation
Part B: Summary
In his article ‘Fossils Fuels Improve The Planet’, Mr Alex Epstein’s main claim was that fossil fuels are not dirty energy as they have created clean, healthy and liveable human environment. He also concluded that unlike fossil fuels, solar and wind energy - dubbed as cleaner energy - are expensive, unreliable and not abundant. He began by arguing that fossil-fuels-powered technologies and facilities have enabled humans to live in the most clean, healthy and liveable condition in the history. Afterwards he claimed that the world needs a large amount of cheap and dependable energy so that every man could have a better living environment and live a more fulfilling life. Alas, according to him, now more green politicians adopt policies to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternative energy: solar and wind. In contrast to the fossil fuels, he believed these sources of energy are unreliable, expensive and in small amount. Consequently, countries have to suffer the negative effects arising from the usage of these sources of energy. Mr Epstein wrapped up his article by arguing that it is invalid to label fossil fuels ‘dirty’ for the fact that it produces waste, because in reality all human and non-human activities produce waste. In my opinion, it is clear that in this article Mr Epstein had the purpose of advocating fossil fuels as a superior energy, compared to other alternative energy including solar and wind. Hence, more countries should adopt the use of fossil fuels in their energy policy.
(247 words)
Mr Epstein made a value claim that 'environmentalist' leaders adopt a policy to eliminate 'dirty' fossil fuel industry, by backing up alternative energy: solar and wind. However, he argued that these sources of energy are unreliable, expensive and not abundant, unlike that of fossil fuels. As such, countries pay negative effects as they use these energy. In this inductive argument, he has used several statistics to substantiate his claims. These data
In his article ‘Fossils Fuels Improve The Planet’, Mr Alex Epstein’s main claim was that fossil fuels are not dirty energy as they have created clean, healthy and liveable human environment. He also concluded that unlike fossil fuels, solar and wind energy - dubbed as cleaner energy - are expensive, unreliable and not abundant. He began by arguing that fossil-fuels-powered technologies and facilities have enabled humans to live in the most clean, healthy and liveable condition in the history. Afterwards he claimed that the world needs a large amount of cheap and dependable energy so that every man could have a better living environment and live a more fulfilling life. Alas, according to him, now more green politicians adopt policies to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternative energy: solar and wind. In contrast to the fossil fuels, he believed these sources of energy are unreliable, expensive and in small amount. Consequently, countries have to suffer the negative effects arising from the usage of these sources of energy. Mr Epstein wrapped up his article by arguing that it is invalid to label fossil fuels ‘dirty’ for the fact that it produces waste, because in reality all human and non-human activities produce waste. In my opinion, it is clear that in this article Mr Epstein had the purpose of advocating fossil fuels as a superior energy, compared to other alternative energy including solar and wind. Hence, more countries should adopt the use of fossil fuels in their energy policy.
(247 words)
Mr Epstein made a value claim that 'environmentalist' leaders adopt a policy to eliminate 'dirty' fossil fuel industry, by backing up alternative energy: solar and wind. However, he argued that these sources of energy are unreliable, expensive and not abundant, unlike that of fossil fuels. As such, countries pay negative effects as they use these energy. In this inductive argument, he has used several statistics to substantiate his claims. These data