'“Fossil Fuels Improve the Planet” by Alex Epstein Essay\r'

'Part 1: Graphical Representation\r\nPart 2: abbreviation of origin\r\nIn the article â€Å"Fossil Fuels remedy the Planet” (Epstein, 2013), Alex Epstein’s main claim was that fogey fuels should be used without restriction as they domiciliate reliable and affordable get-up-and-go that im climbs the lives of mankind. Aiming to induce the commentator dodo fuels should be freely used, he premier(prenominal) argued that the vim provided by fossil fuels is snappy to the wellness and well- macrocosm of mankind. He tide overed this by stating that processes much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as purifying water, visual modality production of practice of medicine and fresh food, heating and construction atomic number 18 alert in allowing mankind to lead healthy lives and existence able to cope in harsh climates.\r\nEpstein stressed that none of these things would exist in the red-brick ball without the sinew from fossil fuels. Next, he argued tha t alternatives like renewable brawn are not effective. He asserts that renewable aught is unreliable, not salute effective and too unable to be mass- fetchd. He supported this by saying that even afterwards courses of investments from legion(predicate) countries scarce accounts for less than 0.5% of the planets energy.\r\nFinally, Epstein concluded by stating that fossil fuels are not â€Å"dirty energy”. He supported this by saying current applied science can reduce waste produced in apply fossil fuels to a minimum. He argued that since all processes bring to pass round waste, any process can be considered â€Å"dirty” and rejected. Epstein hence contended that mankind should focus on building better lives by reaping the benefits of using fossil fuels rather than worrying about whether processes were â€Å"dirty” or not.\r\nPart 3: Evaluation of origin\r\nEpstein’s first cause is that the energy provided by fossil fuels is vital to the heal th and well-being of mankind. The assumption he makes in his argument is that burning fossil fuels is the largest or sole provider of energy to mankind. This is validated by empirical data collected on a global surmount from The creation zilch observatory 2013 (International naught Agency, 2013) which recorded that 82% of the world’s total energy supply came from fossil fuels in 2011 and will likely only fall to 75% in 2035, remaining the major microbe of energy for years to come. The argument uses deductive reasoning to exhibit that the energy provided by fossil fuels is vital to the health and well-being of mankind based on the come before that the energy berths important machines and processes that mankind needs to thrive.\r\nEpstein supports this by listing processes such as purifying water, the mass production of medicine and fresh food, heating and construction. He severalises that these processes provides necessities that are key in keep affection at bay and allowing mankind to cope with the much harsh climate, leading to what he claims to be the healthiest and cleanest existent environment in human history. The evidence Epstein provides shows that the affordable reliable energy from fossil fuels provides important necessities such as clean water and medicine that is vital to the health and well-being of mankind.\r\nThis is congruent to Dennis Anderson’s points in â€Å"World nada Assessment: Energy and the challenge of Sustainability” ( united Nations cultivation Programme, 2000, Chapter 11 p.394) where he bills that the presence of modern stemmas of energy can improve the standards of living for billions of quite a little across the globe, especially those in developing countries who inadequacy access to basic services and necessities similar to those draw by Epstein due to consumption levels of energy being far lower than those in industrialized countries. This shows the state of people who lack access to mod ern energy and how their lives can be greatly improved if much energy was available to them. Therefore since Epstein’s argument uses deductive reasoning to prove that the energy provided by fossil fuels is vital to the health and well-being of mankind, since the enter is true, the conclusion of the argument is valid.\r\nReferences\r\nAnderson, D. fall in Nations Development Programme, United Nations. & group A; World Energy Council. (2000). World Energy Assessment: Energy and the challenge of sustainability. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme In: Chapter 11 Energy and Economic Prosperity. (P.394-411)\r\nRetrieved from\r\nhttp://www.undp.org/\r\nInternational Energy Agency & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). World energy outlook 2013. Paris: OECD/IEA. Retrieved from\r\nhttp://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/\r\nEpstein’s second argument is that alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels are not as effective. The argument uses inductive reasoning as Epstein focuses on 2 alternative sources of energy and attempts to convince the reader of his argument based on their sight limitations. The premises offered are that renewable energy such as solar and poke is unreliable, not cost effective and also unable to be mass-produced. He is able to support this with his claim that even after years of investments from many countries renewable energy only accounts for less than 0.5% of the planets energy. He also supports this by quoting examples of some richer countries that have been unsuccessful in making renewable energies usable on a larger eggshell even after spending large sums of money, resulting in rising youth unemployment rates as eminent as 50% in Spain and electrical prices look-alike in the case of Germany. These cases and facts accurately shows the limitations of renewable energies mentioned in his premises. This is supported by Professor Barry Brook in his in-depth critique on renewable energy â€Å"renewable Limits” (Brook, 2009, TCASE 4 & 7) where he states that input for energy for solar and gratuity is unreliable and also shows how expensive and economically unfeasible it is to make solar and wind plants reliable on a global outmatch. The plow demonstrates this by calculating the large amounts of materials and investment infallible to make each renewable energy source reliable on a global scale e.g. 1,250,000 tonnes of concrete and 335,000 tonnes of steel per day from 2010 to 2050 for wind cause to be reliable. Therefore, the facts in the premises Epstein offers are true. However, he chooses to purely focus on solar and wind as alternatives to fossil fuels and not on otherwise to a greater extent promising alternative sources of energy such as hydroelectric power or nu guide. Although he mentions them in his argument, acknowledging them as able to provide more significant and reliable power compared to solar and wind, Epstein fails to go any further in depth than\r\nthat. The World Energy Outlook 2012 (International Energy Agency, 2012) showed that renewable energy is likely to grow to become the second-largest energy source by 2015, with its share of global power multiplication rising from 20% in 2010 to 31% by 2035 mostly stemming from hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Although the report states that this depends on continued subsidies, subsidies for renewable energy are also projected to reach $240 billion per year in 2035 from $44 billion in 2010, for 31% of global power. The report suggests that given up enough epoch renewables like hydroelectric power and nuclear could be produced on a wide enough scale to compete with fossil fuels. This shows that the other alternatives not evaluated richly by Epstein are definitely gaining traction and support around the world and are able to produce affordable and reliable energy as well, potentially on a global scale given time. Although he claims to have focused only on so lar and wind as environmentalists, opponents of fossil fuels, a good deal only champion solar and wind power over nuclear and hydroelectric power, it is a real weak reason to not go into point in time about these alternatives that are clearly gaining much traction and support around the world as shown in the source. Hence, Epstein fails to consider the full scope of alternatives in his argument and seems to focus only on alternatives that have clear limitations to strengthen his argument. Since his argument uses inductive reasoning to prove that alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels are not effective, based on the premises provided not motion picture a complete picture of the issue at hand, and the fact that the alternatives ignored show more arrangement than the ones mentioned in the premises, his argument is weak and not convincing.\r\nReferences\r\nBrook, B (2009). Renewable Limits | Brave New Climate.\r\nRetrieved from\r\nhttp://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/ \r\nInternational Energy Agency & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). World energy outlook 2012. Paris: OECD/IEA. Retrieved from\r\nhttp://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/\r\n'