Part 1: Graphic Representation
Portion 2: Brief summary of argument
In the content “Fossil Powers Improve the Planet” (Epstein, 2013), Alex Epstein’s main claim was that fossil fuels should be utilized without limit as they give reliable and affordable strength that increases the lives of mankind. Aiming to influence the reader non-renewable fuels should be readily used, he first argued that the energy provided by non-renewable fuels is vital for the health and wellbeing of mankind. He reinforced this by stating that processes including purifying water, mass creation of medicine and fresh food, heating and structure are vital in allowing mankind to acquire healthy lives and having the capacity to cope in harsh weather.
Epstein stressed that non-e of those things might exist today without the energy from non-renewable fuels. Next, this individual argued that alternatives just like renewable energy are generally not effective. He asserts that renewable energy can be unreliable, not cost effective and also unable to be mass-produced. He supported this by simply saying that even after many years of investments by many countries only makes up about less than 0.
5% with the planets energy.
Finally, Epstein concluded simply by stating that fossil fuels are not “dirty energy”. He supported this by simply saying current technology can reduce waste materials produced in using fossil fuels to a minimum. He contended that seeing that all operations create several waste, any kind of process can be viewed “dirty” and rejected. Epstein hence contended that the human race should concentrate on building better lives by reaping the key benefits of using non-renewable fuels rather than worrying about whether procedures were “dirty” or certainly not.
Part three or more: Evaluation of argument
Epstein’s first disagreement is that the energy provided by fossil fuels is vital to the health and health of mankind. The assumption he makes in his disagreement is that burning up fossil fuels is a largest or perhaps sole provider of energy to mankind. This can be validated simply by empirical data collected on a global scale from The Globe Energy Prospect 2013 (International Energy Organization, 2013) which will recorded that 82% with the world’s total energy supply came from fossil fuels in 2011 and will likely simply fall to 75% in 2035, staying the major source of energy for years to come. The argument uses deductive reasoning to prove that the energy furnished by fossil fuels is vital to the health insurance and well-being of mankind based upon the premise which the energy power important devices and operations that human beings needs to flourish.
Epstein helps this by simply listing procedures such as purifying water, the mass creation of medicine and fresh food, heating and construction. He claims that these processes provides needs that are type in keep sickness at bay and allowing the human race to cope with the often harsh local climate, leading to what he claims as the healthiest and cleanest living environment in human history. Evidence Epstein supplies shows that the affordable trusted energy coming from fossil fuels provides important necessities such as clean water and medicine that is vital for the health and well-being of the human race.
This is congruent to Dennis Anderson’s items in “World Energy Evaluation: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability” (United Nations Advancement Programme, 2150, Chapter 11 p. 394) where he reports that the existence of modern options for energy can easily improve the standards of living for immeasureable people around the world, especially those in developing countries who lack access to simple services and necessities just like those explained by Epstein due to usage levels of strength being less than those in industrialized countries. This reveals the state of people who lack usage of modern strength and how their particular lives can be greatly improved if more energy was available to them. Consequently since Epstein’s argument uses deductive reasoning to prove that the energy given by fossil fuels is important to the into the well-being of mankind, since the premise is true, the conclusion from the argument is definitely valid.
Anderson, Deb. United Nations Creation Programme, United Nations. & Globe Energy Council. (2000). World Energy Assessment: Energy plus the challenge of sustainability. Ny, NY: United Nations Development Plan In: Chapter 11 Energy and Financial Prosperity. (P. 394-411)
Worldwide Energy Organization & Enterprise for Economical Co-operation and Development (2013). World energy outlook 2013. Paris: OECD/IEA. Retrieved coming from
Epstein’s second argument is the fact alternative types of energy to fossil fuels aren’t as successful. The discussion uses inductive reasoning since Epstein is targeted on 2 alternative sources of energy and tries to influence the reader of his argument based on their particular observed limitations. The building offered are that renewable energy such as solar and wind can be unreliable, not cost efficient and also not able to be mass-produced. He is able to support this along with his claim that also after numerous years of investments by many countries renewable energy simply accounts for lower than 0. five per cent of the planets energy. He also supports this simply by quoting examples of some richer countries that have been unsuccessful to make renewable powers usable on a larger range even after spending large sums of money, leading to rising youth unemployment prices as high as 50 percent in Spain and electrical prices doubling in the matter of Germany. These cases and facts effectively shows the limitations of renewable energies mentioned in his areas. This is supported by Professor Barry Brook in the in-depth analyze on power “Renewable Limits” (Brook, 2009, TCASE some & 7) where he states that type for energy for photo voltaic and wind flow is difficult to rely on and also shows how expensive and economically unfeasible it is to make solar and blowing wind plants trustworthy on a global scale. The report displays this by simply calculating the best amounts of materials and investment needed to generate each power source trustworthy on a global scale at the. g. one particular, 250, 1000 tonnes of concrete and 335, 1000 tonnes of steel daily from 2010 to 2050 for breeze power to end up being reliable. Therefore , the facts in the premises Epstein offers will be true. However , he decides to simply focus on solar and wind flow as alternatives to fossil fuels and not upon other more promising substitute sources of energy such as hydroelectric power or nuclear. Even though he brings up them in his argument, acknowledging them while able to provide more significant and reliable power compared to solar power and wind flow, Epstein fails to go any further in depth than
that. The World Strength Outlook 2012 (International Strength Agency, 2012) showed that renewable energy will probably grow to become the second-largest energy source by simply 2015, using its share of worldwide power era rising from 20% this season to 31% by 2035 mostly coming from hydroelectric power and nuclear electric power. Although the record states that the depends on ongoing subsidies, financial aid for alternative energy are also forecasted to reach $240 billion each year in 2035 from $44 billion completely, for 31% of global electrical power. The statement suggests that provided enough time renewables like hydroelectric power and nuclear could be produced on the wide enough scale to compete with fossil fuels. This implies that the various other alternatives certainly not evaluated completely by Epstein are definitely increasing traction and support around the globe and are in a position to produce affordable and reliable energy as well, potentially on the global size given time. Although he claims to have centered only in solar and wind while environmentalists, opponents of fossil fuels, often just champion solar power and wind flow power above nuclear and hydroelectric electric power, it is a incredibly weak reason to not go into detail regarding these alternatives which might be clearly increasing much traction and support around the world since shown inside the source. Therefore, Epstein fails to consider the complete scope of alternatives in the argument and seems to focus only upon alternatives which may have clear constraints to strengthen his argument. Seeing that his disagreement uses inductive reasoning to prove that substitute sources of strength to fossil fuels are not powerful, based on the premises supplied not painting a complete photo of the issue at hand, and the fact that the alternatives ignored show more promise than the ones mentioned in the premises, his argument is weak and never convincing.
Brook, B (2009). Renewable Limits | Fearless New Climate.
Intercontinental Energy Organization & Company for Financial Co-operation and Development (2012). World strength outlook 2012. Paris: OECD/IEA. Retrieved from