Practical argument: A text and anthology - Laurie G. Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell 2019

Evaluation фrguments
Strategies for argument

AT ISSUE

Do the Benefits of Fossil Fuels Outweigh the Environmental Risks?

We sometimes forget that fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas come from plants and animals that died millions of years ago. Buried and pressurized, their organic remains formed substances rich in hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are highly combustible, which makes them a great fuel. While the use of these resources can be traced back to ancient Babylon, fossil fuels truly came of age during the Industrial Revolution. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they not only provided fuel for factories and railroads but also for heating, lighting, driving, and countless other things that we take for granted. Today, the United States alone uses more than twenty million barrels of oil per day.

However, significant downsides do exist. Fossil fuels take millions of years to form: they are finite and nonrenewable. They give off carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Even worse, coal releases toxins such as mercury into the air, soil, and water. Oil spills harm the environment, while the extraction of natural gas (“fracking”) can poison drinking water and devastate landscapes. These problems have led people to explore alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and nuclear power, but these come with disadvantages, too, especially given the increasing scope and demands of the growing world economy. Later in this chapter, you will read essays that address the pros and cons of fossil fuels, and you will write an evaluation argument that takes a position on the issue of whether the benefits associated with fossil fuels outweigh the potential risks to the environment.

What Is an Evaluation Argument?

When you evaluate, you make a value judgment about something or someone—for example, a product, service, program, performance, work of literature or art, or candidate for public office.

Evaluation is part of your daily life: after all, before you make any decision, you need to evaluate your options. For example, you evaluate clothing and electronic equipment before you make a purchase, and you evaluate films, concerts, and TV shows before you decide how to spend your evening. Before you decide to go to a party, you evaluate its positive and negative qualities—who will be there, what music you are likely to hear, and what kind of food and drink will probably be on hand. You also evaluate your teachers, your classes, and even your friends.

When constructing an evaluation argument, you have several options: you can make a positive or negative judgment, you can assert that someone else’s positive or negative judgment is not accurate or justified, or you can write a comparative evaluation, in which you demonstrate that one thing is (or is not) superior to another.

As a college student, you might read (or write) evaluation arguments based on topics such as the following:

§ Is the college bookstore doing its best to serve students?

§ Is a vegan diet really a practical option?

§ Is Moby-Dick the great American novel?

§ Is the SAT a valid testing instrument?

§ Are portable e-book readers superior to print books?

§ Are Crocs a marvel of comfort and design or just ugly shoes?

§ Are hybrid cars worth the money?

§ Is Beyoncé the most important musical artist of her generation?

§ Do the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the environmental risks?

EXERCISE 14.1 CHOOSING TOPICS FOR EVALUATION ARGUMENTS

List five additional topics that would be suitable for evaluation arguments.

MAKING EVALUATIONS

When you write an evaluation, you use terms such as the following to express judgments and indicate relative merits.

EXERCISE 14.2 MAKING EVALUATIVE STATEMENTS

Choose one word in each of the word pairs listed above, and use each word in a sentence that evaluates a service, program, or facility at your school.

IDENTIFYING BIAS

Everyone has biases, and these biases are likely to show up in evaluations, where strong opinions may overcome objectivity. As you read and write evaluation arguments, be on the lookout for evidence of bias:

§ When you read evaluation arguments, carefully consider what the writer reveals (or actually states) about his or her values, beliefs, and opinions. Also be alert for evidence of bias in a writer’s language and tone as well as in his or her choice of examples. (See “Detecting Bias in Your Sources” on pages 259—260 for more on this issue.)

§ When you write evaluation arguments, focus on trying to make a fair assessment of your subject. Be particularly careful not to distort or slant evidence, quote out of context, or use unfair appeals or logical fallacies. (See “Being Fair” on pages 267—268 for more on how to avoid bias in your writing.)

Criteria for Evaluation

When you evaluate something, you cannot simply state that it is good or bad, useful or useless, valuable or worthless, or superior or inferior to something else; you need to explain why this is so. Before you can begin to develop a thesis and gather supporting evidence, you need to decide what criteria for evaluation you will use. To support a positive judgment, you need to show that something has value because it satisfies certain criteria; to support a negative judgment, you need to show that something lacks value because it does not satisfy those criteria.

To make any judgment, then, you need to select the specific criteria you will use to assess your subject. For example, in an evaluation of a college bookstore, will you base your assessment on the friendliness of its service? Its prices? The number of books it stocks? Its return policy? The efficiency or knowledge of the staff? Your answers to these questions will help you begin to plan your evaluation.

The criteria that you establish will help you decide how to evaluate a given subject. If, for example, your criteria for evaluating musical artists focus on these artists’ impact on the music industry, the number of downloads of their music, the number of corporate sponsors they attract, and their concert revenue, you may be able to support the thesis that Beyoncé is the most important musical artist of her generation. If, however, your main criterion for evaluation is the artist’s influence on other contemporary performers, your case may be less compelling. Similarly, if you are judging health-care systems on the basis of how many individuals have medical coverage, you may be able to demonstrate that the Canadian system is superior to the U.S. system. However, if your criteria are referral time and government support for medical research, your evaluation argument might support a different position. Whatever criteria you decide on, a bookstore (or musical artist or health-care system) that satisfies them will be seen as superior to one that does not.

Consider another example. Suppose you want to evaluate the government’s Head Start program, which was established in 1964 to provide preschool education to children from low-income families. The program also provides medical coverage and social services to the children enrolled, and in recent years it has expanded to cover children of migrant workers and children in homeless families. On what basis would you evaluate this program? Would you evaluate only the children’s educational progress or also consider the program’s success in providing health care? In considering educational progress, would you focus on test scores or on students’ performance in school? Would you measure long-term effects—for example, Head Start students’ likelihood of attending college and their annual earnings as adults? Or would you focus on short-term results—for example, students’ performance in elementary school? Finally, would you evaluate only the children or also their families? Depending on the criteria you select for your evaluation, the Head Start program could be considered a success or a failure—or something in between.

EXERCISE 14.3 SELECTING CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

Choose one of the topics you listed in Exercise 14.1, and list five possible criteria for an evaluation argument on that topic.

EXERCISE 14.4 EVALUATING YOUR TEXTBOOKS

By what criteria do you evaluate the textbooks for your college courses? Design? Content? Clarity? Comprehensiveness? Cost? Work with another student to decide on the most important criteria, and then write a paragraph in which you evaluate this textbook (or a textbook for another course).

Structuring an Evaluation Argument

In general terms, an evaluation argument can be structured like this:

§ Introduction: Establishes the criteria by which you will evaluate your subject; states the essay’s thesis

§ Evidence (first point in support of thesis): Supplies facts, opinions, and so on to support your evaluation in terms of one of the criteria you have established

§ Evidence (second point in support of thesis): Supplies facts, opinions, and so on to support your evaluation in terms of one of the criteria you have established

§ Evidence (third point in support of thesis): Supplies facts, opinions, and so on to support your evaluation in terms of one of the criteria you have established

§ Refutation of opposing arguments: Presents others’ evaluations and your arguments against them

§ Conclusion: Reinforces the main point of the argument; includes a strong concluding statement

EVALUATION OF A WEBSITE: RATEMYPROFESSORS.COM

KEVIN MURPHY

The following student essay includes all the elements of an evaluation argument. The student who wrote the essay was evaluating a popular website, RateMyProfessors.com.

Text reads as follows:

First paragraph: Since 1999, both students and professors have been writing, reading, defending, and criticizing the content on RateMyProfessors.com (RMP). With over 19 million ratings, 1.7 million professors rated, and millions of visitors per month, RMP continues to be the most popular site of its kind (“About RateMyProfessors.com”). However, the fact that a website is popular does not mean that it is reliable. Certainly RMP may be interesting and entertaining (and even, as New York Times writer Virginia Heffernan once wrote, “engrossing”), but is it useful? Will it help students to make informed decisions about the schools they choose to attend and the classes they choose to take? Are the ratings—as well as the site itself—trustworthy? Is the information about professors and schools comprehensive enough to be meaningful? No student wants to waste time in a course that is poorly taught by a teacher who lacks enthusiasm, knowledge, or objectivity. However, an evaluation of the reviews on RMP suggests that the site is not trustworthy or comprehensive enough to help college students make the right choices about the courses they take (a corresponding margin note reads, Thesis statement).

Second paragraph: The first question to ask about the reviews on RMP is, “Who is writing them?” (A corresponding margin note reads, Evidence: First point in support of thesis.) All reviews on the site are anonymous, and although anonymity protects the writers’ privacy and may encourage them to offer honest feedback, it also raises a red flag. There is no guarantee that the reviews are written by students. In fact, anyone—even the professors themselves—can create RMP accounts and post reviews, and there is no way of knowing who is writing or what a writer’s motivations and biases are. In addition, the percentage of students who actually write reviews is small. According to one

Continuation of the second paragraph reads as follows:

recent survey, only 8 percent of students have ever written a review for an online professor-rating site; in other words, “a vocal minority” is running the show (Arden). Furthermore, the ratings for each individual professor vary greatly in number, quality, and currency. Even in the rare cases where a professor has hundreds of recent ratings, the score may represent the views of only a small percentage of that professor’s students. This means that getting a representative sample is highly unlikely. Unless the website’s managers institute rules and restrictions to ensure the legitimacy of the writer and the size of the sample, the RMP ratings will continue to be untrustworthy.

Third paragraph: The second question to ask is, “Who controls RMP’s content?” Although RMP posts “Site Guidelines” with a “Do” list and a “Do Not” list, these lists are merely suggestions. The RMP Site Moderation Team will remove obscene or unlawful posts, but it has no way to enforce other guidelines. For instance, one of the items on the “Do Not” list asks users not to “post a rating if you have not taken a class with the professor” (“Site Guidelines”). However, to sign up for an RMP account, a user does not have to identify his or her university or list the courses he or she has taken. The site asks only for a name, a birth date, and the right to share the user’s personal information with its partner companies. This last question is a reminder that RMP is ultimately a commercial venture. The site is not owned by students or by their universities; it is owned by mtvU, a TV network that in turn is owned by media giant Viacom. The fact that each page of RMP content is surrounded on three sides by advertisements reminds users that the primary purpose of this site is to make money. When that fact is combined with the fact that the company has “the right to review, monitor, edit, and/or screen any content you post,” it indicates that RMP does not warrant students’ trust (“Terms of Use”). A for-profit corporation, not the student reviewers, controls all of the information on the site and may modify content to increase traffic and favorably impress advertisers. (A margin note corresponding to the paragraph reads, Evidence: Second point in support of thesis).

Fourth paragraph: The last question to ask is, “Does RMP offer students the right kind of information—and enough in-depth information to give them a comprehensive understanding of a professor’s effectiveness as a teacher?” In fact, the site offers ratings in only four categories: “Helpfulness,” “Clarity,” “Easiness,” and “Hotness.” As one highly rated professor points out, “None of the dimensions [of RMP’s rating system] directly addresses how much students felt they learned” (qtd. in Arden). Moreover, no category addresses the professor’s knowledge of the subject matter. The ratings tend (text continues on the next page and a corresponding margin note reads, Evidence: Third point in support of thesis).

Continuation of the fourth paragraph reads as follows:

to focus attention on superficial qualities rather than on substance, apparently assuming that most students are looking for “easy A” classes taught by attractive, pleasant instructors. To the site’s credit, it recently phased out its infamous “chili pepper” rating for teacher attractiveness, which gave the site a reputation for gender bias and led to a backlash, as well as a potential boycott (Flaherty). Still, for students who are trying to make informed decisions about which classes to take, the site’s limited criteria remain inadequate. As one frustrated student user explains, “One of my professors had a really negative rating and comments, but he came to be one of my favorites . . . his way of teaching matched me perfectly” (qtd. in Ross). The focus of RMP is not on giving substantial feedback about teaching effectiveness or information about the educational value of a class. Perhaps these kinds of feedback do not attract advertisers; feedback about a professor’s “hotness” — the least important measure of effectiveness—apparently does.

Fifth paragraph: Students who argue that RMP is a “useful resource” say that the site helps them decide which professors to take and which to avoid (Davis) (a corresponding margin note reads, Refutation of opposing 5 arguments). For example, one community college student says that checking professors’ scores on RMP “helps me choose a professor who will suit my needs” (qtd. in Davis). Committed RMP users also say that they are able to sift through the superficial comments and find useful information about professors’ teaching styles. As one junior at Baruch College in New York City says, “It’s all about perspective, and you need to be aware of this when you use the site” (qtd. in Ross). Users claim that they can read reviews and understand that “the same course materials may work really well with one group of students and less well with another” (McGrath) and that “even though [a particular student] doesn’t seem to like the professor, it sounds like I might” (qtd. in Davis). Students’ ability to read between the lines, however, does not change the fact that the information on RMP is neither verifiable nor comprehensive. RMP’s reviews are anonymous, and some of them are almost certainly not written by students who have taken the professors’ classes. Professors’ “Overall Quality” scores, which so many students rely on, are based on ratings by these untrustworthy reviewers. Furthermore, these “overall” ratings are based on only two factors: “Helpfulness” and “Clarity” (“Rating Categories”). A rating that is calculated on the basis of very limited information from questionable sources can hardly be a “useful resource.” On balance, then, RMP does not give students the information they need to make informed decisions.

Text continues as follows:

On RMP’s home page, the site managers encourage visitors to “join the fun!” (“About RateMyProfessors.com”). “Fun” is ultimately all users can hope to find at RMP. As Virginia Heffernan recommends, “Read it like a novel, watch it like MTV, study it like sociology. Just don’t base any real decisions on it.” Real students’ honest and thorough reviews of professors are invaluable, but sites like RMP do not provide this kind of helpful feedback. When deciding between a commercial website and old-fashioned word of mouth, anyone who thinks that RMP offers more useful information should keep in mind who writes and controls the site’s content. Because visitors to the site know almost nothing about the reviewers, they cannot know if their comments and ratings are trustworthy. Moreover, because they do know something about the site’s owners, they should know enough to be wary of their motives. If students are looking for useful advice about which classes to take, they should look no further than the students on their own campuses (a corresponding margin note reads, Concluding statement).

Works Cited

“About RateMyProfessors.com.” Rate My Professors, MTV Networks, 2011, ratemyprofessors.com.

Arden, Patrick. “Rate My Professors Has Some Academics Up in Arms.” Village Voice, 26 Oct. 2011, www.villagevoice.com/arts/rate-my-professors-has-some-academics-up-in-arms-7165156.

Davis, Mandi. “Rate My Professor Gains Popularity with MCCC Students.”

Agora, Monroe County Community College, 7 Dec. 2011, www.mcccagora.com/news/view.php/509769/Rate-My-Professor-gains-popularity-with-.

Flaherty, Colleen. “Bye, Bye, Chili Pepper.” Inside Higher Ed, 2 July 2018, www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/02/rate-my-professors-ditches-its-chili-pepper-hotness-quotient.

Heffernan, Virginia. “The Prof Stuff.” The New York Times, 11 Mar. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/magazine/14FOB-medium-t.html?_r=0.

McGrath, James F. “When My Son Discovered RateMyProfessors.com.” Inside Higher Ed, 15 June 2015, www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/06/15/essay-about-professor-who-learns-his-son-has-discovered-ratemyprofessorscom.

“Rating Categories.” Rate My Professors, MTV Networks, 2011, ratemyprofessors.com.

Text reads as follows:

Ross, Terrance. “Professor Evaluation Website Receives Mixed Reviews.” Ticker, Baruch College, City U of New York, 12 Sept. 2011, ticker.baruchconnect.com/article/professor-evaluation-website-receives-mixed-reviews/.

“Site Guidelines.” Rate My Professors, MTV Networks, 20 June 2011, ratemyprofessors.com.

“Terms of Use.” Rate My Professors, MTV Networks, 20 June 2011, ratemyprofessors.com.

GRAMMAR IN CONTEXT

Comparatives and Superlatives

When you write an evaluation argument, you make judgments, and these judgments often call for comparative analysis—for example, arguing that one thing is better than another or the best of its kind.

When you compare two items or qualities, you use a comparative form: bigger, better, more interesting, less realistic. When you compare three or more items or qualities, you use a superlative form: the biggest, the best, the most interesting, the least realistic. Be careful to use these forms appropriately.

§ Do not use the comparative when you are comparing more than two things.

§ Do not use the superlative when you are comparing only two things.

EXERCISE 14.5 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

The following commentary, “To Restore Civil Society, Start with the Library,” includes the basic elements of an evaluation argument. Read the essay, and then answer the questions that follow it, consulting the outline on pages 476—480 if necessary.

TO RESTORE CIVIL SOCIETY, START WITH THE LIBRARY

ERIC KLINENBERG

This article was published in the New York Times on September 8, 2018.

Is the public library obsolete?

A lot of powerful forces in society seem to think so. In recent years, declines in the circulation of bound books in some parts of the country have led prominent critics to argue that libraries are no longer serving their historical function. Countless elected officials insist that in the 21st century—when so many books are digitized, so much public culture exists online and so often people interact virtually—libraries no longer need the support they once commanded.

Libraries are already starved for resources. In some cities, even affluent ones like Atlanta, entire branches are being shut down. In San Jose, Calif., just down the road from Facebook, Google, and Apple, the public library budget is so tight that users with overdue fees above $20 aren’t allowed to borrow books or use computers.

But the problem that libraries face today isn’t irrelevance. Indeed, in New York and many other cities, library circulation, program attendance, and average hours spent visiting are up. The real problem that libraries face is that so many people are using them, and for such a wide variety of purposes, that library systems and their employees are overwhelmed. According to a 2016 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, about half of all Americans ages 16 and over used a public library in the past year, and two-thirds say that closing their local branch would have a “major impact on their community.”

“Libraries are being disparaged and neglected at precisely the moment when they are most valued and necessary.”

Libraries are being disparaged and neglected at precisely the moment when they are most valued and necessary. Why the disconnect? In part it’s because the founding principle of the public library—that all people deserve free, open access to our shared culture and heritage—is out of sync with the market logic that dominates our world. But it’s also because so few influential people understand the expansive role that libraries play in modern communities.

Libraries are an example of what I call “social infrastructure”: the physical spaces and organizations that shape the way people interact. Libraries don’t just provide free access to books and other cultural materials, they also offer things like companionship for older adults, de facto child care for busy parents, language instruction for immigrants, and welcoming public spaces for the poor, the homeless, and young people.

I recently spent a year doing ethnographic research in libraries in New York City. Again and again, I was reminded how essential libraries are, not only for a neighborhood’s vitality but also for helping to address all manner of personal problems.

For older people, especially widows, widowers, and those who live alone, libraries are places for culture and company, through book clubs, movie nights, sewing circles, and classes in art, current events, and computing. For many, the library is the main place they interact with people from other generations.

For children and teenagers, libraries help instill an ethic of responsibility, to themselves and to their neighbors, by teaching them what it means to borrow and take care of something public, and to return it so others can have it too. For new parents, grandparents, and caretakers who feel overwhelmed when watching an infant or a toddler by themselves, libraries are a godsend.

In many neighborhoods, particularly those where young people aren’t hyper-scheduled in formal after-school programs, libraries are highly popular among adolescents and teenagers who want to spend time with other people their age. One reason is that they’re open, accessible, and free. Another is that the library staff members welcome them; in many branches, they even assign areas for teenagers to be with one another.

To appreciate why this matters, compare the social space of the library with the social space of commercial establishments like Starbucks or McDonald’s. These are valuable parts of the social infrastructure, but not everyone can afford to frequent them, and not all paying customers are welcome to stay for long.

Older and poor people will often avoid Starbucks altogether, because the fare is too expensive and they feel that they don’t belong. The elderly library patrons I got to know in New York told me that they feel even less welcome in the trendy new coffee shops, bars, and restaurants that are so common in the city’s gentrifying neighborhoods. Poor and homeless library patrons don’t even consider entering these places. They know from experience that simply standing outside a high-end eatery can prompt managers to call the police. But you rarely see a police officer in a library. This is not to say that libraries are always peaceful and serene. During the time I spent doing research, I witnessed a handful of heated disputes, physical altercations, and other uncomfortable situations, sometimes involving people who appeared to be mentally ill or under the influence of drugs. But such problems are inevitable in a public institution that’s dedicated to open access, especially when drug clinics, homeless shelters, and food banks routinely turn away—and often refer to the library!—those who most need help. What’s remarkable is how rarely these disruptions happen, how civilly they are managed, and how quickly a library regains its rhythm afterward.

The openness and diversity that flourish in neighborhood libraries were once a hallmark of urban culture. But that has changed. Though American cities are growing more ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse, they too often remain divided and unequal, with some neighborhoods cutting themselves off from difference—sometimes intentionally, sometimes just by dint of rising costs—particularly when it comes to race and social class.

Libraries are the kinds of places where people with different backgrounds, passions, and interests can take part in a living democratic culture. They are the kinds of places where the public, private, and philanthropic sectors can work together to reach for something higher than the bottom line.

This summer, Forbes magazine published an article arguing that libraries no longer served a purpose and did not deserve public support. The author, an economist, suggested that Amazon replace libraries with its own retail outlets, and claimed that most Americans would prefer a free-market option. The public response—from librarians especially, but also public officials and ordinary citizens—was so overwhelmingly negative that Forbes deleted the article from its website.

We should take heed. Today, as cities and suburbs continue to reinvent themselves, and as cynics claim that government has nothing good to contribute to that process, it’s important that institutions like libraries get the recognition they deserve. It’s worth noting that “liber,” the Latin root of the word library, means both “book” and “free.” Libraries stand for and exemplify something that needs defending: the public institutions that—even in an age of atomization, polarization, and inequality—serve as the bedrock of civil society.

If we have any chance of rebuilding a better society, social infrastructure like the library is precisely what we need.

Identifying the Elements of an Evaluation Argument

1. Paraphrase Klinenberg’s thesis by filling in the following template.

Because , public libraries are not obsolete.

2. What criteria does Klinenberg use to evaluate public libraries? If he wanted to make the opposite case, what criteria might he use instead?

3. What benefits of public libraries does Klinenberg use to support his thesis? Can you think of additional benefits?

4. In his opening paragraphs, Klinenberg claims that “a lot of powerful forces in society” seem to see public libraries as obsolete. Why, according to Klinenberg, do they think so? How does he argue against this position?

5. In paragraph 7, Klinenberg says, “I recently spent a year doing ethnographic research in libraries in New York City.” Why does he include this information?

6. How, according to Klinenberg, do the social spaces of Starbucks and McDonald’s differ from those of public libraries? How does this contrast support the position he takes in this essay?

7. Where does Klinenberg identify the problems faced by public libraries? What explanations does he offer for these problems?

8. Evaluate Klinenberg’s concluding statement. Do you think it is an appropriate conclusion for his essay, or do you think it overstates (or understates) his case? Explain.

READING AND WRITING ABOUT THE ISSUE

Do the Benefits of Fossil Fuels Outweigh the Environmental Risks?

Reread the At Issue box on page 475, which provides background on the question of whether the perceived advantages of fossil fuels outweigh concerns about possible environmental damage. Then, read the sources on the pages that follow.

As you read these sources, you will be asked to respond to some questions and complete some activities. This work is designed to help you understand the content and structure of the selections. When you are finished, you will be ready to decide on the criteria you will use to write an evaluation argument on the topic, “Do the Benefits of Fossil Fuels Outweigh the Environmental Risks?”

SOURCES

THE SOCIAL BENEFITS OF FOSSIL FUELS FAR OUTWEIGH THE COSTS

JOSEPH L. BAST AND PETER FERRARA

This article first appeared in the June 17, 2018, issue of the Wall Street Journal.

As several cities continue their suit against oil companies, The People of the State of California v. BP, Judge William Alsup has boiled the case down to its pivotal question. In March he ordered the legal counsels of both parties to help him weigh “the large benefits that have flowed from the use of fossil fuels” against the possibility that such fuels may be causing global warming.

We sent the judge, and posted online, a 24-page document that answers his question. The benefits of oil, coal, and gas are rarely acknowledged by environmental activists, who seek to regulate and tax these fuel sources out of existence. But an honest accounting shows that fossil fuels produce enormous social value that far outweighs their costs.

First, fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, and in turn improving health. “The most fundamental attribute of modern society is simply this,” writes historian Vaclav Smil in his 2003 book on energy: “Ours is a high energy civilization based largely on combustion of fossil fuels.”

Fossil fuels, and coal in particular, provided the energy that powered the Industrial Revolution. Today, coal plants still produce most of the electricity that powers high-tech manufacturing equipment and charges mobile computing devices.

The alternative energy sources environmental activists favor are generally more expensive. Energy economists Thomas Stacey and George Taylor calculate that wind power costs nearly three times as much as existing coal generation and 2.3 times as much as combined-cycle gas. There is a negative correlation between energy prices and economic activity. A 2014 survey of economic literature by Roger Bezdek calculates that a 10 percent increase in U.S. electricity prices would eliminate approximately 1.3 percent of gross domestic product.

“Cheap energy from fossil fuels improves human well-being by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies.”

Cheap energy from fossil fuels also improves human well-being by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air-conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks. Environmental activists often claim that prosperity speeds the depletion of resources and destruction of nature, but the opposite is true. As Ronald Bailey writes in The End of Doom: “It is in rich democratic capitalist countries that the air and water are becoming cleaner, forests are expanding, food is abundant, education is universal, and women’s rights respected.”

Fossil fuels have increased the quantity of food humans produce and improved the reliability of the food supply. The availability of cheap energy revolutionized agriculture throughout the world, making it possible for an ever-smaller proportion of the labor force to raise food sufficient to feed a growing global population without devastating nature or polluting air or water.

Fossil-fuel emissions create additional benefits, contributing to the greening of the Earth. A 2017 study published in Nature magazine found that the global mass of land plants grew 31 percent during the 20th century. African deserts are blooming thanks to fossil fuels.

Finally, if fossil fuels are responsible for a significant part of the warming recorded during the second half of the 20th century, then they should also be credited with reducing deaths due to cold weather. Medical researchers William Richard Keatinge and Gavin Donaldson assessed this effect in a 2004 study. “Since heat-related deaths are generally much fewer than cold-related deaths, the overall effect of global warming on health can be expected to be a beneficial one.”

They estimate the predicted temperature rise in Britain over the next 50 years will reduce cold-related deaths by 10 times the number of increased heat-related deaths. Other research shows climate change has exerted only a minimal influence on recent trends in vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and diseases spread by ticks.

Altogether, fossil fuels have produced huge benefits for mankind, many of which continue today. But advocates of alternative energy sources usually manage to omit or diminish many of these benefits when calculating fossil fuels’ “social cost.”

Thankfully, President Trump and congressional Republicans understand that the costs of fossil fuels must be weighed against their substantial benefits. They have decided wisely not to carry on the “war on fossil fuels” waged by the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and their Golden State allies.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

1. How would you characterize the tone of this essay? Is this tone appropriate for the audience, readers of the Wall Street Journal, a national newspaper focusing on business and politics?

2. As the essay’s title makes clear, this essay defends the use of fossil fuels. What criteria do the writers use for their evaluation?

3. List the specific advantages of fossil fuels that the writers identify to support their thesis. Do they include enough supporting evidence?

4. Throughout their essay, the writers summarize and refute arguments in support of other energy sources. Do you think they present these counterarguments fully enough? Do you think they refute them effectively? Explain.

5. Bast and Ferrara close paragraph 6 by quoting Ronald Bailey. Why do they include this statement? How does it support their position?

6. Consider the writers’ use of past tense in the opening sentences of paragraphs 4 and 7. Does the use of past tense undercut their argument in any way? Explain.

7. How convincing do you find the argument presented in paragraphs 9—10? How might it be refuted?

8. Evaluate the concluding paragraph of this essay. What does it reveal about the writers’ purpose?

FOSSIL FUEL PROS AND CONS

JUAN RAMOS

This article was posted on September 23, 2018, on ScienceTrends.com.

Fossil fuel pros and cons can be separated into inexpensive, globally available, and compatibility with energy systems for fossil fuels pros compared to greenhouse gas emissions, finite resource, and environmentally damaging for fossil fuels cons.

There is an ongoing debate on the different kinds of fuel. Today, we want to talk about the fossil fuels oil and gas. We will do so by exploring their pros and cons as we define the true advantage of oil and gas.

“We are still a very long way from replacing the usage of fossil fuel by renewable energy sources.”

When it comes to energy sources, fossil fuels are still indubitably the most widely used energy sources globally. There are many different fossil fuels but the most largely used ones are natural gas, coal, and petroleum. When most people turn their lights on at home or at work, or when they ride cars or motorbikes, they would be using fossil fuels.

In recent years there have been great advances in the exploration of new alternatives to fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, which take millions of years to form, renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar, and hydropower are immediately available. But, we are still a very long way from replacing the usage of fossil fuel by renewable energy sources.

What Are Fossil Fuels?

There are essentially three fossil fuels: coal, petroleum (or oil), and natural gas. It is worth looking at each one of them separately because, although they are often lumped together they are, in fact, quite different.

Coal is the result of millions of years of vegetation being accumulated and altered. In order words, present-day coal is nothing but what remains of prehistoric vegetation. Coal is a great source of energy because of the solar energy that has been preserved in them. Solar energy is preserved by all living plants thanks to photosynthesis. When plants die any solar energy that they have stored is released. However, the vegetation that forms coal over millions of years after death do keep much of that solar energy.

Petroleum is a mixture of different hydrocarbons, usually found under the surface of the earth. Petroleum is one of the most precious fossil fuels that are currently used. Petroleum includes the following different fractions:

§ Gasoline

§ Natural gas

§ Naphtha

§ Fuel oils

§ Lubricating oils

§ Kerosene

§ Paraffin wax

§ Asphalt

The one thing in common between the different fossil fuels is that they are all the result of millions of years’ worth of decomposition of plants and animals. This means, among other things, that these energy sources are finite. They all come with a “sell-by date” as it were. At some point, human beings will inevitably run out of fossil fuels. And this is one of the main reasons that the proponents of alternative energy sources deem essential that we find alternatives to fossil fuels as soon as possible.

But, the best to look at this issue is, to begin with by defining the pros and cons of using fossil fuels.

What Are the Pros of Fossil Fuels?

There are, in fact, many pros of using fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuel Pros:

§ Systems are set up to process and utilize oil and gas

§ Widely available around the globe

§ Low cost per unit energy

§ Refineries, transportation, and plastics all rely heavily on oil and gas

§ High energy output

§ Employs millions of people globally

§ The primary source of all plastics

Despite the undeniable fact that fossil fuels are finite, it is also true that they are massively available still. Thanks to advances in technology among other reasons, we are able to access fossil fuels more than ever before. There are many places around the world that are rich in fossil fuels. Also fossil fuels such as oil and gas are relatively easy to find, particularly compared to some alternative energy sources. Most fossil fuels are close to the surface of the earth.

Their efficiency and ease of transport are also important pros that we should take into account. In terms of efficiency, fossil fuels generate huge amounts of energy. Even the smallest piece of coal can generate phenomenal amounts of energy. But apart from this, they are also relatively easy to transport.

No matter the place of origin, fossil fuels can be transported to any part of the planet with ease. You can see a contrast to alternative sources of energy such as wind or solar energy that can’t really be deployed except in nearby areas to where they originate.

Finally, an important pro is that fossil fuel power plants are easy to set up. So, anywhere fossil fuels are found, we are able to set up a plant to exploit it quickly enough.

What Are the Cons of Fossil Fuels?

But of course, there are also quite a few cons that should also be discussed.

Fossil Fuel Cons:

§ Finite resource

§ Large greenhouse gas emitter including CO₂

§ Progressively harder to find oil and gas deposits

§ Global movement toward limiting oil and gas and using renewable energy sources

§ Environmentally damaging, with potential catastrophic damage from large oil spills

§ Produces smog which harms human health

The main con is probably the environmental consequences of using fossil fuels. The polluting effects of fossil fuels are widely known. Most scientists around the world argue that global warming is caused to a large extent by the burning of fossil fuels. These fuels are potentially very dangerous to our environment.

A related con is a direct impact this pollution has on human beings generally and, particularly, in children. Potentially mortal diseases such as asthma or lung cancer have been directly linked by scientists to the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This problem particularly affects people living in large cities and other areas exposed to a lot of traffic.

Another health-related issue is the danger that people who work in coal mines have to deal with on a daily basis. The ingestion of coal dust has been proved to have seriously negative effects on people’s health. Unfortunately, people who work in coal mines are bound to ingest this as they go about their work.

Another environmental problem is the potential of oil spills happening. When this happens, oceans get polluted and birds and sea life suffer and often die. Although protections are always in place and oil spills are not all that common, they still happen from time to time. And every time, there is an oil spill, the environmental impact can result in the death of hundreds of animals, at the very least.

As we pointed out earlier, even though there are plenty of reserves still available, fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. We will not be able to rely on these energy sources forever. At some point in the future, we will run out of them completely.

The final con is that as we rely more and more on these fuels and reserves become more scarce, costs will go up. There are other factors that impact their costs and these are fairly unpredictable: war and other conflicts can also have an impact on prices and costs.

So, there are quite a few pros and cons to consider when discussing energy sources. And this is no exception when it comes to oil and gas.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

1. As the title indicates, this essay presents both sides of the fossil fuel debate. Do you see the essay as an argument? Why or why not?

2. Why, according to Ramos, will fossil fuels eventually need to be replaced?

3. In paragraphs 5 through 8, Ramos explains what fossil fuels are. Why do you think he feels the need to include this explanation? What does this section of the essay tell you about how he views his audience?

4. In paragraphs 9 through 13, Ramos lists the advantages of fossil fuels. Which of the points on his bulleted list (para. 10) do you see as most and least important? Why?

5. In paragraphs 15 through 21, Ramos enumerates the disadvantages of fossil fuels. Which of these do you see as most and least important? Why?

6. Despite the controversial nature of its topic, this essay’s conclusion is quite brief and understated. Rewrite it so it is more fully developed and more forceful. Do you think your new conclusion is more appropriate for this essay? Why or why not?

THIS EARTH DAY, LET’S ACCEPT THE CRITICAL ROLE THAT FOSSIL FUEL PLAYS IN ENERGY NEEDS

BERNARD McNAMEE

This essay was first posted on The Hill on April 17, 2018.

Since its inception in 1970, Earth Day (April 22) has been a strange mix—a celebration of springtime and the great outdoors, combined with doom-and-gloom prophecies of destruction, centering on overpopulation, pollution, and capitalism.

“Like most things in life, the data does not always reflect the popular narrative.”

But because Earth Day is an opportunity for reflection about our planet and the people who inhabit it, we should consider how man’s use of natural resources has affected the environment and the human condition. In particular, we should honestly assess the data as to how fossil fuels impacted our planet, the environment, and quality of life. But like most things in life, the data does not always reflect the popular narrative.

We have been told that fossil fuels are wrecking the environment and our health. The facts are that life expectancy, population, and economic growth all began to increase dramatically when fossil fuels were harnessed—and have continued to do so for the 200 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

When one thinks about it, it makes sense. Fossil fuels have allowed people to be more productive, to engage in less backbreaking manual labor, and to grow more food. Fossil fuel use for machines, transportation, electricity, and plastics allows us to build complex devices, travel longer distances, illuminate our homes, and build everyday products from toys to computers.

Consider this one example: gasoline in a car is used to transport an expectant mother to a hospital; coal and natural gas powers the electric lights and medical devices in a delivery room; that same electricity ensures that a prematurely born baby is kept warm in an incubator 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and petroleum-based plastics are used for tubing to supply that tiny baby with air and food.

Without oil, natural gas, and coal, none of this would be possible and available to so many people. In fact, many in developing countries can’t save premature babies because they don’t have access to the reliable electricity that fossil fuels provide Americans.

Fossil fuels have also allowed us to address hunger. In the United States, energy allows us to produce three times as much food as we did a century ago, in one-third fewer man-hours, on one-third fewer acres, and at one-third the cost. About 3 percent of the population now produces all the food that over 300 million Americans consume. From fertilizer produced with natural gas to tractors powered by diesel engines, and irrigation systems that pump water and refrigerators that prevent food from spoiling, natural gas, oil, and coal are the energy that feeds America.

Likewise, consider running water and sanitation. Natural gas, oil, and coal help supply the electricity to pump clean, running water to our homes and allow us to operate wastewater and sewage plants so we don’t pollute our rivers.

There is no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels has caused pollution. But what is often not reported is how human ingenuity has reduced emissions. Since 1973, emissions have dropped 90 percent, even with a 123 percent increase in coal-fired electric generation. Since 1980, ozone is down 33 percent, nitrogen oxide down 57 percent, sulfur dioxide down 87 percent, carbon monoxide down 85 percent, and lead down 99 percent. Even U.S. carbon emissions from power generation have reached a 30-year low. In fact, these carbon emissions have been reduced primarily through the fracking revolution—in which hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling have made huge domestic quantities of natural gas available for electric power generation, offsetting dirtier coal.

Some suggest that we can replace fossil fuels with renewable resources to meet our needs, but they never explain how. The challenges are clear: 80 percent of energy consumed (transportation, manufacturing, and electricity) in the U.S. comes from fossil fuels. About 63 percent of electricity generation comes from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), with about 20 percent from nuclear energy. Renewable wind and solar, however, only provide about 7.6 percent of our electricity needs (6.3 percent wind and 1.3 percent solar)—and this is only when the sun is shining or wind is blowing.

This does not mean we should not use renewable energy. Of course we should. But these facts do mean that we need to be honest about whether renewables can displace other energy resources in providing for our energy needs. Moreover, nearly 100 percent of the plastics we use every day are made from petroleum—and wind and the sun cannot be transformed into plastic.

America is blessed with an abundant supply of affordable natural gas, oil, and coal. When we celebrate Earth Day, we should consider the facts, not the political narrative, and reflect about how the responsible use of America’s abundant resources of natural gas, oil, and coal have dramatically improved the human condition—and continue to do so.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ESSAY

1. McNamee begins and ends his essay with a discussion of Earth Day. Why? Is this an effective strategy? Explain.

2. In paragraph 2, McNamee says that when it comes to the fossil fuel debate, “the data does not always reflect the popular narrative.” What “popular narrative” is he refuting here?

3. What specific advantages of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) does McNamee enumerate? Does he identify any advantages that Ramos (p. 492) does not list?

4. In paragraph 9, McNamee concedes, “There is no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels has caused pollution.” Is his refutation of this counterargument convincing? Why or why not?

5. In paragraph 10, McNamee refutes the claim that renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels. How does he refute it? Is this refutation convincing? Why or why not?

6. What criteria does McNamee use to evaluate fossil fuel use? Are these the same criteria used by other writers whose essays appear in this chapter?

DESTROYING PRECIOUS LAND FOR GAS

SEAN LENNON

This op-ed ran in the New York Times on August 27, 2012.

On the northern tip of Delaware County, N.Y., where the Catskill Mountains curl up into little kitten hills, and Ouleout Creek slithers north into the Susquehanna River, there is a farm my parents bought before I was born. My earliest memories there are of skipping stones with my father and drinking unpasteurized milk. There are bald eagles and majestic pines, honeybees and raspberries. My mother even planted a ring of white birch trees around the property for protection.

A few months ago I was asked by a neighbor near our farm to attend a town meeting at the local high school. Some gas companies at the meeting were trying very hard to sell us on a plan to tear through our wilderness and make room for a new pipeline: infrastructure for hydraulic fracturing. Most of the residents at the meeting, many of them organic farmers, were openly defiant. The gas companies didn’t seem to care. They gave us the feeling that whether we liked it or not, they were going to fracture our little town.

In the late ’70s, when Manhattanites like Andy Warhol and Bianca Jagger were turning Montauk and East Hampton into an epicurean Shangri-La for the Studio 54 crowd, my parents, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, were looking to become amateur dairy farmers. My first introduction to a cow was being taught how to milk it by hand. I’ll never forget the realization that fresh milk could be so much sweeter than what we bought in grocery stores. Although I was rarely able to persuade my schoolmates to leave Long Island for what seemed to them an unreasonably rural escapade, I was lucky enough to experience trout fishing instead of tennis lessons, swimming holes instead of swimming pools, and campfires instead of cable television.

Though my father died when I was 5, I have always felt lucky to live on land he loved dearly; land in an area that is now on the verge of being destroyed. When the gas companies showed up in our backyard, I felt I needed to do some research. I looked into Pennsylvania, where hundreds of families have been left with ruined drinking water, toxic fumes in the air, industrialized landscapes, thousands of trucks and new roads crosshatching the wilderness, and a devastating and irreversible decline in property value.

“Fracking for shale gas is in truth dirty energy.”

Natural gas has been sold as clean energy. But when the gas comes from fracturing bedrock with about five million gallons of toxic water per well, the word “clean” takes on a disturbingly Orwellian tone. Don’t be fooled. Fracking for shale gas is in truth dirty energy. It inevitably leaks toxic chemicals into the air and water. Industry studies show that 5 percent of wells can leak immediately, and 60 percent over 30 years. There is no such thing as pipes and concrete that won’t eventually break down. It releases a cocktail of chemicals from a menu of more than 600 toxic substances, climate-changing methane, radium, and, of course, uranium.

New York is lucky enough to have some of the best drinking water in the world. The well water on my family’s farm comes from the same watersheds that supply all the reservoirs in New York State. That means if our tap water gets dirty, so does New York City’s.

Gas produced this way is not climate-friendly. Within the first 20 years, methane escaping from within and around the wells, pipelines, and compressor stations is 105 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. With more than a tiny amount of methane leakage, this gas is as bad as coal is for the climate; and since over half the wells leak eventually, it is not a small amount. Even more important, shale gas contains one of the earth’s largest carbon reserves, many times more than our atmosphere can absorb. Burning more than a small fraction of it will render the climate unlivable, raise the price of food, and make coastlines unstable for generations.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, when speaking for “the voices in the sensible center,” seems to think the New York State Association of County Health Officials, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New York State Nurses Association, and the Medical Society of the State of New York, not to mention Dr. Anthony R. Ingraffea’s studies at Cornell University, are “loud voices at the extremes.” The mayor’s plan to “make sure that the gas is extracted carefully and in the right places” is akin to a smoker telling you, “Smoking lighter cigarettes in the right place at the right time makes it safe to smoke.”

Few people are aware that America’s Natural Gas Alliance has spent $80 million in a publicity campaign that includes the services of Hill and Knowlton—the public relations firm that through most of the ’50s and ’60s told America that tobacco had no verifiable links to cancer. Natural gas is clean, and cigarettes are healthy—talk about disinformation. To try to counteract this, my mother and I have started a group called Artists Against Fracking.

My father could have chosen to live anywhere. I suspect he chose to live here because being a New Yorker is not about class, race, or even nationality; it’s about loving New York. Even the United States Geological Survey has said New York’s draft plan fails to protect drinking water supplies, and has also acknowledged the likely link between hydraulic fracturing and recent earthquakes in the Midwest. Surely the voice of the “sensible center” would ask to stop all hydraulic fracturing so that our water, our lives, and our planet could be protected and preserved for generations to come.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

1. Throughout this essay, Lennon is careful to establish himself as a resident of a rural area, a farmer, and someone who grew up swimming and fishing in an idyllic natural setting. Why does he do this? Does this information appeal to logos, ethos, or pathos? Explain.

2. Although Lennon mentions his parents in paragraphs 1 and 2, he doesn’t identify them by name until paragraph 3. Why not? Is his readers’ knowledge of who his parents were likely to add to, detract from, or not affect his credibility on the subject of fracking?

3. Why do you think Lennon tells readers in paragraph 4 that he “needed to do some research”? What did his research reveal?

4. Reread paragraph 8. Do you think Lennon is making an ad hominem attack on former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg here? Why or why not?

5. What kind of evidence does Lennon present to support his position against fracking? Does he include enough evidence—as well as the right kind of evidence—to support his defense of the land he believes is threatened? Why or why not?

THE BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

BRUNO COMBY

This essay appears on the website for the organization Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy at www.ecolo.org.

Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable, and competitive energy source. It is the only source of energy that can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) which massively pollute the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.

If we want to be serious about climate change and the end of oil, we must promote the more efficient use of energy, we must use renewable energies—wind and solar—wherever possible, and adopt a more sustainable lifestyle. But this will not be nearly enough to slow the accumulation of atmospheric CO₂, and satisfy the needs of our industrial civilization and the aspirations of the developing nations. Nuclear power should be deployed rapidly to replace coal, oil, and gas in the industrial countries, and eventually in developing countries.

An intelligent combination of energy conservation, and renewable energies for local low-intensity applications, and nuclear energy for baseload electricity production, is the only viable way for the future.

Tomorrow’s nuclear electric power plants will also provide power for electric vehicles for cleaner transportation. With the new high temperature reactors we will be able to recover fresh water from the sea and support hydrogen production.

We believe that the opposition of some environmental organizations to civilian applications of nuclear energy will soon be revealed to have been among the greatest mistakes of our times.

Present Conditions

Resources: Our industrial civilization runs on energy and 85 percent of the world’s energy is provided by the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and gas.

Coal began to be used extensively in Britain when its forests were no longer able to satisfy the energy requirements of an embryo industrialization. Coal is found almost everywhere and reserves should last several centuries.

Petroleum began by replacing whale oil at the end of the 19th century, and its use has grown ever since. Discoveries of new deposits are not keeping up with consumption and production of oil is about to peak. At the present rate of consumption, reserves are estimated to last a few decades, but consumption is growing rapidly. More than half the world’s oil production today is located in the fragile and politically unstable area of the Persian Gulf, as is an even greater fraction of our future reserves.

Gas was at first a by-product of oil extraction and it was thrown away. It has since been mastered to become a major source of energy. Reserves are similarly limited and estimated to last for a few decades.

These fossil fuels were laid down over geological times and it seems likely they will have been totally exploited over the few centuries from about 1850 to 2100.

Environmental consequences: In burning fossil fuels, we inject 23 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year into the atmosphere—730 tons per second. Half of it is absorbed in the seas and vegetation, but half remains in the atmosphere. This is significantly altering the composition of the atmosphere and seriously affecting the climate of our planet.

We have only this one fragile planet to live on. If we want it to remain livable, to ensure the comfort of our modern lives and indeed the very continuation of our industrial civilization, then we must urgently adopt new lifestyles and find other energy sources.

What Is to Be Done?

Conservation and renewables: There are those who tell us we only need to conserve energy and rely upon renewable energies. Solar and wind are the major renewables.

I agree, of course, that conservation is highly commendable, even essential. But in the light of the world’s growing population, widespread economic development and enhanced life expectancy on the one hand (notably China and India which account for about 35 percent of the world’s population) and finite fossil fuel resources on the other, conservation can only delay the crisis that will arise from the penury of oil and gas.

Energy efficiency and alternate sources of energy can and must be developed. Efficient light bulbs produce the same amount of light with 3 to 8 times less energy. Heat pumps can provide the same amount of heat with 2 to 5 times less energy. Solar heat and geothermal energy can and should be developed to a much greater extent than they are today.

Some environmentalists are enchanted by the simplicity of solar cells and the pristine elegance of wind turbines, and they refuse to accept the fact that they are quantitatively incapable of supplying the energy required by an industrial civilization. I do not mean to say that these renewable energies should be excluded; they are useful and have important niche roles to play—in remote locations and under special circumstances. But they can make only a marginal contribution to the energy needs of a growing industrial civilization.

Let me give an example. To replace just one nuclear reactor, such as the new EPR reactor which France is now building in Normandy, with the most modern wind turbines (twice as high as Notre Dame, the cathedral of Paris), they would have to be lined up all the way from Genoa in Italy to Barcelona in Spain (about 700 kilometers/400 miles). And, even so, they generate electricity only when the wind blows (their average yield is about 25 percent of their rated capacity).

There is much talk about biofuels, ethanol from sugar cane, for example. The entire arable surface of the Earth could not produce enough biofuel to replace present oil consumption.

Mineral resources: By 2100, oil and natural gas reserves will likely be exhausted. This leaves coal and nuclear energy.

As an environmentalist the idea of developing more coal, the most polluting energy source on the planet, and the greatest contributor to global warming, is simply not acceptable. The process of sequestration or isolating millions and billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing but a pleasant dream at this point, still unproven and unlikely to be put into widespread practice.

Nuclear power: Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, compact, competitive, and practically inexhaustible. Today over 400 nuclear reactors provide baseload electric power in 30 countries. Fifty years old, it is a relatively mature technology with the assurance of great improvement in the next generation. (Hundreds of nuclear reactors furnish reliable and flexible shipboard power: military ships of course. But the technology is adaptable to civilian maritime transport.)

Clean: Nuclear energy produces almost no carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides whatsoever. These gases are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are burned.

Nuclear waste: One gram of uranium yields about as much energy as a ton of coal or oil—it is the famous “factor of a million.” Nuclear waste is correspondingly about a million times smaller than fossil fuel waste, and it is totally confined.

In the USA and Sweden, spent fuel is simply stored away. Elsewhere, spent fuel is reprocessed to separate out the 3 percent of radioactive fission products and heavy elements to be vitrified (cast in glass) for safe and permanent storage. The remaining 97 percent—plutonium and uranium—is recovered and recycled into new fuel elements to produce more energy.

The volume of nuclear waste produced is very small. A typical French family’s use of nuclear energy over a whole lifetime produces vitrified waste the size of a golf ball.

Nuclear waste is to be deposited in deep geological storage sites; it does not enter the biosphere. Its impact on the ecosystems is minimal. Nuclear waste spontaneously decays over time while stable chemical waste, such as arsenic or mercury, lasts forever.

Most fossil fuel waste is in the form of gas that goes up the smokestack. We don’t see it, but it is not without effect, causing global warming, acid rain, smog, and other atmospheric pollution.

Safe: Nuclear power is safe, as proven by the record of half a century of commercial operation, with the accumulated experience of more than 12,000 reactor-years.

There have been only two serious accidents in the commercial exploitation of nuclear power: Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 (in Pennsylvania, USA) and Chernobyl in 1986 (in the Soviet Union, now in Ukraine). TMI was the worst accident one can imagine in a Western power reactor. The core of the reactor melted down and much of it fell to the bottom of the reactor vessel. The radioactivity released was almost entirely confined within the reinforced concrete containment structure, the airtight silo-like building which houses the reactor—it was designed for that purpose. The small amount of radioactivity which escaped was quite innocuous. As a result, no one at TMI was seriously irradiated nor did anyone die. In fact, Three Mile Island was a real success story for nuclear safety. The worst possible accident occurred, a core meltdown, and yet no one died or was even injured.

“Far fewer fatalities have occurred in the civilian nuclear power industry in half a century than occurred in any year in the fossil fuel industries.”

Chernobyl was different. The reactors at Chernobyl had no containment structure. The reactor’s faulty design made it unstable and Chernobyl was operated that night in a way known to be dangerous. In the execution of a test, all the security systems were deliberately bypassed. An uncontrollable surge in power occurred leading to a steam explosion. The 600-ton graphite moderator then caught fire and burned for several weeks. The smoke carried more than half the radioactive fission products directly into the atmosphere where they were swept far and wide by the winds. Fewer than 32 persons died within a few months, and about 200 more were severely irradiated but survived. The inhabitants of the exclusion zone were also victims as they were hurriedly uprooted, evacuated, and resettled elsewhere. They lost their jobs and suffered psychological and social trauma in the dissolving Soviet Union. Their lives were disrupted and shortened. Since 1986, some 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been diagnosed in the surrounding regions, and successfully treated. Nine fatal cases have been reported. There has been some talk about long-term cancers. Some organizations and journalists speculate that there might be tens of thousands of victims still to come, but it should be noted that these are mostly the result of theoretical calculations based on an unsubstantiated hypothesis, the linear extrapolation of the effect of high doses and high-dose rates of radiation to the low-doses and low dose rates, applied in this case to populations in millions having received only low doses. It is scientifically well established that this linear extrapolation does not apply to doses below 100 mSv, and therefore these calculations are not relevant, except perhaps for those persons who were exposed to high doses above 100 mSv. Chernobyl was the perfect example of what not to do with a nuclear reactor: a faulty design, an unstable reactor, operated in an experiment with all security systems disconnected, followed by a panicked response by the civil authorities.

In sum, far fewer fatalities have occurred in the civilian nuclear power industry in half a century (Chernobyl included) than occurred in any year in the fossil fuel industries. Coal mine accidents are common occurrences and often cause tens or hundreds of fatalities, reported one day and forgotten the next, adding up to about 15,000 per year worldwide, 6,000 of which are in China. The same may be said for oil field accidents. Oil tankers go aground or break up, accidents occur in refineries, oil and gas platforms have been lost with all hands. Accidents in high pressure gas pipelines are not infrequent. Just one example among many others is the gas pipeline accident at Ghislenghien, Belgium, on July 30, 2004, in which 21 persons died and 120 were injured.

Reliable: Nuclear reactors provide baseload power and are available over 90 percent of the time; intervals between refuelings have been extended and downtime for refueling has been reduced. In the USA, these improvements over the years have been the equivalent of adding one reactor a year to the existing fleet. Most reactors are designed for a life of 40 years; many are reaching that age in good condition and extensions of 20 years have usually been granted.

Competitive: The cost of nuclear power is competitive and stable. The cost of nuclear fuel is a small part of the price of a nuclear kilowatt-hour, whereas fossil fueled power, especially oil and gas, is at the mercy of the market.

Inexhaustible: Uranium is found everywhere in the crust of the Earth—it is more abundant than tin, for example. Major deposits are found in Canada and Australia. It is estimated that increasing the market price by a factor ten would result in 100 times more uranium coming to market. Eventually we will be able to recover uranium from seawater where 4 billion tons are dissolved.

Compact: A nuclear power station is very compact, occupying typically the area of a football stadium and its surrounding parking lots. Solar cells, wind turbine farms, and growing biomass, all require large areas of land.

Radiation: Fear of the unknown is the merchandise of anti-nuclear “greens.” They preach fear of radiation in general, fear of radioactive waste in particular, fear of another major accident such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and fear of nuclear weapons proliferation. Their campaign has been successful only because radiation is a mystery to most people, and very few are aware of the fact that radiation is present everywhere in the environment. The anti-nuclear organizations also exploit the widespread but mistaken interpretation of the studies of the health of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing: that even a small amount of radiation is deleterious to health (the linear no-threshold hypothesis), and the related concept of collective dose. In fact a moderate amount of radiation is natural and beneficial, if not essential, to life.

Radiation has been bathing our environment since the earliest history of our planet, and it is present everywhere in nature. In fact, our sun and its planets including the Earth are the remnants of the giant explosion of a supernova. Everything is radioactive around us in nature and already was even before radioactivity was discovered. This radiation spontaneously decreases with time. When life first appeared on Earth, the natural radiation levels were about twice as high as today.

Most people are totally unaware of the fact that the human body itself is naturally radioactive. Our bodies contain about 8,000 becquerels (8,000 atoms disintegrating every second), about half of which is potassium-40, a chemical element essential for health, as well as carbon-14.

Old fashioned attitudes: Ecological organizations such as Greenpeace have consistently had an anti-nuclear bias which is more ideological than factual. An increasing number of environmentalists are now changing their minds about nuclear energy because there are very good, solid, scientific, and, above all, environmental reasons to be in favor of nuclear energy.

To conclude, it is our position that well-designed, well-constructed, well-operated, and well-maintained nuclear energy is not only clean, but it is also safe, reliable, durable, and competitive.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

1. Comby’s purpose here is to promote the clear advantage of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. What specific advantages does he cite to support the thesis that “Nuclear power should be deployed rapidly to replace coal, oil, and gas” (para. 2)?

2. What biases against nuclear energy does Comby think people have? How does he attempt to counter these preconceived ideas in this essay?

3. In a previous version of this essay, part of the text that now appears as paragraphs 1 through 5 was actually the conclusion. If you were editing this essay, which of these paragraphs (if any) would you relocate to the end? Why? Do you see any other paragraph in the essay that might work as a concluding statement?

4. Comby begins paragraph 2 with, “If we want to be serious about climate change and the end of oil.” Is he begging the question here? Do you think he is correct to assume that his readers are “serious” about replacing fossil fuels? Explain.

5. Do you see this essay as appealing primarily to logos, ethos, or pathos? Explain.

6. What criteria does Comby use to evaluate nuclear energy? Does he apply the same criteria to his evaluation of fossil fuels (for examples, in paragraphs 11, 12, and 21)?

7. Comby devotes a good deal of space (29—32) to a discussion of the safety of nuclear power. Why? In what sense is this section of the essay a refutation?

FRACKING: A FABLE

BARBARA HURD

This piece appeared in Brevity, a journal of literary nonfiction, on March 3, 2013.

In the past, everything took forever.

Rain fell for centuries, and millions of years after that, the ancient Appalachian Basin just west of what is now the East Coast spent even more millennia becoming a sprawling, shallow bowl. And then nothing much happened. Another million years passed. Mountain ranges slowly rose and receded, and continents wandered into each other and eventually the basin began to fill with seawater and for another million years, the surrounding mountains slid wetly down the slopes of themselves and settled into the bottom sludge of the basin.

“A few continents collided, some peaks rose, some valleys sank.”

More tens of thousands of centuries passed while the water sloshed and the undersea mud thickened, and in all that time, no human ever stood on its shores, no blue crab ever scurried in the ooze. There were no witnesses. And even if there had been, who could have stood the boredom of watching that slow, barely breathing world? The only testimony ever made to that languid time was locked in the mud.

For yet another several million years, it piled up—thick, black, and putrid. Over the next millennia, miniscule creatures evolved: phytoplankton, blue-green algae. They floated in the shallow seas until they died and drifted down to be entombed in the ooze that lay fifty, one hundred, two hundred feet deep.

Then came more mountains moving. A few continents collided, some peaks rose, some valleys sank. Meanwhile, down in the black ooze, remnants of those tiny creatures that had been held in the mud were shoved more tightly together, packed side by side with sludged-in sediment, cemented together, cooked by the heat deep in the earth, and converted into hydrocarbons. Layer after layer of crammed-together particles and silt began to sink under the accumulating weight of the mountains that grew above. Wrung of its moisture, its pliability, its flow, the mud slowly, slowly, over millions of years, turned into gas-rich rock.

And there it lay, miles under the surface, as the old basin above it emptied and rose and more continents meandered into each other and finally the sun dried the Appalachians, which eroded and softened, and three hundred million years after the first mud settled on the bottom of that basin, humans appeared. We developed with lightning speed—geologically speaking—our brains and vision and hands, our fast and furious tools, our drills and ingenuity, and all the while that ooze-become-rock lay locked and impenetrable, deep in the earth, farther than anything, including anyone’s imagination, reached, until in the split second that is humankind’s history on this planet we pushed a drill with a downhole mud-motor a mile deep and made it turn sideways and snaked it into that ancient rock speckled with evidence of another eon, and a few minutes later we detonated small explosives and blasted millions of gallons of slick water—sand and water and a bit of biocide in case anything was alive down there—into what hadn’t seen water or light for four hundred million years.

The shale shattered, the black rock spider-webbed with skinny fissures as the above world inserted its tendrils, and into those tiny rifts we rammed more sand to keep them wedged open wider.

And then—remember the blue-green algae?—the gas that had been locked in that stony underworld for almost four hundred million years suddenly had an exit. It flowed through the intricate shudderings of brand new fissures and up the borehole through the limestone that had been laid down millions of years after the mud, and up through the bedrock just below someone’s pasture and out into a world with air and fresh water where we humans, fur-less and in need of fuel to stay warm, exercised our resourceful minds.

And then in another split-second’s time—geologically speaking—we drilled another thousand wells, fracked another million tons of stony earth a mile beneath our feet.

And when the slick water was withdrawn from the fissures and small slither-spaces and that prehistoric bedrock was lickety-split forever changed, no one could predict the impact, not even we inventive humans whose arrival on this planet is so recent, whose footprints, so conspicuous and large, often obliterate cautionary tales.

And soon the unpredictable, as always, occurred.

And now, in no time at all, not everything takes forever any longer.

AT ISSUE: SOURCES FOR DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION ESSAY

1. What is a fable? How is this essay similar to and different from fables with which you are familiar?

2. Is this “fable” also an argument? If so, what position does it take? Write a sentence that expresses this position.

3. What advantage might Hurd’s labeling of this essay as a fable have given her? Can you see any disadvantages?

4. This essay makes an appeal to pathos. Do you think this kind of appeal is enough, or would Hurd have been more convincing if she had also appealed to logos and/or ethos? Explain.

5. What “cautionary tale” (para. 10) is the focus of this essay? How, according to Hurd, has it been “obliterated” by human beings?

6. Explain the essay’s last sentence. How is the present imagined in this sentence different from the past referred to in the first sentence of the essay?

VISUAL ARGUMENT: “I LOVE FOSSIL FUELS”

On the top left portion of the screen grab are the following text: Designs/ I Love Fossil Fuels/ Men’s/ T-shirt

Below is a photo of a T-shirt with the text over it reading, I (heart symbol) fossil fuels. An illustration of a drop of oil is over the letter I. At the top right corner of the page is the price of the T-shirt reading 17 dollars. Beside it is the text I Love Fossil Fuels, with two drop down menus below it. The drop down menu on the left has the text Men’s and the drop down menu on the right has the text T-Shirt. Below it is a box with text over it reading Regular: 17 dollars. Below it is a color palette, followed by six different boxes with sizes mentioned within them reading, S, M, L, XL, 2XL and 3XL. The Add to Cart button below it is disabled. The text below reads, (bold) About the Design (end bold) Show your support for the fossil fuel industry! Further below are two hyperlinks reading, Product information and size chart, and Return Policy. At the bottommost portion of the page are the buttons for various social networking sites.

AT ISSUE: DO THE BENEFITS OF FOSSIL FUELS OUTWEIGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS?

1. This website shows a T-shirt available for purchase in a variety of colors—including several shades of green. Why? Do you think this makes sense?

2. The website tell buyers that the purchase will “Show your support for the fossil fuel industry.” Do you think the shirt’s words and images would effectively convey the wearer’s support for this industry? Do you think putting this message on a T-shirt trivializes the issue? Explain.

3. If you were going to design a T-shirt to discourage the use of fossil fuels, what words and images would you select? Why?

TEMPLATE FOR WRITING AN EVALUATION ARGUMENT

Write a one-paragraph evaluation argument in which you take a position on whether the benefits of fossil fuels are worth the environmental risks. Follow the template below, filling in the blanks to create your argument.

Depending on the criteria used for evaluation, fossil fuels can be seen in a largely positive or negative light. If judged on the basis of , it seems clear that fossil fuels [are/are not] a valuable and necessary resource. Some people say that. They also point out that . Others disagree with this position, claiming that However, . All things considered, .

EXERCISE 14.6 ASSESSING YOUR POSITION

In a group of three or four students, discuss your own opinions about the pros and cons of continuing to rely on fossil fuels rather than moving toward alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind power or nuclear energy. Write a paragraph that summarizes your group’s conclusions.

EXERCISE 14.7 WRITING AN EVALUATION ESSAY

Write an evaluation argument on the topic, “Do the Benefits of Fossil Fuels Outweigh the Environmental Risks?” Begin by establishing the criteria by which you will evaluate both benefits and risks. Then, consider how well fossil fuels meet these criteria. (If you like, you may incorporate the material you developed in the template and Exercise 14.6 into your essay.) Cite the sources from Reading and Writing about the Issue earlier in this chapter, and be sure to document the sources you use and to include a works-cited page. (See Chapter 10 for information on documenting sources.)

EXERCISE 14.8 REVIEWING THE FOUR PILLARS OF ARGUMENT

Review the four pillars of argument discussed in Chapter 1. Does your essay include all four elements of an effective argument? Add anything that is missing. Then, label the key elements of your essay.

WRITING ASSIGNMENTS: EVALUATION ARGUMENTS

1. As a college student, you have probably had to fill out course-evaluation forms. Now, you are going to write an evaluation of one of your courses in the form of an argumentative essay that takes a strong stand on the quality of the course. Before you begin, decide on the criteria by which you will evaluate it—for example, what practical skills it provided to prepare you for your future courses or employment, whether you enjoyed the course, or what you learned. (You might begin by downloading an evaluation form and using it to help you brainstorm.)

2. Write an evaluation argument challenging a popular position on the quality of a product or service with which you are familiar. For example, you can defend a campus service that most students dislike, or you can write a negative review of a popular restaurant or film. Be sure you establish your criteria for evaluation before you begin. (You do not have to use the same criteria used by those who have taken the opposite position.)

3. Write a comparative evaluation—an essay in which you argue that one thing is superior to another. You can compare two websites, two streaming services, two part-time jobs, or any other two subjects you feel confident you can write about. In your thesis, take the position that one of your two subjects is superior to the other. As you would with any evaluation, begin by deciding on the criteria you will use.