Patricia Anderson
Mr. Tavares
English
2016
6 February
The Future of American Energy
When bringing up fossil fuels versus renewable energy, two distinct sides
emerge. The fossil fuel side is refuting Global Warming and predicting an economic
collapse; the renewable energy side is striving to prolong the health of the earth and
ecstatic due to the potentially infinite amount of energy available from occurrences that
never go away. For America, the choice is clear. For the world that will follow, the choice
is clear. One fact that must be stated is that climate change, or Global Warming, is
happening and has been proved. Therefore, the United States should end its
dependence on fossil fuels and receive most, if not all, of its energy from hydrogen,
wind, solar, and water sources because it is feasible, necessary, and in America’s best
interest to do it now instead of in the future.
Great controversy arises when people realize that "This is a debate about market
share. It's about cellulosic ethanol and other [renewables], which could break gasoline's
stranglehold on our fuel supply" (Sally Williams, page 17). This stranglehold, and the
potential domestic effects of agitating it, is referred to as energy security. America does
not have a stable energy security as it relies on fossil fuels. The US sends "billions of
dollars overseas to oil-producing countries" (The Time to Change), has nuclear power
plants that are susceptible to natural disasters and human error, and has allowed
$144,682,462 from the Oil and Gas industry to be used for lobbying purposes (Mike
Stevens, and Fred Parsons p. 72). The economic basis behind keeping fossil fuels has one
major fault - all the money allocated to fossil fuels is going out of the country and
hindering the domestic…
Works Cited
Richardson, Tom. Interview by Andrew Schefly. “Richardson on Global Warming.” New
York Times. New York Times, May 2007. Web. 25 May 2009.
"The Killing of Our Planet." The Washington Post. Washington Post. 8 June 2010. Web.
17 March 2014. <http//:killingplanet$%&*Washington+Post>
Misowski, Michelle, and Jim Nolan. "The Economics of Global Warming." New Sciences
Quarterly 23.4 (2006): 63. Print.
A Way to Save Us All. Dir. Pierre LeBeaux. Perf. Morgan Freeman. Paramount, 2009.
DVD.
Ozowa, Kimiko. Economic Theory and Global Warming. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.
Print.
Pederson, Wendy M. "After Kyoto: Alternative Mechanisms to Control Global Warming."
American Economic Review 96.2 (2006): 31-34. Print.
"Big Changes Needed to Protect the Environment." Environmental Defense Fund.
Environmental Defense Fund, 8 May 2007. Web. 24 May 2009.
Dennehy, Michael. "The Importance of Saving the Planet." New York Times. New York
Times, 22 May 2007. Web. 25 May 2009.
SaveThePlanet.org. Helping Hands Coalition, 2010. Web. 24 May 2013.
Pederson, Wendy M. "Global Warming Economics." Science 9 Nov. 2001: 1283-84.
Science Online. Web. 24 May 2009. <http//:Global+Warmingt$%&*ScienceOnline>
Thompson, Susan. "Pollution is Destroying the Environment." Usnews.com. US News &
World Rept., 6 May 2007. Web. 24 May 2009.
Name: _____________________________________________________
Instructions: Check and correct the following for the two previous pages and then
complete the exercise below. Please utilize Purdue OWL for the correct MLA format.
Title Page –
Margins
Title
Spacing
Header (Your name, teacher’s name, course, date)
Font
3 Citations in second paragraph
Page number
Works Cited Page –
Title
Spacing
Hanging indentation
Remove URLs
Alphabetize (by author’s last name or first key word in the article’s title)
Now use the spaces below to show how the first 5 sources listed on the corrected
Works Cited above, would be formatted (MLA guidelines) for parenthetical citations in a
research paper.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________