Brittany R. Wolfe
Debate Paper #4
Can fossil fuel alternatives energize the United States?
October 24, 2011
Word Count: 1,914
The usage of fossil fuel came into play during the period before Christ. However, fossil fuels
were more utilized during the early 1700’s when coal began to be used as an energy source. During the
1800’s, oil and natural gas were used as a source of energy alongside coal. Fossil fuel alternatives were
not around until the middle 1800’s. The windmill was first used in 1850 as a water pumping tool for
western homesteaders and railroad builders, and in 1860, the first solar power system was developed to
produce steam to power machinery (“Historical Timeline”). After these two resources were utilized, the
production and technology for the resources became more technologically advanced. For example, the
windmill in 1888 was first used to generate electricity in Cleveland, Ohio, and then in 1927 the first
commercial wind turbines were created to generate electricity on remote farms (“Historical Timeline”).
Then other resources were put to use such as water. In 1935, the Hoover Dam became the largest
hydroelectric power plant ever built. The usage of solar power became more well known when in 1978
the first solar powered village was set up on the Tohono O’odham Reservation that is located in Arizona
and in 1996, the Solar Two Plant showed a low cost method of storing solar energy (“Historical
Timeline”).The utilization of these fossil fuel alternatives has become more and more important due to
economical and hazardous situations caused by the fossil fuel industry. One example of such instance
would be the January 28, 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara (“Historical Timeline”). Another instance would
be when OPEC declared an oil embargo against the United States. This led to enormous gas shortages
which then led to gas rationing. Oil has had a lot of problems such as the March 24, 1989 oil spill in
Alaska which was the largest oil spill that occurred in United States waters at the time. There was also
the April 20, 2010 BP oil spill that was officially named the largest oil spill in United States history. Coal
has also been a problem because on December 22, 2008, the coal ash spill in Kingston, Texas, was the
worst documented incident involving coal ash. In 1977, the Federal Surface Mining Control Act was
signed to lessen environmental impacts of surface coal mining (“Historical Timeline”). The coal still can
be dangerous to the environment, however, and this act did not necessarily make a difference. Nuclear
power is currently used and in production to be spread around the United States because it is the safest
and most efficient alternative that is better than fossil fuels. However, history shows that nuclear power
plants can be dangerous. Instances like the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979,
the 1986 nuclear accident in Chernobyl, and the 2011 nuclear crisis that occurred in Fukushima all show
the devastation due to nuclear power plants. Stakeholders that are involved in the fossil fuel alternative
debate would be environmentalists, natural gas companies, survivors of nuclear and other fossil fuel
disasters, natural gas companies, oil companies, the United States government, the Environmental
Protection Agency, United States citizens, coal companies, researchers, scientists, wind turbine
companies, and solar power companies. The sub-issues in the debate are that fossil fuel sources are
finite, the safety of the environment and the public could be threatened, alternative energy resources
are not as sufficient as the fossil fuels that are currently in use, and also there are possible security
threats. However, the question still stands; are fossil fuel alternatives able to energize the United
States?
Dr. Arjun Makhijani from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research believes that
fossil fuel alternatives would be able to energize the United States. Dr. Makhijani suggests that the best
way to protect the environment would be to make the United States have no carbon dioxide emissions
without nuclear power plants. The article also mentions a list called “The Clean Dozen” which contains
twelve solutions to help and save the environment. The big issues that are repetitive in “The Clean
Dozen” are that carbon dioxide emission levels need to drastically decrease and eventually be gone by
the year 2060, subsidies and tax breaks need to cease, and the usage of alternatives to fossil fuels needs
to be awarded while the usage of fossil fuels needs to be discouraged (Makhijani 3). Dr. Makhijani also
uses a great number of graphs and charts to illustrate what he believes should happen by the year 2060
and in the graphs, he shows the drastic decrease that needs to occur in carbon dioxide emissions which
he believes to be the biggest problem with fossil fuel emissions. Altogether, Dr. Makhijani strongly
believes that fossil fuel alternatives are the best future energy sources for the United States.
Although Dr. Arjun Makhijani makes a compelling argument about why the United States can
rely on fossil fuel alternatives as energy sources; there are points in the argument that can be
questioned. Dr. Makhijani repetitively speaks of the year 2060 as the year where there should be no
carbon dioxide emissions. The United States needs alternatives now; not in 49 years. A better idea
would be to utilize the alternative resources and eliminate carbon dioxide levels as much as possible.
Who knows how much carbon dioxide will be in the atmosphere after 49 years. The time period is too
long and 49 more years of carbon dioxide emissions is bad for the environment and could be to the
levels that are unhealthy for humans and other living things. Also, Dr. Makhijani believes that fossil fuel
corporations should be discouraged from continuing creating fossil fuel energy. This is improbable
because large corporations such as the coal industry or the oil industry will not go down without a fight.
Already these corporations have politicians on the fossil fuel side and the corporations have been able
to go about their business without barely any problems. Anytime a group of environmentalists or
whoever try to affect the business, politicians step in and protect the corporations. Simply discouraging
the large corporations would not do any good; there has to be a more threatening way to push these
corporations into backing off. If this is not done then the fossil fuel corporations will continue to pay to
get what the industry wants which would be a continuous flow of cash.
Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor wrote an article on the CATO Institute’s website as to why
fossil fuel alternatives will not supply the necessary energy to the United States of America. One
argument made by the two men was that the switch to alternative energy is not an immediate event
that can occur. The time needed to gradually move from fossil fuel energy to the alternative energy
sources would be a waste of time because the damage from the carbon dioxide emissions would still be
affecting the environment. By the time the alternative energy sources are used, the damage will be
irreversible and the United States will have caused damage to the environment that will be permanent.
Already there are instances where the environment is impacted permanently, but to continue the use of
fossil fuels until the alternative energy sources are ready is not a smart route to take. Van Doren and
Taylor believe that the alternative energy sources should be ready now, and if the sources are not ready
then there is no reason to use them at all. Another issue that Van Doren and Taylor bring up is that the
large fossil fuel corporations enjoy making the millions of dollars and would not take lightly to the fact
that alternative energy sources would be replacing them. Also on the topic of money, the cost of the
alternative energy sources is not cheap and would most likely cost more than the fossil fuel energy costs
at the present time. A different issue that is brought up is national security. The fact that the United
States would not be purchasing oil from other countries may cause some disarray with the different
nations. Also, nuclear power plants used to generate electricity would be the prime targets for potential
terrorist attacks. One malfunction in the protection part of the plant could cause thousands of deaths
and maybe more if the cancer from radiation exposure is included. Lastly, Van Doren and Taylor believe
that the EPA as well as other scientists could be incorrect as to how fossil fuels affect the environment.
There are many points of error due to many different people’s “findings” on the matter. Therefore,
Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor from the CATO Institute believe that fossil fuel alternative would not
be suitable enough to energize the United States.
Although Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor make a compelling argument as to why the United
States should not rely on fossil fuel alternatives for energy, there are still some problems with parts of
the argument. Firstly, Van Doren and Taylor are correct when they say that waiting for the alternative
sources would do the United States no good, but the fossil fuels would not do any better. While the
fossil fuels are still being used, the environment can be harmed, and people could be affected health
wise. Either way there is a risk, but at least with adding the alternative resource in the end there would
be less of an impact in the future. The second problem with the argument would be that the
Environmental Protection Agency and other scientists’ findings are incorrect. This could not be right
because multiple people have concluded the same results. If each person’s results were different than
the argument would work, but the fact that multiple people come up with the same results makes the
argument weak.
I believe that fossil fuel alternatives are a good energy source for the United States. The
environment is being damaged by the burning of fossil fuels and also people’s health’s are at risk.
Creating a zero carbon dioxide emission United States would be healthy for both the environment and
make the environment safe to live in for humans. However, I do have a problem with waiting for the
alternative sources to completely take over the fossil fuels currently used. I agree with Peter Van Doren
and Jerry Taylor because the damage will still be in the extreme range even if eventually the alternative
sources are utilized. I suggest that scientists and researchers come up with a quick and successful way to
utilize alternative energy sources within the next two to three years rather than 50 years. Therefore, I
believe that fossil fuel alternatives would be a reliable energy source for the United States.
Citations
Acton, James. "Energy Crisis: Nuclear vs Renewable Sources: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate
Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools.
International Debate Education Association, 09 Apr. 2009. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=15>.
"Historical Timeline." Alternative Energy - ProCon.org. ProCon.org, Mar. 2011. Web. 22 Oct. 2011.
<http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002475>.
Makhijani, Arjun. "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free : A Roadmap for US Energy Policies." Science for Democratic
Action 39th ser. 15.1 (2007): 1-16. Print.
Van Doren, Peter, and Jerry Taylor. "The Case against Government Support for Alternative Energy | Peter Van
Doren and Jerry Taylor | Cato Institute: Commentary." The Cato Institute : Individual Liberty, Free
Markets, and Peace. CATO Institute, 24 Oct. 2008. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9767>.