We think that America has no reason to worry about current fossil fuel usage and that there’s no reason to slow down. The other groups are arguing that we should slow and even stop our use of fossil fuels because America is going to run out, which isn’t the case at all. If America stopped its use of fossil fuels, everyday activities would be affected. Transportation, production, and even our food supply, just to list a few, all use fossil fuels. This in turn affects every American in some way or another if we stopped our use of fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel resources we have now compared to just a couple decades ago have been greatly increased thanks to technological advancements being implemented every day. We do think America needs to work towards alternative renewable energy resources. Regardless of fossil fuels lasting multiple centuries, in the end, they are still a finite resource.
Group A argues that public opinion has been skewed in respect to declining resources. Fossil fuels, contrary to popular belief, are abundant and will last until we find alternate resources. Looking at the abundance of fossil fuels just within America, we have enough to sustain ourselves for centuries. Economically, the United States is currently too dependent on fossil fuels and if we try to switch right now, it could have devastating economic effects.
ReplyDeleteThe critical argument of this group, in my opinion, is their argument that fossil fuels are abundant and we have no real need or evidence to suggest we should slow down our use. They mention that we should keep the status quo simply because if we invest all of our money into alternative resources that don’t work, all of that time and money spent could actually produce a negative spiral on the opposite end in terms of increasing poverty and wealth disparity.
One question I have is this: where’s the harm in developing clean energy and alternative resources right now if they will improve the planet as a whole for the present and the future?
Great paper! This is definitely an argument I don’t hear very often since most literature these days opposes fossil fuel usage and preach an ‘end-of-days’ when it comes to oil abundance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDebate team A’s position was that we have plenty of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels as well as plenty of nuclear power capability. They state that America does not need to stop its use of massive amounts of fossil fuel. They suggest that if we use nuclear power along with the fossil fuels there will be no problems with energy supply. According to their paper, we won’t reach peak oil for many more years and the estimates do not even take into account the coal that we have not found or tapped into yet. This group wants to set our minds at ease about oil. They want us to continue using oil as we are currently doing and not think twice about it. If we stopped using fossil fuel it would negatively affect transportation, production, and even food supplies. They credit technological advancements for our increase in fossil fuel resources. In closing they state that they do believe that fossil fuels are going to be long lasting but, we still need to work towards alternative renewable energy resources. This team made a good argument for a statement that is not very often supported by current public voices. However, I thought that they did not have enough evidence in their paper to support their ideas. I look forward to hearing their debate in class.
ReplyDeleteGroup A's position states that we should not be worried about running out of fossil fuels because by the time we are faced with severely depleted resources, we will have implemented new and better energy sources discovered through technological advancements and developments. They state that the fossil fuel supply we currently have will last us several centuries, and our fossil fuel supply and utilization has been greatly increased over the last couple decades due to past advances in technology. Therefore, we should simply rely on future technological advances to provide us with alternative energy sources. If you look at the bigger picture, it does make sense that technology can only become more advanced, and it is likely that new energy sources will be available in the future.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree with their statement that we should not slow down our fossil fuel consumption. We know that burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil is harmful to the environment; with this knowledge, we should act as quickly as possible to cut down on our usage as much as we can, not only to conserve resources but also to conserve the cleanliness of our planet. Group A does offer some interesting facts and statistics, however, and I look forward to listening to their debate and presentation.
The position of Group A is that there are plenty of resources available to us; so, we can continue to live our lives normally. Being economically dependent on fossil fuels, America cannot stop using them because even everyday activities will be greatly affected. According to Group A, fossil fuels will last America for many centuries, especially when supplemented with nuclear power. Looking at Group A’s position, if oil is estimated to run out (within our probable lifetime) should we not worry about later generations? It seems to be implied that no alternative energy that we have currently can replace what fossil fuels do for us now. There also seems to be some neglect when concerning the effects on wildlife and nature (environments not man-made). We humans pride ourselves with our ability to adjust (and change) our conditions so why not start (strongly) now?
ReplyDeleteI ask you, what about the fossil fuels' impact on the environment? Can you just not take into account the negative impacts that have been proven to come from fossil fuels? Acid rain, CO2 emmissions, mountain top removal? Let alone the fact that a good portion of remaining oil reserves accounted for are in oil sands which are very hard to mine and refine. Plus peak oil in the US has already happened. There are alternatives out there, and you clearly have not taken into account the fact that they are viable means of powering our country without the negative impacts on the environment. And if you are arguing for fossil fuels, why do you end your position paper stating that they are finite and we need to switch to renewables anyways? Why not sooner then later, when we have no choice? Just a few thoughts...
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that we do not need to stop using fossil fuels because once we find an alternative energy resource, we'll just use that one. Their statistics show that we have enough fossil fuels to last us until around 2050 to 2070. Research for effective renewable energy resources should continue and once we find that, we'll change that and hopefully that's be 2050, right? What if we just keep continuing out current use and run out of fossil fuels around 2050 and we can't find an effective renewable resource to use? Will that affect out economy more than limiting our use on fossil fuels now? This argument assumes that we will find an effective renewable energy resource by and hopefully before that time. How can we actually guarantee that?
ReplyDeleteGroup A's argument states that fossil fuels aren't decreasing, but are in fact increasing. This is a vague statement and while it sounds positive when taken out of context, the reality of the situation is quite different. Of course reserves have to have increased, because of demand is always exponentially increasing. The fact that there are more reserves now than however many years ago is not any kind of accomplishment. Technology may increase and be able to tap harder to reach reserves, but there are still major issues even if machines can tap them. America is used as the main example in this argument, so I'll address the problem as it relates to America. I agree with Evan in that the pollution factor needs to be taken into account seeing as the United States puts a decent amount of negative gases into the atmosphere on our own. We as a country also already import way more oil than export or even use. Therefore these new reserves being spoke of are primarily in other countries. Since right now we need fossil fuels for our day to day life, we pay exorbitant prices for our oil and the like. This means that countries that aren't even all that friendly with us can basically get us to pay whatever price they demand. But what if money stops being there main concern? What if they want American involvement in the Middle East to stop? What if they want the release of prisoners of war? America would be hard pressed if either of these situations occurred and a war might even break out. Either way its a lose/lose for our country. Who knows how long it will be before we are asked to lower our standards and morals as a country?
ReplyDeleteGroup A has no concerns about a lack of energy resources and has full faith in the free market to support current demands. These energy-optimists believe that we can meet our energy needs by utilizing existing and untapped sources of oil, coal, gas and nuclear power. By the group’s estimate of current reservoirs, half of the oil reserves won’t be used up until sometime between 2050 and 2070. However, this is not a very comforting fact. The year 2050 is not as far as is seems and many of these current oil reserves are in areas of the world that are protected by law or are in the middle of heated political conflict. Group A also argues that coal and uranium deposits are not being fully utilized and can be extracted using technologies that have increased efficiency and decreased emissions. Yet these energy sources, however abundant, are still contributing to global warming and the destruction of our planet. The group concludes with a good argument that an instantaneous switch cannot be made to alternate energy without affecting the American lifestyle because these technologies aren’t fully developed yet. Therefore, the group argues that we might as well continue our current use of fossil fuels until these greener technologies are developed that will fully support economy. Overall, this was a reasonable argument and until we can develop other means of producing energy, we basically have no other option that will allow us to live our current lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteGroup A has a huge faith in today's technology. According to their position paper; they believe that our current supply of fossil fuels will not run out before an alternative is produced. From Group A's research they have found that the worlds peak of fossil fuels will not hit until between 2050 and 2070. These statistics are only based off the fossil fuels we are currently tapped into; the statistics do not take into acount the other places with oil that have not been tapped into. Some alternatives to using fossil fuels are uranium, coal, and nuclear power. With some technological advances we have been able to prolong the decline of fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteMy critique to this position is that there is alot of "faith" and "belief" in the advancements in technology. Although there hves been new advancements that have been proven to help prolong the inevitable decline of fossil fuels, there is very little substancial evidence. Some technology will be able to take over a portion on the worlds depenece on fossile fuels but there is still a enormous portion of the world that greatly depends on fossil fuels. Stopping the use of fossil fuels will affect everyday factors, but like most other inconvenieces there is always some way around it. The alternatives listed in this position are also resources that are limited. So what happens when these alternatives run out? Will we continue a vicious cycle?
Group A is correct when they say that we have plenty of fossil fuels and coal to last us a good long time. Oil prices are falling as the wells seem to be deeper than estimated, and we have enough coal to last us for centuries.
ReplyDeleteWe have enough fossil fuels to sustain ourselves for quite a while, but other counties are developing. As other countries like India and China develop and their citizens are enriched by economic growth, more and more people will want the cars an other expensive consumer goods that we Americans have grown accustomed to. As their populations become more affluent they will consume more electricity and fossil fuels. Can we sustain another country like the U.S., let alone one with a population of a billion people? I hope you will prepare for this in the debate.
Group A present the argument that there is no need to stop using fossil fuels because they will not become depleted in the near future. They make a good point in that the world economy is heavily reliant on the use of fossil fuels, and if we were to just stop using them, it would create void in everyday activity. Although they give some brief numbers on fuel supplies, I would have like to have seen additional information and statistics to support their argument by discussing more about the who and how of current research. I feel they should have also considered the fact that our consumption of fossil is only going to increase over the years as we continue to produce and develop more and more.
ReplyDeleteI found Group A's argument - that a heavy reliance on non-renewables will be able to serve our future energy needs, very flawed. Group A not only failed to address the increasingly detrimental effects of fossil fuels on the environment, but the appears to be misguided when addressing the other groups positions. Group A argued against both C and B's positions by saying all together "stopping" the use of fossil fuels would create a void in every day life. However, as a member of group B i can say that that is not our position. We are believe that renewable energies will not immediately or entirely replace non-renewables but will serve as a very beneficial supplement to fossil fuels. Group A also failed to address peak oil, and the depleting reserves of coal and fossil fuels. I did not find Group A's argument very persuasive and felt that there was a lack of statistics and evidence to support their claims. Hope you're ready for the debate! ;)
ReplyDelete-- Kirsten Dobson
Debate Team A argues that we can continue to use fossil fuels the way we are and do not need to worry currently about running out of fossil fuels. They say with our current deposits we will able to continue to consume these non-renewable resources until at least 2050. The group fails to mention the affect of the fossil fuels on the environment, as well as the increase in the costs to consumers and mining companies that would be implemented by their decreased supply. They do create a good arguement where they state that we cannot simply stop using fossil fuels, as we rely greatly on fossil fuels in many aspects of our life. The group seems to be relying heavily on the speedy advancement of techonolgy in mining and finding more fuel deposits, cleaner burning of current fossil fuels, and the disovery of alternative fuel sources. They seem to want to ignore the problem now and deal with it later after we have destroyed the environment and then face the problem in roughly fifty years of having absolutely no fossil fuels left. I do not feel as though Group A supported their stand on the issue very well with facts and a more persuasive arguement.
ReplyDeleteGroup A's poistion is that with current tapped and untapped energy resources in the world today we have no need to cutback our energy use. They also believe that we don't need to change our energy consumption habits because future technology will be introduced so when our fuel does run out there will be no crisis. They argure that if we stopped using fossil fuels everyday life as we know it would cese to exist. Although there is no need to change our fossil fuel consumption is it made clear that we stil need to work towards finding alternate energy resources that are sustainable.
ReplyDeleteGroup A's position is purely anthropogenic. They are arguing that despite the negative impacts of fossil fuels on our environment, we should continue to use these finite resources simply because they currently exist in abundance and are currently economically beneficial. They are techno-optimist, arguing that technological advancements will have replaced fossil fuels before we run out of them. Fossil fuels may still be cheap and abundant but that doesn't change the detriment that cause to the environment. Also, while oil may not run out until 2050-2070, by then it will be so expensive that it will no longer be economically feasible.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is arguing that America does not need to worry about fossil fuels because there are enough sources to last us to 2050 to 2070. In addition, these statistics are based on our current sources to fossil fuels, not taking into account all possible sources to be discovered in the future. Group A is also arguing that the U.S. does not need to slow its consumption of fossil fuels since new technologies will be invented in the future to develop alternatives for these sources of energy when they run out. In addition by limiting our consumption, it would greatly impact the U.S. since our economy is so dependent on these resources.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree completely with group A. Shouldn’t we be concerned with the future generations? It has been several decades and we still have not yet developed a reliable to powerful alternative energy source, so what’s to say that we will be able to in forty years? Yes, there are enough resources to last for our lifetime, but we do need to be concerned about future generations. We should not completely rely on technologies to solve our problems. I think the best solution would be to start limiting on consumption now, to a point where our economy can still function, and begin design alternatives NOW. We cannot keep pushing our problems for the future to solve, after all we are the future.
Group A argues that America has plenty of fossil fuels to last until alternative energies are found to replace them. They explain how changing our current use of fossil fuels would have too great of a negative effect on our lives and economy in order to make it worth it. They also show that our peak reserves of fossil fuels will not be for another half a century and we still have reserves left untapped that are not included in this estimate. Their paper shows the affects that changing fuels would have on our lives and the amount of resources we still have.
ReplyDeleteI agree that decreasing or stopping the use of fossil fuels would take an affect on every individual's way of life. There is no doubt that the economy and insutrial services we so heavily rely upon would be turned upside-down. Along with this would be a forced and extreme lifestyle change. I say (representing Group C), GREAT! These are finite fossil fuels. There IS an end to their abundance and we, as a highly technological society, will be stripped of all that we know upon their depletion. On that same note, isn't this a good thing? Fossil Fuels have detrimental impacts on the environment and our own human health. Renewable fuels cannot withstand the population and consumption growth. There must be change, and it must be now. If we wait until the fossil fuel supply decreases to learn how to live sustainably, chaos will ensue. Let's prepare ourselves early and learn how to live independent from fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s position is clearly stated in a short amount of straight-to-the-point words. Their position on this debate is one that issues a state of relaxation towards Americans to let them know that there are still plenty of fossil fuels left hear on Planet Earth. The statistics that they provided clearly states that we don’t have to worry if we rely on those numbers. If we are able to sustain a good amount of fossil fuel I believe that we don’t have to worry. Also, we do have many reservoirs that have not been tapped, so we have hope for never running out. As Group A mentioned, with new technological advances it is most likely that we will be able to find oil, coal, and other fossil fuels easily.
ReplyDeleteGroup A's position is one that is unconcerned of American's consumption of fossil fuel (at least until future years). Mining of coal and digging of crude oils and fossil fuels will provide enough resources to support America. The position they take is simple and straight forward but seems to lack insight to the other side of the argument. They state simply that America has no reason to slow down its consumption but do not seem to address the issues of pollution or changing the landscape/ecosystem of the mined area. I hope you cover this in your argument!
ReplyDeleteGroup A claims that the loss of the world’s nonrenewable resource is not a threat. They say that these resources will be able to support the population until another form of energy can be utilized. The group fails to address many of the pressing issues in this debate. They do not even recognize the environmental impact that the use of these energy sources is causing. The continued use of nonrenewable resources is causing high levels of carbon and general pollution which is having devastating effects on the environment. The group does not recognize the idea of even lessening dependence on fossil fuels which would curve the environmental impact. They do make a good point about the number of jobs that are tied into fossil fuels and the devastation it would cause the economy. This is one of the main reasons that there has not been more investigation into the next generation of fuels.
ReplyDeleteIn your opening sentence you claim that fossil fuels will last us until we find alternative sources of energy, which is true, but only because we have already discovered alternative energy sources. Solar energy is easily obtained and is already being used as a power source. My roommate has a pocket size solar charger for his cell phone. Wind mills have been in use for a long time to gather energy and I don't think the wind is going to die anytime soon. So why not make the switch now if the technology already exists? You also mention nuclear power, but have you taken into consideration the danger surrounding it? Or the effects it has on the environment? Also, peak oil in the US has already occurred. Just a point to consider
ReplyDeleteThe “current found reservoirs” include oil sands and shales in the Northern Hemisphere, specifically in the Canadian Shield and Arctic Ocean. Extraction of oil from sand and shale is MUCH more capital-intensive, and can even boarder on using as much energy as the oil itself will produce. And that’s WITHOUT addressing the geomorphologic changes by disrupting the cementing agents within all that previously-stable rock. We have already reached Peak Oil from the accessible stores, in the 1970s. This is why the economies in the Middle East are diversifying so rapidly; they know they’re going to need another source of income… SOON. Mining for coal and uranium cannot be considered a sustainable option when it still damages our planets ecosystems services which should be left available for future generations. The argument that we shouldn’t shift off fossil fuels because it will affect everyday activities for Americans is the most ego-centric, anti-progressive, and misanthropic argument one can make. If we didn’t want to change the way that we do things, we should go back to using whale oil lamps and heating with buffalo dung… oh wait, we did that, intensively, UNTIL WE RAN OUT OF ENTIRE USABLE POPULATIONS. We changed our lifestyles drastically just time before they became extinct forever. And we can do the same with fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is promoting faith in technology, that no matter what problem we face technology will bail us out. This group argues that although humans create their own problems, and will generate the technology to find a solution. They push the idea that we can continue our consumption as usual, and market forces will generate new solutions when we start to run out. They predict that peak oil will not happen for quite some time due the amount of reserves. For now our best choices for fuel are still oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels as well as nuclear power. The problem with this argument is that they are not accounting for future problems. We know that eventually our population will grow so large that we will not be able to sustain our lifestyles. We know that eventually will run out of oil, regardless of how many reserves people claim are left. Why would we sit around and wait for disaster to strike? Peak oil has ALREADY occurred, and the human population is growing exponentially. We don’t have time to wait around and hope that we come up with a solution. We need to be saving what resources we have, and investing our time into stopping an energy crisis before it happens.
ReplyDeleteGroup A takes the position that people should harvest and use fossil fuels while we have them, and believe that invention and technology will come to the rescue in the future. And why not? They are saying there is a substantial amount of fossil fuels still to be obtained from the earth’s reserves. Also, we won’t hit our peak oil amount until as early as 2050. By then, an alternative energy source will have been found for us to use. By then, technology will have advanced so far as to obtain more energy from the current sources used today. Another main point in their argument is that if we just stopped using fossil fuels, then there would be no way to transport all of our foods, goods, and products. That even the energy needed in order for making those things would not be available for us. As a result, we would just crumble as a civilization without our fossil fuels. In their closing remarks, Group A recognizes the need for developing alternative energy resources, and admits to the fossil fuels being a finite resource. However, they don’t see any need to spend all of our focus on alternative energies when we so much fossil fuel to still use.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that we can continue to use fossil fuels in the ways that we are currently doing so, because we will not run out of resources until 2050. They state that eventually we will have to switch to renewable resources, but due to technological advances in our economy, we have time before we need to worry about the finite resources of coal and oil run out. It’s thought that if we stopped using coal and oil, our every day life would cease to exist because we currently rely on those resources. But Group A is forgetting that public opinion of finite resources is greatly influenced by the environmental effects of non-renewable resources, and that we now live in a day and age where conserving the environment and resources for future generations is an extremely important issue we face.
ReplyDeleteThe main point here is that time is of the essence. There is time to worry about it – so there is no need for immediate change. These energy optimists declare that fuels will last until others become available (assuming we look during the meantime). Americans ARE very economically dependent on oil and upsetting the current system of oil would widely upset the American economy as well. It is interesting that as technologies grow we can step back – using coal that is now inferior to today’s newer fuels. One thing to think about, is to not get ahead of ourselves and take steps (big steps) to find other sources of fuel so that we have the time to develop the technologies before time does run out.
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s paper argued the fact that the America doesn’t need to stop using fossil fuels just yet because we have plenty of resources available. They stated the we haven’t tapped into all the natural resources available on planet earth. I think this statement is true but we are damaging our environment tremendously with the affects of using fossil fuels. For example burning coal and gasoline creates many harmful chemicals that pollute our environment. So why should we just continue to use them at this current rate even if they are readily available to us.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes current levels of fossil fuel consumption worldwide are going to be reasonable enough to last us until the advent of viable and sustainable new energy sources.They cite the detrimental drawbacks to current ways of life and economic viability from the halt of fossil fuel consumption. Through the supplementing of nuclear power and the re-invention of resources such as coal they believe there is enough energy to currently last us through at least another half century. I believe Group A has some very good points in their paper, especially concerning the use of current energies. One of the reasons coal has not been fully recognized for its energy potential is because it has gotten a very bad rap for being a dirty and environmentally taxing resource (mountaintop removal, strip mining, smog emissions, etc.) Also the dangers of nuclear power have been greatly exacorbated, especially since most people don't realize the security measures currently in place at most nuclear power plants. I do think that this group is lacking a cohesive argument for the eventual transition away from fossil fuels.
ReplyDelete2. Group A argues that we will have enough natural resources (oil, gas, coal, as well as nuclear power) to last America until a new resource is developed. According to the group there is enough oil to last until 2050 or 2070; however, is this according to our current usage? As we all know the world population is increasing at a rapid rate, and with more people comes the need for more power, leadings to less of these natural resources. Also, the use of fossil fuels has negative impacts such as CO2 emission, land use, and climate changes. Nuclear power is better for our atmosphere but waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, creating the question where to put it? I agree that for now society will have to continue to use natural resources but developing an alternative should be at the forefront of our minds.
ReplyDelete2. Group A presented a very different argument that not too many people hear about. They believe that the United States does not need to worry about using up our fossil fuels for now, and that we should just continue our ways until we run out, while searching for renewable resources to replace our dependence on fossil fuels. I understand where they are coming from, but I just do not see how using up all of the resources we have would be good. Aren’t they there for a reason? If we use them all up, what would happen to our world?
ReplyDeleteGroup A’s argument stated that with the given natural resources that are found in the Earth, the human population would be able to thrive for about 200 more years before we run out. The statement was not that we not change to renewable resources, but rather that with the time that is remaining; we should be able to produce technology that would prepare us for when our natural resources “run dry.” I think that this is very logical; however, I do have some hesitations. I can’t help but wonder what the ecological effects of eliminating natural resources such as crude oil would be. The fact that they are naturally produced makes me feel that they do serve a purpose other than being a tool for the human population. My question is what changes will the planet make if certain natural resources are used to the point of depletion?
ReplyDeleteGroup A says that we should be able to keep using Fossil fuels until we find a new source. I agree that if we stopped using fossil fuels completely there would be devastating effects. As of now, it’s not even possible. So much of our lives are based around cars, electricity, and other means of transportation. However, I believe we should take action now and not wait for the problem to start. If we run out of fossil fuels we lose the chance of any other uses for fossil fuels.
ReplyDelete