Published in the Toronto Star, the article “California vote illuminates Ontario’s energy future” by Ken Neuman and Rick Smith addresses a vote in California on proposition 23. Proposition 23 was rejected by Californians meaning California’s global warming legislation will continue. This legislation deals heavily with using green energy alternatives to reduce greenhouse emissions and the authors claim that California’s plans should be utilized as encouragement for justifying our own green energy plans in Ontario. These green energy plans include new solar panel production plants, solar panel fields and windmills to be introduced to Ontario to provide green energy. These forms of green energy will also to phase out other types of energy, like coal, that are not viewed as environmentally friendly. Despite having many reasons why these implements for green energy would be beneficial, the authors’ points are easily arguable and would more than likely lack the foresight needed to convince those that are unsympathetic to their views.
Much of the authors’ argument of why green energy alternatives are beneficial to Ontario is the amount of jobs it will introduce. For instance, the authors write that more than 600 jobs will be created in Guelph after a new solar panel manufacturing plant is completed and that each time a windmill is constructed a job opens for a new individual (Neuman and Smith 2010). These statistics may look positive, but upon closer inspection it must be noted that jobs will also be lost along with those gained, as the authors mention that green energy is phasing out other types of energy like coal, forcing coal plants to shut down. The authors do not specify how many jobs are lost from closing coal plants and therefore it is unclear whether or not more workers will lose or gain work after the green energy alternatives are introduced. As the reader cannot discern whether the work force will grow or shrink from implementing green energy alternatives it is difficult to decide whether or not their statistics about new jobs are beneficial. Perhaps the authors could assure the reader through relevant data or comments on the amount of people that actually work at these coal plants, informing us that fewer people will lose work when coal plants are closed than the amount of jobs gained through green energy.
Through formulating their argument Neuman and Smith address new jobs green energy promotes, how green energy does not negatively impact the environment and even how rural economies are bolstered by windmills and solar panels. However, the authors fail to address two of the most important problems with wind and solar energy, cost and efficiency. When compared to coal or nuclear power plants; solar panels and windmills seem gratuitously expensive to build (Bailey (2009) states solar panels cost up to 6 times more to build than conventional coal). Both solar panels and windmills require large amounts of space and many units to produce enough energy to compare to coal or nuclear, this means more land must be bought to accommodate these types of energy thus forcing production costs to rise. Both sources of energy are also unreliable, solar panels are sunlight dependant, allowing them to only produce energy during daylight hours while windmills locations must be carefully selected to insure a reasonable amount of wind is received. On the other hand, coal and nuclear power can function anytime of the day regardless of weather conditions. To argue these points the authors might write, despite initial investments, green energy production no longer requires any resources to be input (ie. Coal) and is relatively self-sufficient. These forms of power are also far cleaner than coal or nuclear power and produce no negative byproducts (ie. Nuclear waste). Wind and solar power is much safer with no danger of nuclear meltdowns or acrid smoke and carbon dioxide air pollution. Therefore, although the initial costs are steep the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Another major downfall in the strength of the argument is the over confidence the authors’ have about how many people believe green energy is the right choice. The article opens saying that Ontarians received some good news last week, referring to the proposition California passed. This opening line immediately establishes that the authors assume every Ontarian is pro green energy, however unfortunately for them there are many skeptics about the benefits of green energy. Coal power plants inevitably produce large amounts of carbon dioxide which is released as a byproduct into the air and these greenhouse gases are thought to be the leading cause of global warming. However, as with anything in science the effects of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming are not certain. Thus, many people do not believe that global warming is occurring for unnatural reasons and due to this many people consequently do not see the benefit of spending large amounts of money on green energy sources, which can be expensive and unreliable. Despite the numerous positive examples of benefits green energy could provide Ontarians given by the authors (ie. more jobs and less emissions) these points are not developed into the type of strong argument that would be needed to convince a skeptic. For instance, Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that ten times more solar panels will have been installed in Ontario in the next three years, than the amount that currently exist, saying this will provide enough energy to power one million homes. Rather than just presenting this statistic without any interpretation the authors could strengthen their argument by elaborating on how ten times more solar panels will be advantageous over other energy alternatives. Also, some points made by the authors contribute nothing to their argument and consequently should be removed from the article. One such point is when Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that Ronald Regan removed the solar panels on the white house when he was in office and his former secretary of state, George Shultz, is a supporter of clean energy. This point is obviously trivial, aside from the fact that people are allowed to have different opinions, their values can change in the almost thirty years since Regan was first in office. If the authors were to remove their overconfident assumptions, strengthen existing points and remove inconsequential examples they would be much more likely of converting skeptics to their view.
In conclusion, though the article presents numerous facts to attempt to reassure the reader of the benefits of green energy plans in Ontario, little is done to try and formulate strong points to convince the reader. The arguments presented by the authors seem to make the assumption everyone is already on their side and thus don’t take a defensive stance, not attempting to argue common rebuttals to the green energy movement like cost and inefficiency. The potential within the points and statistics is available to develop a convincing argument, although more expansion is needed.
References:
Neuman, Kevin, and Rick Smith. "California Vote Illumintate's Ontario's Energy Future." Toronto Star. 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov 2010..
Bailey, Ronald. "Obama among the (costly) Solar Panels Again." Reason. N.p., 30 Oct 2009. Web. 10 Nov 2010..
Much of the authors’ argument of why green energy alternatives are beneficial to Ontario is the amount of jobs it will introduce. For instance, the authors write that more than 600 jobs will be created in Guelph after a new solar panel manufacturing plant is completed and that each time a windmill is constructed a job opens for a new individual (Neuman and Smith 2010). These statistics may look positive, but upon closer inspection it must be noted that jobs will also be lost along with those gained, as the authors mention that green energy is phasing out other types of energy like coal, forcing coal plants to shut down. The authors do not specify how many jobs are lost from closing coal plants and therefore it is unclear whether or not more workers will lose or gain work after the green energy alternatives are introduced. As the reader cannot discern whether the work force will grow or shrink from implementing green energy alternatives it is difficult to decide whether or not their statistics about new jobs are beneficial. Perhaps the authors could assure the reader through relevant data or comments on the amount of people that actually work at these coal plants, informing us that fewer people will lose work when coal plants are closed than the amount of jobs gained through green energy.
Through formulating their argument Neuman and Smith address new jobs green energy promotes, how green energy does not negatively impact the environment and even how rural economies are bolstered by windmills and solar panels. However, the authors fail to address two of the most important problems with wind and solar energy, cost and efficiency. When compared to coal or nuclear power plants; solar panels and windmills seem gratuitously expensive to build (Bailey (2009) states solar panels cost up to 6 times more to build than conventional coal). Both solar panels and windmills require large amounts of space and many units to produce enough energy to compare to coal or nuclear, this means more land must be bought to accommodate these types of energy thus forcing production costs to rise. Both sources of energy are also unreliable, solar panels are sunlight dependant, allowing them to only produce energy during daylight hours while windmills locations must be carefully selected to insure a reasonable amount of wind is received. On the other hand, coal and nuclear power can function anytime of the day regardless of weather conditions. To argue these points the authors might write, despite initial investments, green energy production no longer requires any resources to be input (ie. Coal) and is relatively self-sufficient. These forms of power are also far cleaner than coal or nuclear power and produce no negative byproducts (ie. Nuclear waste). Wind and solar power is much safer with no danger of nuclear meltdowns or acrid smoke and carbon dioxide air pollution. Therefore, although the initial costs are steep the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Another major downfall in the strength of the argument is the over confidence the authors’ have about how many people believe green energy is the right choice. The article opens saying that Ontarians received some good news last week, referring to the proposition California passed. This opening line immediately establishes that the authors assume every Ontarian is pro green energy, however unfortunately for them there are many skeptics about the benefits of green energy. Coal power plants inevitably produce large amounts of carbon dioxide which is released as a byproduct into the air and these greenhouse gases are thought to be the leading cause of global warming. However, as with anything in science the effects of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming are not certain. Thus, many people do not believe that global warming is occurring for unnatural reasons and due to this many people consequently do not see the benefit of spending large amounts of money on green energy sources, which can be expensive and unreliable. Despite the numerous positive examples of benefits green energy could provide Ontarians given by the authors (ie. more jobs and less emissions) these points are not developed into the type of strong argument that would be needed to convince a skeptic. For instance, Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that ten times more solar panels will have been installed in Ontario in the next three years, than the amount that currently exist, saying this will provide enough energy to power one million homes. Rather than just presenting this statistic without any interpretation the authors could strengthen their argument by elaborating on how ten times more solar panels will be advantageous over other energy alternatives. Also, some points made by the authors contribute nothing to their argument and consequently should be removed from the article. One such point is when Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that Ronald Regan removed the solar panels on the white house when he was in office and his former secretary of state, George Shultz, is a supporter of clean energy. This point is obviously trivial, aside from the fact that people are allowed to have different opinions, their values can change in the almost thirty years since Regan was first in office. If the authors were to remove their overconfident assumptions, strengthen existing points and remove inconsequential examples they would be much more likely of converting skeptics to their view.
In conclusion, though the article presents numerous facts to attempt to reassure the reader of the benefits of green energy plans in Ontario, little is done to try and formulate strong points to convince the reader. The arguments presented by the authors seem to make the assumption everyone is already on their side and thus don’t take a defensive stance, not attempting to argue common rebuttals to the green energy movement like cost and inefficiency. The potential within the points and statistics is available to develop a convincing argument, although more expansion is needed.
References:
Neuman, Kevin, and Rick Smith. "California Vote Illumintate's Ontario's Energy Future." Toronto Star. 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov 2010.
Bailey, Ronald. "Obama among the (costly) Solar Panels Again." Reason. N.p., 30 Oct 2009. Web. 10 Nov 2010.
Image:
http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php?topic=4772.0
No comments:
Post a Comment