Will our current technological approach to energy systems be plausible to fuel our consumption and future consumption of the finite resources we have to work with? We say … NO. Lets break down the facts: Global population has risen by three billion people over the past forty years, and is expected to potentially reach 9 billion by 2040 (International Database.) In the coming years this growing population will only exacerbate the problem of the rising global energy consumption, that is currently based off of unsustainable sources, including coal, oil and other fossil fuels. Not only is our world running out of these fossil fuels, many countries - including the United States have already past peak oil, but is being adversely affected by their use (Brown, 42-45.) There is a direct correlation between green house gas emissions (due to the use of non-renewable resources) and climate change and global warming. Climate change and global warming’s affects will be felt globally, and may lead to sea level rise, global temperature rise, a loss of biodiversity and worse.
We believe this dilemma must be addressed and solved so that we may continue to and have the ability to quench our world’s growing thirst for energy in the future. The best way to do so is to use new technologies to develop and implement new ways of powering our country, homes and automobiles. We feel that the heavy reliance we have, as a nation on fossil fuels and non-renewable resources are unsustainable and unrealistic for the United States long-term needs. Therefore, it is the use of renewable energy, both measures on a massive scale, such as wind farms, solar power plants, geothermal plants, and large scale bio-fuel use or a smaller scale for individual households using technologies that are available to everyday united states citizens, that will come to our nation’s rescue. Many of these technologies have already been being developed in recent years, including for example the production of more efficient appliances, and wide spread production and implementation of wind farms. We believe we have the technologies to build a new energy economy, one that is not climate-disruptive, doesn’t pollute the air, and can last as long as the sun itself!
Their Positions:
It is clear that both Group A and Group C are misguided in their positions on this issue. Group A’s position that our energy-intensive lifestyles are not in danger has many faults. The future global population and consumption rise will create an enormous strain on our current energy reserves. And while Group A may argue that we have plenty of coal, oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels they fail to recognize not only the detrimental effects these non-renewable resources have on our environment, but that these fossil fuels have already diminishing reserves. Finally, while Group C on the other hand, may acknowledge that our increasing population and energy consumption will be a problem in the future, their lack of acknowledgement that technology will not serve as a solution is off base. It is the development of new technologies that will help us to harness the energy we have in more efficient and beneficial ways.
Let's avoid this....
References:
Brown, Lester R. Plan B 3.0. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2008. Print.
"International Database." The US Census Bureau. 10 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Sept. 2009.
3. Group B promotes techno-optimism. They argue that we have the technology to save us from our “energy crisis.” Ongoing research in renewable and sustainable energy resources like solar power, geothermal and biofuels will successfully find a way eventually to decrease our fossil fuel use and help us save energy. Technology will be able to improve the ways we power our country, homes, and automobiles. In my opinion, I do believe that technology has the capability to do this. However, I would put all my faith into this because there is still a possibility to fail and there must be a backup plan that involves things that we can actually do, not something we still have to research and work on.
ReplyDeleteDebate team B’s position was that the ultimate resource, motivated by the free market, will respond and create “alternatives” before energy shortages become severe. They support the idea that the current usage of fossil fuels is not sustainable and that we will need to find alternative sources of energy. They state that maybe nations, including the United States, have already passed peak oil. This group did a great job of connecting the dots between our use of fossil fuels and global warming. They stress that global warming has many negative effects that can be felt throughout the world. They want us to believe that new technologies that help to generate renewable energy will help reduce this trend. This is going to take change on both large and small scales. They believe that it is possible to build a new economy that does not pollute the air, does not disrupt the climate, and can last as long as the sun can shine. I though this group did an excellent job of getting their point across through their paper. I though they way it was broken down into sections was a smart move. They did a great job in telling why the other teams were wrong in their positions. The images they included really made the blog look nice. Great job guys!
ReplyDeleteGroup B's position states that the global problem of excessive consumption of/dependence on fossil fuels can be solved by the implementation of new technologies and advancements in renewable and cleaner energy sources. Their position differs from that of Group A in that they do acknowledge a problem with our current consumption of fossil fuels: we are harming the environment, and our nonrenewable energy sources are already being depleted. Group B proposes serious changes in our energy infrastructure from mainly fossil fuels to wind farms, bio-fuels, solar and geothermal power plants, passive solar construction, and the utilization of more efficient appliances in households. I agree with most of what Group B states; however, I believe that we need to not only change our energy infrastructure, but our gluttonous lifestyles as well. At the rate our planet's population is growing, we can not afford to be wasteful. I think Group B's position paper, although not completely grammatically correct, supports their position well, and the break-down and usage of images makes it easier to read. I am looking forward to the debate!
ReplyDeleteThis group advocates techno-optimism…that is we can solve today’s present crisis regarding depleting fossil fuels with the onset of new technologies! Technology will take us into the future and beyond in terms of resource development and sustainability. There is no doubt that fossil fuels are disappearing due to rapid consumption and the use of these finite resources show a direct correlation to global warming and climate change. We need to develop renewable energy such as solar and wind, and we will accomplish these goals through innovative technology. These new technologies will allow humanity to develop better energy sources that will allow us to continue our current lifestyles without degrading the Earth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position 100% I am a huge advocate for renewable energy and feel it is imperative we get away from fossil fuels. The only thing I worry about with developing new technologies is the responsibility to sustain these technologies in the future which can certainly bode challenges. However, I feel this is the only option right now because we cannot maintain the status quo.
Great opinion paper!! I like the pictures!
Group B suggests that we need to change our overconsumption of fossil fuels by using more efficient renewable resources; that are available through technology. It is suggested that fossil fuels will run out so we must find alternative energy sources; which can be used on both large and small scales to supply our energy needs. Rather than rely on resources that negatively impact our planet, we should switch to renewable, “clean” energy sources. Achieving the desired change will result by focusing on new technology. First we must be able to realize whether or not these alternative energy sources will fill the gap that fossil fuels will leave behind. If it does, it may be difficult to completely do away with the “old energy” and bring in the new. To be effective, new technology must reach every citizen, not just the everyday. Although these new energies may be “clean,” refining is needed in certain areas for these energies to be efficient in covering every person’s needs as well as being safe to other creatures (i.e. wind farms can have detrimental effects to bird and bat populations).
ReplyDeleteGroup B believes that alternative energy is the answer to our nation’s pressing energy concerns. These alternative energy optimists would like to see solar, wind, hydro and other renewable sources used to their full potential. The group seems very concerned about a growing world population, the current use of unsustainable of resource, and the harm that is being done to our planet. I think everyone can agree that we ultimately need to move away from fossil fuels and other unsustainable sources of energy and this group seems to have lots of passion for their argument! I would have liked to have seen more statistics on alternate energy sources that are currently being utilized in the U.S. Many of these technologies like solar and wind are simply unavailable in lots of areas as the technologies stand today. It is also important to note that a switch would be impossible to be made overnight. The infrastructure that goes into using bio-fuels, electric vehicles, wind farms, etc. is extremely costly and will not be implemented until it becomes cost-effective. I do agree that greener energy sources are the right direction for our nation’s future energy demand. We just need much more research and financial backing in order to get there.
ReplyDeleteGroup B's argument is more in line with my values than A. I like how you emphasized implementation on many different scales. We can't expect a few big utility companies or the federal government to take care of all of our energy problems. Our local and state governments as well as ourselves have to be part of the big solution. I also like how you didn't focus on one new energy source; and instead, you stressed that our energy solution will come in the form of many new technologies.
ReplyDeleteI have three problems with your position, though. First, I think that you may be too optimistic when you say that the forces of the "free" market will drive our development of new energy tech. Our government has a large effect on the markets and who is to say that they aren't in the pockets of big oil or coal?
Second, many of our non-fossil fuel sources of energy have their own issues. Damming rivers for hydroelectricity irrevocably alters ecosystems, wind farms change the physical character of a region and kill birds, and geothermal energy could even start earthquakes!
Third, unless we develop a true, silver-bullet energy source the new ones will only lessen our current problems. Focusing on less consumption and efficiency must be a primary focus in our future.
The position of Group B is that through technological implementation and development, we can reduce and eventually eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. It was smart of them to begin by clearly defining the problem at hand, which is that fossil fuels are not only being depleted, but they are also detrimental to the environment. They explain that fossil fuel alternatives, such as solar panels and windmills, have already been developed and technology can make it possible to adapt them to a much larger scale to match the energy provided by harmful fossil fuels. One thing I think would aid in the argument of Group B would be if they gave some instances where fossil fuel systems have already been replaced with eco-friendly energy sources. Success stories would stand as examples of the positive changes that can be made by implementing technology.
ReplyDeleteDebate Team B argues that we should rely on alternative sources of energy that are more green than the burning of fossil fuels. They are very reliant on technologies, most of which have already been developed to be affordable and sustainable. They focus both on large-scale use such as wind farms, solar powered plants and geothermal plants, as well as small-scale household implementation of more conserving appliances. They do not believe that we should stop using fossil fuels but begin to co-exist with renewable energy sources. They argue their position well with mentioning the massive increase in population numbers as well as already diminshed fossil fuel supplies.
ReplyDeleteTo help their arguement Group B may have presented some examples of the many wind farms that have been created, or even individual use of renewable resources on the household level. Also, I'm curious as to what the costs of these techonologies on the individual level would be, such as installing solar panels in households.
Group B represent the alternate energy optimists. They argue that our resources won’t last as long as the techno-optimists think. Global population grows every year which will raise the fossil fuel consumption. With the majority of our energy coming from non renewable resources it would be a catastrophe if we were to suddenly run out. These sources also contribute to global pollution, climate change, and other adverse effects. They think we should significantly cut back on fossil fuel consumption and implement on a large scale wind farms, solar and geothermal plants, and bio-fuel. The solution is not more fossil fuels but a new energy infrastructure based on sustainable resources.
ReplyDeleteGroup B's position is one of sustainability. They are arguing that the use of fossil fuels should stop because the negative impacts are too severe. This position reflects long-term thinking and takes into account the importance of healthy ecosystems and quality of life for future generations. They advocate for a switch to renewable resources, which are far less polluting and sustainable. While it may currently be more expensive to use renewable resources, this will probably begin to change very soon because of the increasing awareness about the drawbacks of using fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteGroup B believes that our energy resource issues can be solved by generating new forms of technology. Some of these technologies include solar power, geothermal power, wind power and biofuels which could successfully decrease our fossil fuel use and help us save energy. Group B is highly concerned with the population growth and its impact on the usage of fossil fuels. With such exponential growth rate of population, it is very clear that our current resources are bound to run out at some point in time. Group B argues that actions need to be taken now in order to prepare for the future, and not only any actions, but earth friendly "green" actions. I strongly agree with all of group B's points, in that technology is the answer to our future energy dilemmas. In addition I agree that we need to move towards a more green economy in order to prevent new problems from forming, and to try and maintain Earth’s current equilibrium, once in which has strongly proven to work.
ReplyDeleteGroup B thinks that with proper development, sustainable sources of energy will be able to provide for our growing energy demands. These potential solutions include large scale wind farms, hydro-electric, nuclear and geothermal energy reclaimation. These are novel concepts, but have yet to become economically feasible on the large scales needed to make an actual difference. It will require strict mandates and tax breaks/laws to 'convince' the economy that it is worth the effort to 'go green'. Any debate without means to actually implement these ideals falls short of the practically that is necessary. Sustainable energy replacing fossil fuels is a noble goal, but it is a long way off and will require billions in research to develop the new technologies.
ReplyDeleteGroup B brings up some extremely valid points. The population in America, and in the world, is increasing, and will continue to increase, and nothing we do (with or without technology) will change that. Alternative energy is important and has come a long way, but how long will it take to be able to make a switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy? What about areas of the country where using wind or water or even solar power would prove difficult? Harnessing the power generated from these resources, and transporting them to “power plants” to redistribute them elsewhere is difficult to do. Implementing some of these sources still has environmental concerns. Wind towers disrupt bats and kill many migrating birds. Hydro power disrupts fish movements and if using a dam, impedes water flow.
ReplyDeleteThe idea behind alternative energy is great, and I agree it’s much needed. When it boils down to is, fossil fuels just can’t be our driving source of energy forever. Alternative energy still needs a lot of work to make it as efficient as the fossil fuels we use today. Many technological advancements will need to be made.
Group Bs arguments appear weak to me. It’s obvious that the population is increasing and that alternative energies are being created, but I want to hear the statistics on how productive these resources actually can be. It’s great that they aren’t as bad for the environment, but can they support America, and even the world?
Group B argues that the current use of fossil fuels in the United States is unsustainable and also adversely affecting our environment. They recommend looking into renewable energy sources and making our technology which requires electricity and fossil fuels more efficient so our overall demands of energy decrease while the amount of it that comes from renewable sources is greater. They believe that we have already reached our peak oil production and resources will continue to get scarcer and we will eventually run out of the energy resources we currently rely on. Group B’s position is somewhat flawed because they do not take into account the resources left unexploited in the United States. However, they also make a good point that these resources a harmful to our environment when burned so they show that we must develop renewable and clean energy sources for the future.
ReplyDeleteI fully understand this stance and personally agree with it in today's society. While the country is reliant upon non-renewable fossil fuels, personal initiative to use renewable technologies is a great way to lessen environmental impacts and hey, maybe even save the individual a few bucks from electricity and heating bills in the long run. But are these renewable energies undoubtedly all environmentally-friendly? Their current construction requires extensive use of fossil fuels as well as overwhelming amounts of water (specifically to produce silicon, used for PVCs). Also, on a large-scale, once fossil fuels deplete far enough, the shifted reliance on renewable energies can in no way sustain the current consumption and population rates. Their energy supply many times will not even replace the energy needed for their construction. Therefore, a shifted reliance on renewable technology will not solve the problem. The solution lies in the core problem of population and consumption rates. Individuals need to learn how to live within environmental limits, not rely on technological limits.
ReplyDeleteGroup B’s position on our crisis of power is clearly different than the other debaters. The Group mentions many facts about how our World, today, is going the opposite direction in terms of fossil fuel amounts. They proposed that the other Group’s positions are all misguided, and Group B correctly refutes their positions with what they believe and from what they researched. As mentioned in Group A’s position, our world is continuously developing new technologies every day and therefore these new technologies will be able to develop ways to power the country according to Group B. I believe in Group B’s position because it always better to give back to the world for which it gives us every day. With new technologies to develop new ways to power the country we will be able to cut down on emissions that fossil fuels produce.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that the continued use of fossil fuels is unsustainable in the long run. their main point is that the use of fossil fuels is bad for the environment. While they make a good argument that fossil fuels are running out they give little evidence to support the fact that fossil fuels are having any effect on the environment. They state as fact that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming without even offering any kind of research to support it. Their solution to the problem of not using fossil fuels is to use alternative, more renewable sources. This seems like a very valid idea but they make it seem as though the technology already exist but in reality the current technology in wind and solar energy is nowhere near enough to power the entirety of the globe and does not allow for developing nations such as those in africa which cannot afford such technologies. Also hydroelectric dams can cause major problems to an environment as they completely alter it. the same could be said for large wind farms which can destroy bird populations.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that emissions from mankind as a whole are detrimental to the environment, but some are necessary until the time which we can produce enough energy from renewable, ecologically friendly sources to power the globe. This should be the end goal
Group B's opinion is one of greener means of energy. Their opinion is straight forward in stating that the current direction of American fossil fuel consumption is unreasonable. Their arguments make sense in the ways that renewable energy presents easier, cleaner ways of gaining energy. It also cuts down on excess pollution. I tend to agree with this side of the argument more than the other sides. We need energy and its obvious we will have a hard time slowing down our consumption so the real solution is to find alternate means of energy. Coal and fossil fuels are slowly becoming more expensive and hard to obtain. The right choice is solar/wind/green power. An issue I would like to see tackled here is the funding of these projects and how the landscape will be changed.
ReplyDeleteGroup B promotes the idea that the answer to an energy crisis is through new technology. While in theory this sounds like a great idea, it is very difficult to accomplish. The amount of energy used which is produced by fossil fuels is an astronomical amount. This is amount of energy would be very difficult to produce through the alternative sources that are currently available. The forms of alternative energy are very inefficient compared to fossil fuels. One day, hopefully, alternative energy will be able to support the energy needs of the world but it will take other factors to get to this point. The answer with the most potential is to continue in the efforts to find an efficient renewable resource while reducing the amount of energy consumed. This will allow renewable energies to be successful.
ReplyDeleteWhile Group B addresses many of the problems with alternative energy and presented answers, in my opinion they left out one big factor: cost. I know that in the long run alternative energy pays off, but people want results immediately and until the average person can afford solar panels on their home I don't think alternatives will ever produce enough energy to meet our needs.
ReplyDeleteWhile Team B has a well-placed appreciation for the environmental ills of fossil fuel usage and dependency, they fail to attack the root point of the energy debate: the United States CANNOT set the global standard for energy demand per capita. A business-as-usual lifestyle cannot be incorporated into America’s energy plan. While we need the efficiency of new technology, we also need a reduction in energy-powered technologies used. This group places an unfounded faith in the Market, which has – for all of our nation’s recorded history – been unable to enact changes in policy and environmental planning that haven’t fed into the hands of the biggest buyers: high polluting industries. It’s no secret that Americans have gotten rich quick off of exploitation of natural resources, and these are the political and market actors that have the most influence over “progresses” made. The fact of the matter is that the consumer is not an actor who rationally cares for situations outside themselves, and if they were, then The Hidden Hand would have already pushed us into stricter energy policy and environmental control.
ReplyDeleteGroup B believes that with the technology we have already developed we can switch our dependence upon natural resource to the technology we have already developed. Some of the technologies that we have already developed are solar power and wind power. Solar power uses the sun light the create energy. Wind power uses big wind mill like think to create wind power. By using these alternatives in community buildings and in our homes group B believes that we can remove our dependence on natural resources.
ReplyDeleteMy critique- Although technological advances have been made and have proven to reduce the dependence on natural resources can the really remove the need completely? Some of these new technologies require more time and energy. What about the ecological foot print? By needing more time and energy would the technology really end up helping or hurting the environment?
Group B argues the implementation of renewable energy sources as soon as possible for our main source of energy. They feel that while having the fossil fuel still for some more years, that we need to phase out of using fossil fuels as quickly as we can with bringing in renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. They fear the growing population and the increase in energy consumption that it will bring. They believe the only way to handle the energy needs that the greater population will bring is to have renewable energy sources set up and running for them.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that we should strive to find alternative energy sources considering the finite resources of coal and oil are slowly running out due to diminishing reserves. They claim that through technology, we can find new, clean energy sources that will provide energy to the growing population and we will no longer rely on unsustainable resources. They mention that fossil fuels have a negative impact on the environment and our reliance on them has furthered the negativity. But there have already been strives towards cleaner, renewable energy such as solar, wind, and hydro. The technology that provides solar and wind energy must be available to the entire population, though, just not those that can afford it, if Group B wants the free market to help make the switch from fossil fuels to sustainable resources.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly are you being optimist about here? You delve into Global warming and the negative effects of greenhouse gasses, but what do you have to suggest for alternative fuels, since you claim they are the answer. What about ethanol? Rainforests are being wiped out so this soil destroying crop can be strewn among the planet. Pesticides will rain down, and alternative fuels do not just appear. There is NOT a direct correlation between green house gas emissions and ‘global warming’. But, alternative fuels are what the present and the future needs to be thinking about. Development is a big key, come with ideas, ok, but creating the technology and making the actual fuel ready for consumption takes time – lots of time.
ReplyDeleteGroup B’s position paper tried to say that we need to invest in new alternate sources of energy now instead of wait till we run out of natural resources. I agree with their stance on this issue I think that we need to invest in new cleaner technology now instead of wait for the last possible moment. They state clearly that there is a direct correlation between the emission of green house gases and the rise in global temperatures. This strengthens their stance on this issue even more by showing that it is even more urgent to start investing in alternate energy because our fate depends on it.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that with the worldwide explosion of population that our world has seen in the past century and will continue to struggle with, in part with an overdependence on unsustainable fossil fuel resources, we are reaching a breaking point that can and must be avoided through research and development of in sustainable energy and the creation of new sources. They believe that fossil fuel reliance is unreasonable, and that as a nation and a global marketplace we must look towards the future and switch our focus towards the implementation of things like geothermal power, wind farms, and solar energy. If we do not look towards the future and have a realistic viewpoint about current energy reserves at today's monumental levels of consumption we are literally going to be left in the dark. Our only chance for salvation of our planet and realistic future energy needs to be met is for us to put our foot further into the door of environmentally viable energy. I think group B makes a very realistic argument against Group A's position of continued use of fossil fuels without increased development of new ideas. This seems to be the only reasonable option, especially if we are to continue our high energy-consumption lifestlyes. I would disagree with the idea that all of these energy sources need to be made large scale endeavors. Many can have overlooked environmental effects, such as the dangers windfarms pose to already struggling raptor populations in many parts of the country.
ReplyDeleteGroup B argues that we will not have enough natural resources to sustain us; therefore we must rely on the use of technology to invent AND continuously develop alternative energies such as wind, solar, and bio-fuel. The group states that with increasing population and usage there will not be enough natural resources to sustain us, which reflects the importance of developing alternative technologies. However, many of these technologies cost a great deal of money to research and develop. Also, many of them (wind) are bulky and are protested by communities. Bio-fuel is a great alternative, but even if we did turn all our nations’ corn into bio-fuel, it would not be enough to support us, and it would also take away from agriculture. Although, there are different alternatives such as switchgrass with have no nutritional value, but takes up land to plant. These options need to be explored and a mixture of the alternatives used in the correct areas in order to save natural resources and clean the atmosphere.
ReplyDelete3. Group B presented a very good argument about techno-optimism as alternative energy enthusiasts. They said that as our population increases, so does our energy consumption and we rely too heavily on fossil fuels. We need to start using our renewable resources and perfecting our technology to help us maintain our lifestyles. I feel like they did a great job presenting the information about small scale and large scale energy. I often wonder though, many people do not know about these new technologies and there is not THAT much information out there about them. How can we get people to start realizing the effects these options will have on our energy consumption?
ReplyDeleteGroup B’s argument was based around the statement that renewable resources are what we should be using to harness energy. Presenting debates about the reduced ecological impact on the planet by using things like windmills and solar panels. Presenting the facts that these things are as equally productive as natural resources and that they are available to us, the answer seems to become very clear and simple. The thing that comes to my mind is not so much the ecological impact, but more the economical impact it will have on people. In the long run, I believe that these renewable resources may potentially save people a lot of money; however, there are the individual start-up costs that will hurt most people if not everyone. It’s the fact that renewable resources can’t just be applied to everything immediately. One huge example of this is cars. Most cars have been manufactured so that they will run on fuels made primarily from natural resources, if there were to be made a switch to solar powered cars, all these cars that run on fuel would become futile. Though it may create a huge positive impact on the environment, these useless cars will become a problem of either trashing them, or recycling them for parts or converting them to solar power. These things will more than likely not be covered by some sort of stimulus plan, but rather the individual who owns it. These costs will probably not be something that most people will want to pay for, let alone be able to afford. This being said, I feel that these renewable resources can be very helpful to the planet, but I think that there needs to be a plan to slowly acclimate them into the hands of the public.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you guys about the need to switch from fossil fuels to alternative and renewable energy resources. This is especially true considering the population growth that we are experiencing and will continue to experience. More people = higher demand for energy. I have two questions though. My first is do you really think that we can fully depend on these energy resources in the United States given our current consumption rates and looking at consumption rates in the future? My second question is do you think that a lot of people would be willing to switch? Fossil fuels are here now and are probably cheaper right now. Do you think you can convince that many people to switch? There are a lot of people who are stuck in their ways and who like making money. This isn't even considering the NIMBY people who are just a thorn in the sides of progress. Great job though!
ReplyDelete