In today’s society, in the battle between fossil fuels and green energy I believe that people should start relying on and furthering the developments of biofuel. The increasing cost of fossil-based energy with the problems of global warming has been driving increased bio-based energy production from plant biomass as renewable energy. (Gopalakrishnan, Kasthurirangan page 128) Very few people would ever argue the fact that we should replace our dependency of depleting fossil fuels with a better and alternative fuel source. (Hallenbeck, Patrick C.) Biofuels are renewable resources that have little to no harm on the environment and can cause our nation to stop relying on foreign oil. Relying on biofuels rather than nonrenewable diesel fuels will also result in the ending of many peoples anxiety about our depleting oil reserves.
Otherwise, they also have family to be taken of. Energy is very significant for a nation’s economic development. Both Republicans and Democrats want to produce more Green energy. Nevertheless, Republicans disagree with the imposing national energy tax on small business and families. Democrats focus more on technological innovation in energy production; therefore, it creates more jobs.
Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions? Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? 1. How was Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat?
In this situation, it has been a mainstream to use alternative sources of energy. It will be discussed how government, businesses and individuals could deal with the low efficiency of using alternative sources of energy in this essay. Firstly, government intervention is the most important and useful method in solving the problem, it can make policies in using alternative sources of energy, such as tax and financial expenditure. For instance, according to the text ‘Using waste, Swedish city cuts its fossil fuel use’, Kristianstad attempted to use biomass energy instead of fossil fuel, the start-up cost was up to $144 million. (Rosenthal, E, 2010) In such a situation, the government became a driving force to develop this project.
E-85 is a great step in the right direction, but there needs to be fuel that is 100% renewable. This is a very possible thing, but it is also very important. It has already been established that the reliance on fossil fuels must end, not get reduced. As far as complications for the economy go, that is the biggest, and possibly, only issue. If a stable, effective and affordable fuel is created, everything else should be a breeze.
Bring Back the Electric Car The United States depends too much on oil, specifically foreign oil. Not only does it cause environmental issues for the whole world but also economic issues for the United States as well. To fix this problem, American car companies should re-create the purely electric car. If the electric car was brought back, it would not only help the environment, but also if American companies were the ones to take the first steps back to purely electric cars, it could help stabilize our economy. I say ‘bring back’ because the electric car is not an idea that hasn’t been tried before.
Weapons of mass destruction and disarmament form one of the toughest challenges for the world. Priorities should be remedies to challenges that do not respect borders. A world free of nuclear weapons is what we need to implement for the sake of humanity. Despite a longstanding taboo against using nuclear weapons, disarmament remains only an aspiration. Countries make the key decisions concerned with nuclear, Most countries have chosen to forgo nuclear weapons, and have complied with their commitments under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).
Iran claims the recent uranium stockpile is specifically for the use of their peaceful energy program; however, the United States and other P5 countries share the concern that the stockpile and dramatic production increase needs to be stopped immediately, preventing Iran from creating nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program is assumed to be capable of creating a nuclear weapon within the next year. In a speech addressed to the UN General Assembly Netanyahu physically drew a red line on a diagram of a cartoon bomb under a divided section marked, “final stage” (Nichols 1). Netanyahu and other experts suggest that if uranium enrichment stockpiles remain at these levels or increase, Iran will be capable of nuclear weapons and sooner than expected. Netanyahu’s illustration for his speech approximates Iran is 90 percent along the way to the creation of nuclear weapons.
However, there are some philosophies and schools of thought which, when applied to the issue, are more likely to lead one to gain a more thorough understanding of why the action was unethical and should not have been committed. Among these are utilitarianism, Immanuel Kant’s Duty Theory, the definition of terrorism, the Just War Theory, and absolute pacifism. One of the most common philosophical justifications for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan is utilitarianism, arguing that using the nuclear weapons saved more lives in the long run and ultimately reduced the suffering of the greatest number of people. Those that follow this utilitarian rationale support their opinion by using the notion that if the United States had not dropped the bombs, they would have had to invade Japan, which would have resulted in many more American casualties. However, before dropping the bombs, General MacArthur had estimated that about 31,000 American casualties would occur by invading Japan, and calculated that even fewer American lives would be lost by continuing with conventional bombing on Japan and establishing a naval blockade, eventually forcing Japan’s surrender within six months (CSIS.org).
Does individual perception play role in how seriously the threat of global warming is taken by society? Technology is improving the lenght and the comfort of life, but also destroys cultures and hides other serious risks. Supporters of the western culture stress on environmental efforts, but they don’t think about the less ecological aspects of western civilisation, which is enthusiastically adopted by the developing societies even though it has many destructive effects. Droughts, floods, hunger, deseases – some of those are due to the global temperature increase over the last 100 years (about a half C-grade per decade). What about us?