Facts Predicting consequences
Examples
Authority
Answer the opposition
Facts Predicting consequences
Examples
Authority
Answer the opposition
Many fossil fuel producing companies have the benefit of not having to pay for most of the harm they cause to public and environmental health. If they did, it could cost billions per year, thus making investment in renewable energy resources much more appealing. Renewable energy sources of course, have fewer harmful byproducts and typically do not cause the same kind of atmospheric issues that fossil fuels and other nonrenewable sources do. The government should strive to promote more environmentally friendly energy sources, along with subsidies to encourage a further effort.
With a constantly progressing technological society, change is often the key for advancement. All of the burning of fossil fuels and consumption of other nonrenewable resources only speed up the downfall to our environment. In order to enjoy healthy living without hurting the earth, there is a much needed call for change. The United States society needs to veer away from harmful resources, and work towards the effort to build a more efficient way of gaining energy. Renewable resources also grow faster (EIA) than things like nuclear power, liquefied natural gas, and oil refinery, which (Was. Times) only cause harm and pollution to the atmosphere.
In a poll from UNF of 1,089 participants, 78.3 percent of people said they believe the government doesn’t spend enough on the development of renewable and alternative resources (The Florida Times Union), like solar, wind, and hydrogen power. For example, hydrogen provides a clean non-polluting powers source, “an essentially unlimited supply and a secure future for generations to come” (Was. Times). Although it may be expensive at first to place a stage for using alternative resources, eventually, subsidies
