NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm trying to drive home the impacts of Fossil Fuel pollution for a school debate. Is this stuff good?

Environment
Even if oil were renewable like solar or wind energy, it would remain extremley undesirable. The looming economic crisis is not the only problem oil has given us, as it is a well known offender against mother nature on multiple fronts. CO2, NOx, SO2 emmissions among others contribute to a plethora of devastating environmental castastrophies which expand in their scope by the year. A mind-boggling 23 billion tons of CO2 are emitted from fossil fuels each year, 45% from coal and 40% from oil. An average American family releases 56 tons of CO2 a year.

Oil refineries emit 58 million pounds of toxic air pollutants each year. These air pollutants go on to cause up to $55 billion in health damages each year (which doesn't show up on your electricity or gas bill). It provokes over 603,000 cases of athsma per year. It kills 70,000 Americans, and over 500,000 people around the world per year through air pollution. Another 2.8 million people die each year because of indoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels. Oil spills release about 1.14 million gallons of oil into our oceans each year. When the Exxon Valdez spill occured off the coast of Alaska, it spilled oil in amounts rivaling the size of the Aleutian Islands.

Fossil emmissions are the source of acid rain which deteriorates buildings and harms trees. Clean water has a pH level of 7.0, and thanks to fossil fuels, normal rain has a pH level of 5.5, and acid rain can get as bad as 4.3. Oil refineries use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for cooling and other processes, they then dump the polluted wastewater into our oceans and rivers. All told, a refinery produces 10,000 gallons of toxic waste in one form or another which can go on to cause cancer, health problems, pollution and damage to ecosystems. The havoc wreaked upon the environment in a majority of pollution issues around the world can be traced back to the use of fossil fuels and the world has much to gain by ceasing their use.

Anything I could add? Any holes? Thanks!

bump

the hole, Fossil Fuels are a lot easier to harvest/use than Wind or Solar energy

Maybe if we could condense these gases and burry them in a hole...

there is only one hole... The revamping of the industry would result in Millions of jobs lost. and Billions of Dollars to redefine and restructure the infrastructure to an alternative fuel.

Each vehicle needs to be replaced. Refineries would shut down as well as those large oil companies (resulting in millions of unemployed workers). Training and New equiptment (not to mention new facilities for these new energy sources) would need to be created/implemented. Mom and pop Gas Stations would fold under increasing the unemployment rate.

Then theres the public mindset. Electric cars don't move as fast. People will be fustrated at that. Giant Companies would resort to underhanded dealing to remain alive. (bribe officals, support FF initiatves.) OPEC would not stand for that. Any hint of moving away from FF and they'll probably jack up the prices leaving many dry untill the Billions are spent to get a new system in place and many small countries who rely on Oil Export would face economic desaster. Who knows how they'll respond to that.

there is only one hole... The revamping of the industry would result in Millions of jobs lost. and Billions of Dollars to redefine and restructure the infrastructure to an alternative fuel.

Nope. It would chage over gradually, maybe not cheaply. But It could be done, and people would have to make some lifestyle changes, which is why there is resistance.

Each vehicle needs to be replaced. Refineries would shut down as well as those large oil companies (resulting in millions of unemployed workers). Training and New equiptment (not to mention new facilities for these new energy sources) would need to be created/implemented. Mom and pop Gas Stations would fold under increasing the unemployment rate.

Then theres the public mindset. Electric cars don't move as fast. People will be fustrated at that. Giant Companies would resort to underhanded dealing to remain alive. (bribe officals, support FF initiatves.) OPEC would not stand for that. Any hint of moving away from FF and they'll probably jack up the prices leaving many dry untill the Billions are spent to get a new system in place and many small countries who rely on Oil Export would face economic desaster. Who knows how they'll respond to that.

Nope, biodiesel is a fuel made from old fry grease and will run in current diesel engines without any modifications. Biodiesel is actually better for the engine and causes very little polution.

Giant Companies already bribe officials and use underhanded tactics to remain alive. It's estimated that the actual cost of a gallon of gasoline is about $12.00 a gallon, if you factor in the costs of foriegn aid, military expenditures and tax and business concessions made by the government to subsidize the cost of fuel.

C'mon, don't try to get the poor kid in trouble? OK?;)

I'm trying to drive home the impacts of Fossil Fuel pollution for a school debate. Is this stuff good?

Environment
Even if oil were renewable like solar or wind energy, it would remain extremley undesirable. The looming economic crisis is not the only problem oil has given us, as it is a well known offender against mother nature on multiple fronts. CO2, NOx, SO2 emmissions among others contribute to a plethora of devastating environmental castastrophies which expand in their scope by the year. A mind-boggling 23 billion tons of CO2 are emitted from fossil fuels each year, 45% from coal and 40% from oil. An average American family releases 56 tons of CO2 a year.

Oil refineries emit 58 million pounds of toxic air pollutants each year. These air pollutants go on to cause up to $55 billion in health damages each year (which doesn't show up on your electricity or gas bill). It provokes over 603,000 cases of athsma per year. It kills 70,000 Americans, and over 500,000 people around the world per year through air pollution. Another 2.8 million people die each year because of indoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels. Oil spills release about 1.14 million gallons of oil into our oceans each year. When the Exxon Valdez spill occured off the coast of Alaska, it spilled oil in amounts rivaling the size of the Aleutian Islands.

Fossil emmissions are the source of acid rain which deteriorates buildings and harms trees. Clean water has a pH level of 7.0, and thanks to fossil fuels, normal rain has a pH level of 5.5, and acid rain can get as bad as 4.3. Oil refineries use hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for cooling and other processes, they then dump the polluted wastewater into our oceans and rivers. All told, a refinery produces 10,000 gallons of toxic waste in one form or another which can go on to cause cancer, health problems, pollution and damage to ecosystems. The havoc wreaked upon the environment in a majority of pollution issues around the world can be traced back to the use of fossil fuels and the world has much to gain by ceasing their use.

Anything I could add? Any holes? Thanks!

Try these. You're a good writer and I'm sure you'll be able to find some juicy tidbits for your report.

www.oilcrisis.org (http://www.oilcrisis.org/)

http://www.carfree.com/

http://www.seen.org/

Good luck!! Tell us how you do!! :D

C'mon, don't try to get the poor kid in trouble? OK?;)
I'm not trying to... I'm trying to protect him, those guys don't play fair. Those Oil conglomerates are always watc...

[CONNECTION TERMINATED]

Then theres the public mindset. Electric cars don't move as fast. People will be fustrated at that. Giant Companies would resort to underhanded dealing to remain alive. (bribe officals, support FF initiatves.) OPEC would not stand for that. Any hint of moving away from FF and they'll probably jack up the prices leaving many dry untill the Billions are spent to get a new system in place and many small countries who rely on Oil Export would face economic desaster. Who knows how they'll respond to that.


Actually that is incorrect. Electric motors deliver all their torque instantly and uniformly unlike an internal combustion engine. They can also produce far more horsepower per given weight and size of engine.

If you are a good writer/debater you can make anythimg sound reasonable, and you seem to be pretty decent. Maybe add a good strong introduction to the matter (a true intro has a strong thesis statement and does not begin to argue points) and ironed out a few rough spots with wording ( ex: your first sentence almost seems to be addressing a previous statement, it should stand easily and strongly on it's own). Overall very good. Nice strong statements, and facts to back them up. You said it was a debate, right? Be prepared t ocounter anything they may come up with, and remember, you don't have to make your opponent look bad or seem wrong. They can look as good as they want as long as you look better. Remebering this helps maintain a civil, reasonable and creditable debate enviorment.

Actually that is incorrect. Electric motors deliver all their torque instantly and uniformly unlike an internal combustion engine. They can also produce far more horsepower per given weight and size of engine.

How do the size and weight of a battery compare to that of a gasoline fuel tank? I'm just curious; I imagine that it could be a large part of the issue.

If you are a good writer/debater you can make anythimg sound reasonable, and you seem to be pretty decent. Maybe add a good strong introduction to the matter (a true intro has a strong thesis statement and does not begin to argue points) and ironed out a few rough spots with wording ( ex: your first sentence almost seems to be addressing a previous statement, it should stand easily and strongly on it's own). Overall very good. Nice strong statements, and facts to back them up. You said it was a debate, right? Be prepared t ocounter anything they may come up with, and remember, you don't have to make your opponent look bad or seem wrong. They can look as good as they want as long as you look better. Remebering this helps maintain a civil, reasonable and creditable debate enviorment.

Actually it is in fact a middle part of my argument. I do have an introduction of sorts and I make some other arguments before coming to pollution.

How about this. If you were against me, how would you respond to my pollution argument?

I like really, really, want to try my best to tear the opposition to shreads.

How do the size and weight of a battery compare to that of a gasoline fuel tank? I'm just curious; I imagine that it could be a large part of the issue.

It is. Batteries for an electric car are huge, many, and expensive. They add about 10 cents per mile to the cost of the car.

Actually it is in fact a middle part of my argument. I do have an introduction of sorts and I make some other arguments before coming to pollution.

How about this. If you were against me, how would you respond to my pollution argument?

I like really, really, want to try my best to tear the opposition to shreads.

1) The most obvious thing they will come against you with, has already been highlighted - which is the current mindset, and the economy.

People don't like change, and they don't like paying for anything - so expect your fellow debators to pick you up on "how difficult it would be", "how much it would cost", etc.

If you can find a little data about some of the 'not-quite fossil fuel' car technologies (Biodeisel, ethanol kits, etc.) you can be ready to offset some of that, and 'Hybrids' are already approaching a transition model between Fossil and non-Fossil fuels.

2) Not all the polution is Oil pollution - reading your points at the moment, it looks like you are trying to argue that oil makes pollutants (true) and that those oil pollutants then go on to ruin the environment (Also true), but it looks like you are missing the fact that there are many other industrial processes out there that are ALSO contributing pollutants.

You might want to be ready to cover that hole... No, Oil isn't the ONLY polluter, but it is a considerable contributor, and it would still be in the public interest to limit such emission.


On the subject of what else you could put in about fossil fuels - you could point out that Leaded fuels caused brain-damage, and they have now been replaced with Unleaded fuels which (you might want to look this up, they might have changed) generate benzene byproducts - which cause cancer.

1) The most obvious thing they will come against you with, has already been highlighted - which is the current mindset, and the economy.

People don't like change, and they don't like paying for anything - so expect your fellow debators to pick you up on "how difficult it would be", "how much it would cost", etc.

Yeah. I have some economic arguments, the most significant of which is peak oil, and how our prices will skyrocket. In fact, I'll get that part of the argument and post it up in a bit.


2) Not all the polution is Oil pollution - reading your points at the moment, it looks like you are trying to argue that oil makes pollutants (true) and that those oil pollutants then go on to ruin the environment (Also true), but it looks like you are missing the fact that there are many other industrial processes out there that are ALSO contributing pollutants.

You might want to be ready to cover that hole... No, Oil isn't the ONLY polluter, but it is a considerable contributor, and it would still be in the public interest to limit such emission.
Acknowledged.


On the subject of what else you could put in about fossil fuels - you could point out that Leaded fuels caused brain-damage, and they have now been replaced with Unleaded fuels which (you might want to look this up, they might have changed) generate benzene byproducts - which cause cancer.
Yeah stuff like that is what I really want.. all the different ways in which it pollutes, global warming consequences, etc. I heard that they have something on how emmissions could be stopped entirely with new filtering & refining technologies, but I don't think it's significant.

The Concern with Fossil Fuels.
Renewable natural energies such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power are 'alternative energies'. You may hear of organizations such as Greenpeace or Sierra calling for use of an 'alternative energy.' Often in Congress there are bills trying to expand the implementation of alternative energy, or there is talk in the news or even perhaps among people you know, about trying to utilize alternative energies. Alternate energy is simply a non-fossil fuel energy. But why do we need an alternative energy? Fossil fuels are used for 90% of the world's electrical energy, and while there have been benefits, there have also been dire consequences, and it is those consequences that have inspired the alternative energy movement, and drives it on to this very day.

Oil Peak
The single most significant problem facing fossil fuels today is the prospect of running out of them entirely. This is not a bogus fringe theory; it is a fact; fossil fuels are running out. They are a finite energy, and like all finite resources, they follow the rules of Hubbert's Curve.

(Diagram.)

The rules are that (1.) Production starts at zero. (2.) Production rises to a peak that can never be surpassed. (3.) Production goes down until resource is depleted. Even this might not be a problem, were it not for the fact that "peak"oil, in itself will have devastatingly damaging impacts on society, and is coming much sooner than the actual depletion of our fossil fuel supply. This is because even when the peak for oil comes and production goes down, demand is going to continue to go up. The world oil demand is expected to grow by 50% to 121 million barrels daily by 2030. The hardships will not start when oil has run out, but when its production starts to decline.

(Diagram)

To illustrate the effects this would have on the economy, consider the rising price of gasoline today, and how it has coincided with recent economic hardships. For the first time ever, we had barrels of oil being priced over $50 and gas being sold for $2.00 a gallon. This is not a random coincidence. Oil output has always had strong effects on the economy and no matter what energy we use, its effects on the world will be powerfull, and felt by everyone. Perhaps the most powerful example of oil influencing the economy is the 1973 OPEC oil embargo against the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. The effects of this were immedeate and devastating: rationing had to be implemented; cars with license plates ending in even numbers could fuel up on gas during even days of the month, odd numbers during odd days of the month. Recession and inflation occured. The NYSE lost $97 billion over six weeks. The value of the dollar fell 8% in relation to gold. The price of a barrel of oil quadrupled to $12. Gas prices jumped up by 31%. Schools and offices were closed, to save the costs of heating oil. Factories cut production and fired workers. Even after the embargo was lifted, the effects were felt in the years afterward.

And again in 1979, after the Iranian Revolution, there was an energy and economic crisis resulting from the shortage of oil. The output of the economy is intimatley tied with the production of its energy source.

(Diagram: Oil, GDP)

Now that these ties have been firmly established, imagine placing the Hubbert Curve on the graph above, representing the line for oil production. Estimate for yourself where the GDP line goes, and then for reference, look at the effects of the 1970's recessions, but imagine them with much more severe consequences, and no prospects for rebounding unless major alternative energies are developed. This is the economic crisis that is ahead of us, that we have been lead to by dependence on the finite resource of oil. It is critical that we come up with a viable alternative energy before the major crisis takes effect, because if we continued at the current pace, the American way of life as we know it would be gone, within our own lifetimes. And this is without even considering what will happen to less fortunate third world countries that have trouble meeting their energy needs as it is, and are without the economic 'muscle' to look after their interests in the same way as the United States.The International Energy Agency accepts that this peak will come some time between 2015 and 2033. Some groups, such as the ASPO, say this day will come as early as 2008! The United States passed its oil peak as a country in the 1970's.

One question... are you a College student or working professional? (I need information for illustration.)

One question... are you a College student or working professional? (I need information for illustration.)

Oh, lol. Senior in Highschool actually.

There are some hydrogen powered busses that seem to be running well, as a part of development program of sorts...in case you are interested...

Give a balanced positive/negative view.

Don't just tell your audience how bad oil is, or even just how much better than oil renewable resources are.

Tell you audience about the positives that renewable resources have without referance to oil.

Give a positive message, one that your audience will *want* to listen to.

There are some hydrogen powered busses that seem to be running well, as a part of development program of sorts...in case you are interested...and the cost to keep these buses running... on the companies viewpoint?

Oh, lol. Senior in Highschool actually.Ok... now the thing is... your plan is desirable... nothing wrong with the goal... the problem is the fesability of carrying out the change.

Think of College... you researched the cost of college including books. You start College... buy the books... take the courses... and just when you pass the halfway point... the DOE and all the educators discover a technology that will improve learning, and make it available on a volunteer baisis.

The catch... You need new supplies(new car), new facilities to house this technology(autoshops/dealers who can repair your new car, and the equiptment to keep your car running, plus the facility to mix this new mixture). Most of the courses you took, you'll need to retake(for those who do their own maintenance... they gotta start all over). Teachers need to learn how to use this technology so while they're training(The repair tech who actually fix the car.), the University Hires instructers who already know how to use this technology (consultants, traininers or even Mechanics who already Know and stand a great chance of becoming Full time Employees). Now to pay for the increase costs for this highly Effective technology... supplies (Car) need to have their prices raised. The cost of the buildings... training of the instructors as well as the pay/benefits of these temp instuctors... plus the equiptment themselves mean Highter Tuition. (add on to the price of the car... and to your insurance because of the scarcity of adequte repair shops, and the cost of repairs.)

Your Scholorship (Auto Insurance) won't cover these increases... so you need to pay out of your own pocket... the benefits... More Knowldge and a guarenteed higher starting salary in whatever field you study.

The down side... your college costs triple... or you just cannot afford it... but pray you can before the method used on you is termed outdated and inadequate.

Would you volunteer?

Concurent (parallel) deployment of this new technology? slow and those who are late switching over... loose their customer base... while those who switch earlier... also take a hit on their customers. Current professionals need to learn while doing. and that gets confusing. and small businesses will be slowly choaked out of business. (imagine you buying twice the supplies and taking two classes on the same subject.)

The solution... Gov. subsidy... but all the oil companies who like things the way they are will pull their support out... putting a strain on the taxbearers. or for those who are pioneering this method take a chance that if the technology fails, they loose everything.

Nothing wrong with getting rid of Pollutants. I'm not against that... the problem is, that it's not as simple as changing the fuel. You need to change the Economics plus the mindset of the people. In other words, make it sound cheaper as well as better without the red flags. (raising taxes)

and the cost to keep these buses running... on the companies viewpoint?

Don't know...what is the cost of the search for a cure for cancer? Will it ever pay off?

Don't know...what is the cost of the search for a cure for cancer? Will it ever pay off?The problem with moving away from Fossil Fuels is that it's not feasably desireable. Not everyone has cancer... but everyone uses Fossil Fuels. How will you convince them to switch to a More Expensive and inconvient system that is actually better in the long run (not the short term) than what they have now?

and even if fossil fuels are removed completely... Money will still need to be spent on Cancer research.

Free market pressures are already prompting research and gradual change. If we get the government involved to force an unnatural transition we will just end up with a more expensive and less functional system.

It really doesn't matter, since one day oil will run out save for the synthetic stuff made from coal. Which will be way too little. For which you will trade your car and be praised for your good dealing skillz. The change really depends on when the world starts changing. If you start now, it will cost lots of money and will slow down everything slightly. If you change when the Great Underground Barrel is drying out, the world will lock up for a time, then with even greater costs switch to alternative energy.

Free market pressures are already prompting research and gradual change. If we get the government involved to force an unnatural transition we will just end up with a more expensive and less functional system.and less desirable... Can you imagine the people here praising Bush should he accelerate the process?

Which is why it has to be done very carefully. Move too fast and the prices jump. Move too slow and you make no progress at all.

and less desirable... Can you imagine the people here praising Bush should he accelerate the process?

Which is why it has to be done very carefully. Move too fast and the prices jump. Move too slow and you make no progress at all.

I wouldn't be praising him. The free market will handle it best, as usual.

Ok... now the thing is... your plan is desirable... nothing wrong with the goal... the problem is the fesability of carrying out the change.

Think of College... you researched the cost of college including books. You start College... buy the books... take the courses... and just when you pass the halfway point... the DOE and all the educators discover a technology that will improve learning, and make it available on a volunteer baisis.

The catch... You need new supplies(new car), new facilities to house this technology(autoshops/dealers who can repair your new car, and the equiptment to keep your car running, plus the facility to mix this new mixture). Most of the courses you took, you'll need to retake(for those who do their own maintenance... they gotta start all over). Teachers need to learn how to use this technology so while they're training(The repair tech who actually fix the car.), the University Hires instructers who already know how to use this technology (consultants, traininers or even Mechanics who already Know and stand a great chance of becoming Full time Employees). Now to pay for the increase costs for this highly Effective technology... supplies (Car) need to have their prices raised. The cost of the buildings... training of the instructors as well as the pay/benefits of these temp instuctors... plus the equiptment themselves mean Highter Tuition. (add on to the price of the car... and to your insurance because of the scarcity of adequte repair shops, and the cost of repairs.)

Your Scholorship (Auto Insurance) won't cover these increases... so you need to pay out of your own pocket... the benefits... More Knowldge and a guarenteed higher starting salary in whatever field you study.

The down side... your college costs triple... or you just cannot afford it... but pray you can before the method used on you is termed outdated and inadequate.

Would you volunteer?

Concurent (parallel) deployment of this new technology? slow and those who are late switching over... loose their customer base... while those who switch earlier... also take a hit on their customers. Current professionals need to learn while doing. and that gets confusing. and small businesses will be slowly choaked out of business. (imagine you buying twice the supplies and taking two classes on the same subject.)

The solution... Gov. subsidy... but all the oil companies who like things the way they are will pull their support out... putting a strain on the taxbearers. or for those who are pioneering this method take a chance that if the technology fails, they loose everything.

Nothing wrong with getting rid of Pollutants. I'm not against that... the problem is, that it's not as simple as changing the fuel. You need to change the Economics plus the mindset of the people. In other words, make it sound cheaper as well as better without the red flags. (raising taxes)

All of which is largely irrelevent to the 'average' American consumer, since the 'average' family trades out their cars on a very short life-cycle.

Which means, if the average family owns two cars, and trades a car in after two years, you can EASILY accomodate a painless transition (for the AVERAGE family), if you institute it over 5 years.

If you institute it over 20 years, and just make more alternative fuel stations, and slowly decrease oil supply over the same period - you can easily create a painless transition for the vast majority of American drivers.

Even industry trades out most of it's vehicles on a much shorter life-cycle than 20 years.

Think of College... you researched the cost of college including books. You start College... buy the books... take the courses... and just when you pass the halfway point... the DOE and all the educators discover a technology that will improve learning, and make it available on a volunteer baisis.

The catch... You need new supplies(new car), new facilities to house this technology(autoshops/dealers who can repair your new car, and the equiptment to keep your car running, plus the facility to mix this new mixture). Most of the courses you took, you'll need to retake(for those who do their own maintenance... they gotta start all over). Teachers need to learn how to use this technology so while they're training(The repair tech who actually fix the car.), the University Hires instructers who already know how to use this technology (consultants, traininers or even Mechanics who already Know and stand a great chance of becoming Full time Employees). Now to pay for the increase costs for this highly Effective technology... supplies (Car) need to have their prices raised. The cost of the buildings... training of the instructors as well as the pay/benefits of these temp instuctors... plus the equiptment themselves mean Highter Tuition. (add on to the price of the car... and to your insurance because of the scarcity of adequte repair shops, and the cost of repairs.)

Your Scholorship (Auto Insurance) won't cover these increases... so you need to pay out of your own pocket... the benefits... More Knowldge and a guarenteed higher starting salary in whatever field you study.

The down side... your college costs triple... or you just cannot afford it... but pray you can before the method used on you is termed outdated and inadequate.

Would you volunteer?

Concurent (parallel) deployment of this new technology? slow and those who are late switching over... loose their customer base... while those who switch earlier... also take a hit on their customers. Current professionals need to learn while doing. and that gets confusing. and small businesses will be slowly choaked out of business. (imagine you buying twice the supplies and taking two classes on the same subject.)

The solution... Gov. subsidy... but all the oil companies who like things the way they are will pull their support out... putting a strain on the taxbearers. or for those who are pioneering this method take a chance that if the technology fails, they loose everything.


I still think that the most convincing economical argument is that we are saving a lot of money by developing our alternatives now rather than having our hand forced for us by nature. The gov. could easily re-allocate some of its spending. For instance the $100,000 SUV loophole could go torward hybrids, etc. The government gives over 150 billion in R&D to alternative energies, but of that, 96.6% is torward nuclear which as well has serious problems facing it.

I think with your college example, if I found out that what I was learning was not going to be usefull in the future, I could still continue with my same old classes and it'd be cheaper, but I'd have no job in the future. It might be more expensive to change my classes and all, but in the end THAT is going to leave me better off financially, because I'll actually have a job.

At the worst, we are going to get struck by the oil peak, and then the alternatives will be more economical regardless of whether they were developed well or not. But to best avoid having our hand forced for us, we need gov reallocation of money to develop the programs now to make them affordable as soon as possible.

I wouldn't be praising him. The free market will handle it best, as usual.

The free market does not think of tomorrow.

I still think that the most convincing economical argument is that we are saving a lot of money by developing our alternatives now rather than having our hand forced for us by nature. The gov. could easily re-allocate some of its spending. For instance the $100,000 SUV loophole could go torward hybrids, etc. The government gives over 150 billion in R&D to alternative energies, but of that, 96.6% is torward nuclear which as well has serious problems facing it.

I think with your college example, if I found out that what I was learning was not going to be usefull in the future, I could still continue with my same old classes and it'd be cheaper, but I'd have no job in the future. It might be more expensive to change my classes and all, but in the end THAT is going to leave me better off financially, because I'll actually have a job.

At the worst, we are going to get struck by the oil peak, and then the alternatives will be more economical regardless of whether they were developed well or not. But to best avoid having our hand forced for us, we need gov reallocation of money to develop the programs now to make them affordable as soon as possible.right... but not everyone can afford the switch. move funds and people will complain that there are more important things to fund... like Cancer Research... or Deficit Shrinking... Grave_n_idle's point is what is happening now. First the companies slowly alter the fuel. They've been putting additve in it for years now.

Now one company came out with a Hybred car... Half electric, Half gas. In 20 years, we may finally be weened away from Fossil fuels... but it will take time.

And while the Average family does switch cars every 5 or so years, (it's suppose to be 3 but people don't always follow what they are suppose to do) by slowly making hybreds and alternate fuel vehicles common... they will switch... the thing is... you got to convince them that this switching fuels is actually their Idea.

Again.. I'm not against moving away from fossil Fuels... I just don't want the people to screw it up because they get over excited about it.

Right. The real answer is not abandoning oil instantly and altogether, but for a transformation. Hybrid cars, grid connected solar, etc.

Right. The real answer is not abandoning oil instantly and altogether, but for a transformation. Hybrid cars, grid connected solar, etc.and do it in a way where nOPEC won't realize what we are doing until it's too late.

The free market does not think of tomorrow.

Are you kidding, the free market is always thinking of tomorrow. As oil gets increasingly scarce there will be a huge market opening up for the next reliable energy distribution and utilization technology. The free market will be there working hard to get the consumer the best possible product possible and at the best price. Government on the other hand will be inefficiently squandering tax payer dollars on whatever happens to be the politically expedient solution that the politicians are pushing.

Oil refineries emit 58 million pounds of toxic air pollutants each year. These air pollutants go on to cause up to $55 billion in health damages each year (which doesn't show up on your electricity or gas bill). It provokes over 603,000 cases of athsma per year. It kills 70,000 Americans, and over 500,000 people around the world per year through air pollution. Another 2.8 million people die each year because of indoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels. Oil spills release about 1.14 million gallons of oil into our oceans each year. When the Exxon Valdez spill occured off the coast of Alaska, it spilled oil in amounts rivaling the size of the Aleutian Islands.



Beyond your complete lack of sources for your assumptions, you also fail to include anything as a point of reference. Unless your teacher is your source, biased enough to buy into the numbers without question, or simply allows lazy work you need to expand on all of those.
Her is a link to something helpful:
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year "
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
So then, what is the ration of CO2 to natural emissions? What other components of pollution also occur naturally? What is the current ratio in the US of these?

You may also want to expand on your definition of 'indoor air pollution caused by fossil fuels' since most fossile fuels (in fact all) typically are used or exhausted outdoors.

You may also want to use a more specific comparison to the Valdez. Comparable in size to the Aleutian Islands by mass? volume? surface area? dimension? A different suggestion would be to determine how full the nearest major sports arena would have been if filled with the oil lost by the Valdez. (yes it will require some of math, you want an 'A' or not?)

edit - just noticed this is for a debate class. I thought it was geography or poly sci. - my bad. For a debate you got the easy side. IMHO the easy side is not where an 'A' is won. You get to stand out when you look at a problem throough new perspective. That is how you catch the opposition of guard. Go where they are not prepared for you to go. Be well documented. EXPECT them to go where you are not prepared to go. ALWAYS reference your sources and insist your opposition do the same. Since this is high-school level that is about all it will take to clobber your opponent.

It would be useful to know not just your argument, but also the position assigned to the opposition. Are they to argue that fossile fuels have no pollution? That is nonsense. Are they to argue about it's impact on the environment? It's cost to consumers? Knowing your argument is secondary to anticipating theirs if you want to win a debate. If you can anticipate theirs then you can set traps! Weeee!

Actually that is incorrect. Electric motors deliver all their torque instantly and uniformly unlike an internal combustion engine. They can also produce far more horsepower per given weight and size of engine.
That is possible, if you don't mind a 10 mile drive radius. For now petroleum has the best energy packaging per lb within reasonable safety limits compared to other options.

I for one have always supported renewable energy cars - particularly solar and electric derived from solar (recharged usually). They have, I think, the best chance over time since the ongoing cost to operate is virtually zero. Quite a bit more competitive than fossil fuels over time. By virtue of the sales of low power economy cars I suspect I am not alone in this observation and opinion.

Elecric cars for this purpose would have limited range (no further than the batteries will take you from the charge) but then, many people never go more than 25 miles from home in a day anyway. It would be most practical as a second car. Due to the cost of solar rechargers it would be costly at first, then amortizes over time.

The free market does not think of tomorrow.
LOL better tell that to all the R+D departments out there.

Clean water has a pH level of 7.0, and thanks to fossil fuels, normal rain has a pH level of 5.5, and acid rain can get as bad as 4.3.

Only problem I have with this, is: Neutral water sitting around room temp (20-25 C) has a pH of 7.0 . As the temperature increases, the neutral pH point decreases, and as the temperature decreases the neutral pH point increases (dissociation of water into H and OH ions increases with increases temp therefore the decrease in pH at neutral point). Also Rain water is slight acidic normally, even beyond effects of pollution (I believe a bit higher than 5.5 but I don;t have the number in my head). And most fresh ground water whether it is clean or not, is not at a neutral pH. It will leach minerals from the soil and typically is found to sit in a range of approx. 5-9, not at a pH of 7 as you appear to be claiming (the pH range is including adjustments for temperature for a comparable scale).

combusion engins in cars are only 40% efficient..electic motors can be over 80% efficient- and its clean