A Shift in Power: Argument Essay

A Shift in Power
Offshore oil drilling in the United States is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The rate in which our planet is consuming this nonrenewable energy source will soon become a global issue. Oil, a finite resource, originally seen as abundant, reasonably priced, readily available and reliable worldwide was the answer to the global energy consumption until cost of exporting this energy skyrocketed. Being that this country is dependent on foreign oil reserves, isolating the issue is not a solution anymore. Domestic offshore drilling investigation, suggests there is enough oil for this country to work off of for five years and this is a generous estimation at that. A resolution to this problem is for the government and other officials to focus more on renewable, “clean” energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen power. Offshore oil drilling is responsible for the ongoing debate of the environment versus the economy; the production of other renewable energy sources will allow this country to shift towards the reduction of global warming and increasing “clean” energy. In this essay, I will examine particular renewable energy resources such as wind, biomass, solar and hydroelectrical power, that will provide for a more effective, obtainable and sustainable use of energy for the United States. Along with the examination of these sources, I will identify how oil companies could focus their expenses and investments of alternative energy sources and I will identify what parts of the country benefit and produce each specific energy source.
Improvement in technology has allowed for the removal of harmful emissions released into the atmosphere and other damaging effects from exploitation of nonrenewable energy sources. Infinite, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydroelectric power all have their own specific flaws but all are beneficial in providing cleaner, more efficient energy. All four resources are naturally occurring; therefore sustainability of the environment is upheld.
Currently, hydroelectric power is the most advanced source of renewable energy, with a one-fifth accountability rate for electrical production (Electricity Generation, p. 1654). Hydro electrical power is separated into three separate categories: tidal, wave and geothermal electricity. The basic elements of this source of energy is precipitation (rain and snow) which run generators, where electricity is produced. Tidal energy involves movement in the ocean, where either a barrier or a tidal mill is placed in the ocean that connects to generators onshore. Wave energy is broken into shoreline, nearshore and offshore devices that extracts wave flow and converts this flow into energy. Geothermal energy is the last type of hydroelectric power source. This energy reuses heat from the Earth, specifically in hot dry rock, magma and geopressured thermal energy. This heat is pulled to the surface by thermal transmission and from the Earth’s crust where molten magma is found. Hot water and steam provide production of electricity while pumps regulate temperature and flow. Geothermal power is the main source of heat control in my parents newly built house; this type of energy is the most advanced, cost efficient and clean source of electrical energy that cools and heats a house.
Solar energy consists of radiation from the sun throughout the year. The sun provides the largest resource; Lewis and Nocera examine currently consumption levels reporting that, “More energy from sunlight strikes the earth in 1 hour than all the energy currently consumed on the planet in one year” (Powering the Planet, p. 15730). Solar panels capture and accumulate radiation; the Sun’s rays are directly converted into electricity due to solar cells, which is known as active heating systems. The assumed consumption of energy sources are dependent on the exact levels that vary depending on efficiency of production and consumption (p. 15730). Whittington reports, “Conversion efficiencies are over 24%” (Electricity Generation, p. 1665). In sunnier areas in the world, space-heating needs are met annually. Cloudier and colder climates still benefit from solar energy, due to the ability to accumulate and capture low angle sun-rays. This is made possible as low temperatures provide a higher demand for heat, therefore, the storing processes is increased.
Wind energy consists of the Earth’s wind, which is the result of the planet’s surface by the sun, pressure and force along with the rotation of the Earth creates wind. Wind turbines regulate the force and conservation of the energy, therefore, the placement of this tool is highly researched for increased potential. Restrictions of turbines include environmentally sensitive areas such as farm areas, national scenic areas, green belt and areas of archaeological interest and in areas of nature conservance importance, including special protection areas and national and local nature preserves (Electricity Generation, p. 1658). Assemblage and proximity require specific restrictions of building these turbines.
Lastly, biomass or solid waste energy production is a short term generator that sources from waste, landfills gas, sewage gas and agriculture deposits. High volume of methane along with a gaseous mixture provides biogas for heating and electricity production. Both carbon dioxide and methane already exist in landfills therefore anaerobic digestion, the production of biogas, is considered to have less pernicious effects on the environment. Limitations of anaerobic digestion depends on the local laws with tightened restrictions in the past couple years. Whittington explores efficiency rates at 26% for gas turbines and increasingly 42% for dual-fuel engines (Electricty Generation, p. 1658).
Declared net capacity or DNC is the measure of contribution of a power station and the overall capacity of a distribution, basically this measures the lost energy accountable when converting the energy. Hydroelectricity, waste, and biomass tie for first with 1.0, wind is at .43, following closely with tidal and wave at .33, and lastly solar energy at .17. (Electricity Generation, p. 1658). This is a major determiner when choosing an energy source because the lower the number the less amount of energy is being converted due to the high amount of energy it takes to run the plant.
All four energy resources compete with other sources on a national grid system and detailed economic level analysis. Determining the operation that corresponds best in the trading method by which energy will be sold, where it will be sold and to whom it will be sold to is important in the overall process.
Defining where each specific energy source is more commonly found is important when considering the opportunities and placement of each source. Obviously, certain locations in the United States do not provide the right needs for each type of power; identifying locations of specific power potentials will characterize the benefits of each type of energy.
Hydroelectric power plants are specified by calculated values of hydraulic head, stream flow rate and power potential. Each plant was chosen in different areas of the country because they are run-of-river projects, implies that the flow of water is constant and equal to the river flow rate in that area. The dams are located downstream and reasonably close to the plant itself. Conowingo, Weiss Dam, Ft. Peck and Keswick dam are the four largest dams in the United States. In order of the dams the state location is Maryland, Alabama, Montana and California, all different regions in the United States (Energy Effieciency & Renewable Energy).
Efficiency of solar resources is seen more in the southwestern states, where the sun is hotter and the location is closer to the equator. Solar cells consume direct sunlight; therefore the higher concentration of sunlight on a regular day-to-day basis provides more energy power. Power towers, Concentrating Solar Power’s (CSP) and parabolic troughs are the three technologies used that are fairly low cost and the ability to distribute power during peak periods of demand are highly developed in all three technologies. Indicators of geothermal energy are areas of water like lakes, rivers, etc. with temperatures hotter than 50 degrees Celsius. Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming are the twelve states in which geothermal energy is used most (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy).
As of 2009, the highest wind capacity for turbines is located in Texas, followed closely is Iowa, California, Washington and Oregon. The distribution of biomass is separated by wood resources and residues, agricultural and wood residues, agricultural residues and low inventory (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy).
Biomass energy is located mostly in wooded resources and residues, biomass resources are mostly located in eastern and southern states and Alaska. Biomass energy is also found in any landfill and area with high methane content (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy).
The transformation of oil, a nonrenewable energy source to a renewable energy sources, is not as easy as it sounds. Thomas Boone Pickens, also known as T. Boone Pickens, is an American financier and CEO of BP Capital Management, he created Mesa Petroleum and is the largest shareholder in Clean Energy, the largest provider of vehicular and natural gas (CNG and LNG) in North America. Pickens is a prime example proving it is possible to convert from oil to renewable energy sources. Pickens, a multimillionaire, turns his focus towards oil independency through natural gas, in July 2008. His argument primarily focuses on creating millions of new jobs for Americans and utilizing America’s natural gas thus replacing imported oil. Pickens Plan in ten years will replace one-third of our foreign oil imports through building new wind generation facilities, conserving energy and increasing the use of our natural gas (Pickens Plan). If a man who made all of his money from basically running the oil industry, recognizes this country is in a foreign oil dependency crisis, at an economical standpoint, then who says we as a country cannot slowly end this addiction of foreign oil and move towards a more economical and environmentally sound society.
References:
Energy efficiency and renewable sources. United States Department of Energy (2010, February 22). Retrieved from http://www.eere.energy.gov/
Lewis, N.S., & Nocera, D.G. (2006). Powering the planet: chemical challenges in solar energy utilization [Vol. 103, p. 15729-15735]. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/stable/30052048?&Search=yes&term=source&term=power&term=solar&term=energy&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dsolar%2Bpower%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Denergy%2Bsource%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=10&ttl=8855&returnArticleService=showArticle
Methodologies: conversion factors. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.restats.org.uk/methodologies.htm
Pickensplan. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.pickensplan.com
T. boone pickens his life. his legacy. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.boonepickens.com/default.asp
Whittington, H.W. (2002). Electricity generation: options for reduction in carbon emissions [Vol. 360, pp.1653-1668]. (Electronic version), Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.ohiou.edu/stable/3066583?seq=11&Search=yes&term=power&term=solar&term=efficiency&term=energy&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2528%2528energy%2Befficiency%2529%2BAND%2B%2528solar%2Bpower%2529%2529%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3D%2528%2528energy%2Befficiency%2529%2BAND%2B%2528renewable%2Bresources%2529%2529%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=13&ttl=4798&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle

Offshore Oil Drilling Outline

Offshore Oil Drilling Essay Outline
I. Introduction
a. Thesis: Examining the effects of offshore oil drilling will justify the benefits and the doubts of this new energy resource because comparing both sides of the issue validates the effects on the economy, the environment and to America.
II. Pro
a. Government
i. Former President Bush, lift’s bill on offshore oil drilling as true dangers are defined
ii. Offshore oil drilling substitutes 10 percent of imported oil; 900,000 barrels per day
b. Job Market
i. Provides approximately 5.5 jobs for each $1 million dollars invested
ii. Lowers cost of oil
c. Environment
i. Oil importing has 13 times greater chance of spills
ii. Tanker spills are higher than platform spills
d. Reliability
i. Increasing exploration and research would decrease reliability of foreign oil imports
ii. What will the United States do when these foreign sources go dry?
iii. Strategizing for newer infinite energy resources
iv. New development in technology could lead to alternative, efficient energy sources
III. Con
a. Environment
i. Seismic waves, technology used in exploration of sites, causes harm to marine life and whale beaching.
b. Chemicals/ Toxins
i. Elements of mercury is increased in fish due to chemicals and toxins being released throughout the oil drilling process
ii. Trace amounts are deadly to marine life
c. Energy Independence
i. 2.5% of the world’s oil is located in the United States
ii. U.S. is accountable for 24% of the world’s consumption of oil
iii. Offshore oil drilling will not provide a sufficient amount of oil for this country to become completely independent.
1. Even if there is an indecency of oil, cost would not decrease (only 3 to 4 cents), which does not meet the needs of this economy.
d. Global warming
i. As a whole, high costs of oil may put pressure on society, but decreasing the cost is harming the environment more.
ii. Other infinite resources should be research to both save the economy and the environment.
IV. Conclusion
a. Furthering the research defines which is more beneficial for the economy, the environment and society.

References:
Kelly, Paul, L. "Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportunities and Future Challenges." Rowan Companies, Inc. 65-68. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .
"Should the U.S. Allow Offshore Oil Drilling?" Opposing Views. 2010. Opposing Views Inc., Web. 5 Feb 2010. .
"Learn the Facts About Drilling." National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2009. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .
Lefevre, Nicolas. "Measuring the Energy Security Implications of Fossil Fuel Resource Concentration." Energy Policy (2009): 1635-1644. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .
LoBianco, Tom. "Obama Blocks Offshore Oil Drilling: Cheaper Gas Gives President Wiggle Room." Washington Times 11 Jan 2009: n. page. Web. 11 Feb 2009. .
Nixon, Robin. "Oil Drilling: Risks and Rewards." Special to LiveScience. 25 June 2008. Web. 5 Feb 2010. .
"Pros and Cons: Drilling for Oil Off the Eastern Seaboard." The Heat Zone. 13 April 2009. The Heat Zone, Inc., Web. 3 Feb 2010. .
Tierney, John. "Offshore Drilling vs. Global Warming." New York Times (2008): n. page. Web. 5 Feb 2010.

FL pgs. 183-218

This section of the reading focuses on what consumers can actually do to change the food industry today. Joel Salatin took a risky perspective, challenging consumers to actually take an activist approach to food consumption. He had four basic arguments: learn to cook, buy locally, buy what’s in season and plant a garden. Salatin focused his essay on a broad audience, to all American’s who want to make a change in the food industry. As a vegetarian, I was a little offended as he used to example of a vegetarian not knowing how to cook a burger. That is a product of one individual, needless to say, that is not true for all vegetarians. A meat eater most likely does not know how to cook vegetarian meals like eggplant and tofu, that does not mean they are unintelligent and under educated.
Eating Made Simply by Marion Nestle focused on the debate of calorie intake, obesity, dieting, organics, etc. I found this essay very informative because it is cut and dry and gets straight to the point. Nestle debates the effects of increased obesity in children and the effects of diets and single nutrients leading to diseases and cancer. This essay is creditable because Nestle has a background in nutrition, food studies, and public health. I felt her essay tended to the readers emotions or logos because she provides specific facts. Instead of saying what consumers need to do to change the food industry, she implies this fact through her writing. She uses facts and statistics that makes the reader want to change their diet. I would place bets on how many more people are affected by Nestle’s essay over Salatin. Personally, I would rather not be told what to do, I would like to make my own decisions based on my own findings and Nestle’s essay tends to that logic.

FL post 2

So I’m not going to lie, before reading Food, Inc I didn’t really know that much about global warming. I knew that it was happening mainly from human causations like increased emissions being released from cars, airplanes, trains etc. but I did not realize livestock play a large role in global warming as well. Food, Inc. reports, “The global system produces and distributes food that accounts for roughly one-third of the human caused global warming effect. According to the United Nation’s seminal report, Livestock long Shadow, the livestock sector alone is responsible for eighteen percent of the world’s total global warming effect” (p. 106). I was never aware of the critical problem of livestock due that causes overgrazing and many other factors. Agriculture is responsible the release of nitrogen and methane which makes up for 70 percent of human-caused global warming effects. These gases are being overlooked by the government which is devastating because the effects these gases are causing are more substantial to our planet than mass production of meat, just so that American’s can be happy when they purchase there one dollar burger through the drive through that takes them no effort to receive.

The least thing a consumer can do to change their habits is go to local farmers markets and purchase fruits, vegetables and meat from local sellers. This would decrease mass production while helping your local community out. Living here this summer, I made a point to go to the local farmers market on east state and buy some fruits there. After buying those fruits, I never wanted to go to Kroger’s again. I realized how much better locally grown crops are because they are fresh and you know exactly where they came from.

FL assigment 1

The film Food, Inc., gave viewers the opportunity to learn more about the food production industry in the United States. As I watched the film, I came to conclusion there is a lot I do not know about the food industry today. When I saw what farmers were doing to induce mass production of livestock and produce, I was not at all shocked. Being that I am vegetarian, I know a little more than the next person the food industry, but I always questioned whether or not the statistics were expansions of the truth and I would decide between what was real and what was not. This movie exhibited cold, hard facts through interviews of multiple sources. I think what really hit home to me, was the story about the E.Coli epidemic, I was able to relate to this because my father almost died from the same cause. He was about the same age as the little boy, Kevin, when he also was poisoned by E.Coli. This segment of Food, Inc., took the food industry perspective on a whole new level. Knowing that these companies are doing little to nothing to compensate citizens for medical bills and other expenses from food borne illnesses’ makes me sick. Kevin’s story itself is a real tear-jerker but after showing pictures and clips of him as a happy, healthy child, there is no person in this world that could not be affected by this. The producers used this as a brilliant persuasive technique because its saying, if you are not affected by this, then you’re heartless. It makes the viewers become a part of the film, knowing that industrialized mass production is occurring throughout the United States is one thing, but seeing the story of a two year olds life being taken away due to greedy food production companies makes the viewer actually want to do something to change this.

Altogether, when comparing the pages 3-64 of the book to the film, I felt that the film does a greater job affecting ones ethical views due to the images that are in-graded in the viewers mind. The book, Film, Inc., goes into greater detail on trends, statistics and sources to further explore. At the beginning of each chapter, there is a different person speaking about the issue, which gives the book more credibility than the film, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, the film brings in many perspectives and resources, I just like how the book ties in many specialists on each individual topic. The book is a good supplement to the movie, allowing the reader a little background of the movie, itself.

Offshore Oil Drilling

New technology has presented the United States with the opportunity of offshore oil drilling throughout the country. The use of energy is growing at an exponential rate in the United States, which is also increasing the cost of obtaining the energy. The dependence of fossil fuels specifically oil and gas is extremely high in this country. The Middle East is accountable for 62% of the global oil reserves, therefore making the U.S. very dependent on these countries (Energy Policy). New technology has offered this country the chance of domestic oil production, specifically offshore oil drilling. The question is do the benefits overweigh the doubts? Will this drilling alternative allow the United States to detach from imported oil, if so will this provide an adequate amount of energy for this country, keeping in mind of the environment and global warming? What will domestic offshore drilling do the environment and for our pockets or is importing oil still the answer? There are implications residing both for the economy and the environment on this issue.

Former President Bush re-evaluated the offshore oil drilling prospective right before he left office, as researchers define the true dangers and benefits of the issue. President Obama has followed suit, due to the exceeding costs the United States has faced for gasoline and oil that does not seem to be going down. Exploration and drilling offshore, has many benefits according to Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar. There is an estimated high of 40 billion barrels of oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which would provide for enough consumption of oil for up to five years. Offshore oil drilling could substitute for about 10 percent of imported oil, this amount may seem small but of the 10 million barrels of imported crude oil a day, this substitutes for about 900,000 barrels per day (Pros and Cons: Drilling for Oil Off the Eastern Seaboard). Taking advantage of these natural resources would decrease our countries dependency of foreign finite natural resources.

Offshore drilling could also produce more jobs for citizens. In today’s economy, jobs have become very scarce; exploration and research of potential oil deposits along with the physical labor that is involved in offshore drilling would provide 5.5 jobs for each $1 million dollars invested (Pros and Cons: Drilling for Oil off the Eastern Seaboard). Increasing offshore oil drilling could also potentially lower the cost of oil, if the level of consumption stays consistent. By no longer needing to import as much oil, the cost will decrease.

As for the environment many studies have proven offshore oil drilling can actually decrease environmentally damaging accidents. In a recent study by the National Academy,

“That in the last 15 years there were zero platform spills greater than 1,000 barrels. Compared to worldwide tanker spill rates, outer continental shelf operations are more than five times safer. Imports present an environmental risk of spills about 13 times greater than domestic production. In fact, annually natural seeps account for 150-175 times more oil in the ocean than OCS oil and gas operations” (Kenneth B Medlock III, Opposing Views).

Due to the higher rates of tanker spills over platform spills, offshore oil drilling actually could decrease the oil pollution problem in the oceans. By increasing domestic production, there would be a decrease in environmental harm.

Instead of being so reliable on such a finite source, increasing drilling will increase our reliability. Finding new resources could be a main priority because one day one these resources run out and researchers have not explored new energy alternatives; our country may be in a lot of trouble. Drilling offshore for oil kills two birds with one stone; it allows our country to extract oil domestically, which would cost less and allows for greater research in new energy resources, if the United States does not consider further exploration, then there is zero chance for discovery of new energy resources.

The development and research of new oil reserves, domestically, will actually benefit our countries future. If we do not explore these natural resources now, inevitably one day the United States will have to. Why wait until oil prices exceed to ridiculous amounts; oil is a finite source and someday it will run out. The United States cannot be so dependent on foreign oil reserves because one day these oil reserves will become none existent. Our country is so dependent on oil and for now that will not change, exploring oil internally could potential lead researchers to other strategies that would allow our economy to no longer be dependent on foreign resources. Alternative energy is an option this country and many other countries will have to look into one day. Increasing the research of oil could embark scientists into new territory, which would indefinitely help our economy. Investing in further research of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf could supply a link to a new energy. New developments and technology would give the U.S. opportunities and more options of drilling, conservation, efficiency and alternative energy.

The disadvantages of offshore oil drilling in the United States consist mostly of environmental issues and whether or not the cost of oil would truly decrease. Offshore drilling impacts marine life, the human population and tourists. Seismic waves, a tool used to indicate possible oil reserves affects marine life. Seismic noise is very similar to sonar; these waves bounce off of rock formations allowing researchers to pinpoint oil reserves. Seismic waves disorient whales hindering their communication abilities. A good example of this is static in walkie-talkies or radios in trucks or airplanes; this static may cause someone to not be able to hear the other person. Pilots and truckers are very dependable on their radios because it is a means of communication. This could cause a trucker or pilot to get lost or confused. This is the same problem when seismic noise travels through the water. Whales can no longer communicate with each other; therefore they could separate from their calves or lose their pack. This increases the chances of injury due to distress, which causes whale beaching (Oil Drilling: Risks and Rewards).

Achieving energy independence, at current energy consumptions is purely impossible. It could take years to wreak the benefits of domestic oil reserves to make an economic change that is noticeable. In order to become exclusively independent of foreign importing, offshore oil drilling would need to increase beyond its limits. The National Wildlife Federation states, “The United States contains 2.5 % of the world’s oil resource. But we account for 24% of total world consumption of oil” (NWF). Therefore, drilling only in the U.S. will never suffice. The important aspect of this issue is that drilling offshore causes more harm to the environment than accounted for. 2.5% is miniscule, even if laws allow further offshore drilling; in ten or twenty years, the length it would take to impact oil production, Americans would only be saving three to four cents. This leads to the question of whether it is truthfully worth the damaging effects to the environment, if there are no real changes being seen for the economy or out of pocket expenses.

Further research of offshore oil drilling, will decide whether or not there are more benefits for our countries economy with limited environmental effects. Oil is a finite resource, that is becoming increasingly limited, the United States must take action to this condition, whether it be increased domestic research of a new energy resource or increasing offshore oil drilling.

References:

Kelly, Paul, L. "Deepwater Offshore Oil Development: Opportunities and Future Challenges." Rowan Companies, Inc. 65-68. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .

"Should the U.S. Allow Offshore Oil Drilling?" Opposing Views. 2010. Opposing Views Inc., Web. 5 Feb 2010. .

"Learn the Facts About Drilling." National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 2009. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .

Lefevre, Nicolas. "Measuring the Energy Security Implications of Fossil Fuel Resource Concentration." Energy Policy (2009): 1635-1644. Web. 3 Feb 2010. .

LoBianco, Tom. "Obama Blocks Offshore Oil Drilling: Cheaper Gas Gives President Wiggle Room." Washington Times 11 Jan 2009: n. page. Web. 11 Feb 2009. .

Nixon, Robin. "Oil Drilling: Risks and Rewards." Special to LiveScience. 25 June 2008. Web. 5 Feb 2010. .

"Pros and Cons: Drilling for Oil Off the Eastern Seaboard." The Heat Zone. 13 April 2009. The Heat Zone, Inc., Web. 3 Feb 2010. .

Tierney, John. "Offshore Drilling vs. Global Warming." New York Times (2008): n. page. Web. 5 Feb 2010.

Did you know that 80 percent of pollution to the marine life is a cause of land based sources? Many citizens today overlook the overwhelming amounts of pollution in the ocean because it is not directly connected to their lives; little do they know it affects the ecological protection, socioeconomic effects and health risks in today’s society. This raises the question of what exactly is at stake and is it worth it in the long run to oversee the long-term effects of oceanic pollution? Indefinitely, oil pollution is harming marine life and the human population but even after over a century of oil pollution, when is just too much?

There is various oil drilling regulations that occur throughout the United States. These laws are regulated depending on the location and have specific jurisdictions on a local, state a federal guideline. Permits must be obtained with proof of plans, monitoring and clean up, before a company can begin to drill for oil. These permits are regularly looked over and the re-examination of spill attentiveness and prevention plans is inspected. Specific laws also ban drilling to occur surrounding soil, groundwater, rivers, lakes and ocean waters. Diane Bacher, of eHow Contributing Writer explains, “Regulatory compliance programs grant permits for drilling that contain details on where drilling can occur, under what conditions, and with what technologies, taking into account the geology landscape where the drilling will occur”. Due to the heavy restriction laws on oil drilling and with the increased costs of oil, the demand to finding loop holes in drilling laws are created in order to open more drilling sites and exploration. Is it important to consider both sides of the argument, which is more important, protecting the environment or protecting our wallets?

Bibliography:

Bacher, Diane. "Oil & Gas Drilling Regulations." eHow: How To Do Just About Everything. eHow Contributing Writer, Web. 1 Feb 2010. .

Embach, Carolyn. "Oil Spills: Impact on the Ocean." Water Encyclopedia: Science and Issues. 2010. Advameg, Inc., Web. 28 Jan 2010. .

"Environment ." Chevron Human Energy. May 2009. Chevron Corporation, Web. 1 Feb 2010. .

"Oil and Chemical Spills." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 21 Jan 2010. Web. 20 Nov 2007. .

"WWF for a living animal." Problems: Ocean Pollution. WWF, Web. 28 Jan 2010. .

A Forest Returns

After watching A Forest Returns, I now understand more about the local forest in Athens County. I had never heard of Wayne National Park and I don't think I would have ever learned about it if it wasn't for this class. I surprisingly did not know that most of the forests in Ohio were second growth. It was really interesting to see how most of the forest's in the area were developed; it changed the pace of the class and allowed us to relate to the topic better. It really frustrates me, that even now that I know about how the government and many other factors are harming the environment, there is nothing I can do. I may have become more knowledgeable but the chance of making a difference is slim to none. Ora Anderson found a way to accomplish this and I think its great that just one person can do such a big impact.

Reflection of David Maywhoor's Presentation

Today's speaker, David Maywhoor, the Executive Director of Buckeye Forest Council was very informative on the issues of deforestation, logging and prescribed burning. On my drive home from Athens to Columbus, I see the construction of the new highway that will wrap around Nelsonville. This presentation reminded me of what I consistently see as I travel back and forth. I knew the negative impacts of logging and deforestation but I had never heard of prescribed burning. The issues correlated with prescribed burning are issues I never realized existed. I think his presentation was very interesting and I liked hearing his opinion on protecting the forest; I also really liked how he connected his presentation to each of our own majors. He gave us great insight in developing our writing skills, which personalized his presentation. I now understand more about the issues in Ohio's forest's and what we as students can do to help.

Research Prospectus: oil spills

In my research prospectus I would like to examine the harmful affects oil spills have on the environment. I came about this idea because I have always loved the ocean and animals. I love going to the beach and going boating etc. so I thought about what if one day there was so much pollution that it no longer be safe to swim in the ocean or even too dangerous to travel to the beach. I am very interested in what our government is doing to decrease this pollution and the statistics behind oil spills.

Oil spills have a variety of damaging effects on the environment that includes effects on the water, the coastline, on marine life and the wildlife. I have always been intrigued with the ocean and marine life so I thought this would be the perfect time to extensively research this topic. Human activity is the main cause of oils spills and is considered a form of pollution. Oils spills can take up to months and even years to fully clean up. Ironically, most human-made oil pollution is caused from land-based activity but the public pays more attention to seagoing oil tankers. This is very ironic to me because I never thought about how land-based activity could be the major cause of oil spills. I remember learning about oil spills as a child and in every movie we watched it was always focused on seagoing oil tankers. I am very interested in learning the real facts about oil spills and maybe what the United States as a whole, could do to prevent and reduce further oil spills worldwide.

LM final blog

In the Lost Mountain, Erik Reece introduces Wendell Berry, the author of “Two Minds,” in the chapter titled July 2004. Wendell Berry exemplifies the ways of thinking about the “natural world” and defines the difference of a rational and a sympathetic mind. Berry defines the rational mind as a concept driven solely based on succession, in this case profit. Rational minds are practical, ambitious, and systematic; therefore can be considered close-minded towards the emotional aspect of nature and the importance of evolution without the influence of mankind. The sympathetic mind undoubtfully may show compassion toward living species and the environment, but both types of psyche is essential in today’s society. The equation “knowledge = power= money= damage” defined by Berry is very accurate. Being rational without sympathy can lead to the destruction of mankind. A little of both minds could create the perfect society. Having too much rationale or sympathy will inevitably lead to the destruction of life. The natural world can no longer be viewed as single entities; society has evolved to the point where our everyday activities influence the environment thus analyzing the world as a complete system, which includes every aspect of life, i.e. the wildlife and humans entirely together.

Reece presents his sympathetic mind in the Lost Mountain, numerous times throughout the book. One specific example that stands out in my mind is in the conclusion chapter when Reece discusses the enormous impact coal companies could do if only they planted tree seedlings in the dugout mounds. This would allow the re-growth of plants within five to eight years. Reece endures the sympathetic mind as he merely suggests, just one small detail that could affect the mountain enough for complete re-growth in just several years. Reece has realized by now that coal mining will never completely vanish from society, but taking one small step can reverse some of the damage in just a few years.

Another example Reece introduces is again “cheap energy” and the consequences that are assumed by cheap energy. In the chapter title August 2004, the last paragraph, Reece states, “That the current price of coal tells nothing near the truth about the coast of pollution, water pollution, forest fragmentation, species extinction and the destruction of homes” (p.186-187). The commonly used fossil fuel, coal, may be cost efficient but Reece states that this efficiency is only costing us more money in other areas. Maybe, we aren’t seeing these specific costs come out of our pockets today, but by the time our children are our age, the cost of air pollution and water pollution may no longer be a diminutive problem that will no longer cost us money but our lives.

As Lost Mountain comes to an end, one specific quote in the Conclusion chapter that I find significant is on page 226, “While the United States produces twice as much carbon dioxide as Russia, Bush made it clear in the presidential debates that he would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because it could “cost American jobs and stifle economic growth.” In other words, short term decision making will continue to rule the day, though the long-term effects of these decisions could be disastrous.” This quotation directly connects with the previous paragraph. Bush may feel that while he is in office he may reduce American jobs and stifle economic growth by signing this protocol, but isn’t it his responsibility to look past his term and decide what is best in the long run for his country. After his term, he is still a citizen of the United States; the decision’s he makes while in office affects his family, community and country. Denying a protocol based on ignorance is not fulfilling his deeds of presidency. If the Kyoto Protocol was signed, there would indefinitely be loss of jobs throughout American, but increasing the common wealth of our nation will improve the lives of the citizens and who knows maybe other jobs will be put in place that will decrease the horrible long-term decisions our country has been making.

Blog 2

Reece took a very different perspective on the next section of the reading. I really enjoyed reading this portion because Reece focused more on the wildlife and used more of his five senses to explain what he saw. I loved the chapter on the flying squirrels, where he went out with the naturalist Jim Krupa and his biology class and learned about the various qualities of a flying squirrel. Krupa spent a lot of time researching the flying squirrels and had specific tactics on how to catch them.

Another chapter that really stood out to me was “Acts of God”. The stories Reece shared put strip mining on a very personal level. The one story he tells about Debra and Granville Burke justifies how difficult it is to live around strip mining. It affects families both physically and mentally. I don’t understand how any coal company can justify themselves after hearing of someone committing suicide because they no longer could bear the burdens coal mining did to her garden and house. I can’t imagine watching my garden and house fall apart and know that there is nothing that can be done. Coal companies can deny the harmful effects coal mining does to the environment but they cannot deny the lives lost from due to devastation of losing their house and pretty much their whole life. These people obviously can barely afford to make way, taking away the few sources of food and shelter they do have is just immoral. How has society become so egocentric that we no longer care about the environment and the citizens of our country? If we kill off every individual in this country there would be no reason for selling coal. Peake’s quote, “God put us here to take care of the earth. It’s a two-way street. We take care of it, it takes care of us” (Reece p. 118). This is so true, obviously nature can do quite fine without us, and we depend on them more than they depend on us. The more we harm nature the more we are just harming ourselves.

LM blog pages 1-85

Erik Reece begins Lost Mountain giving the statistical facts about mountaintop removal providing the reader with the background information in order to successfully read his report. Reece begins the book with quite a few shocking statistics, one that really shocks me is, “100 tons of coal are extracted every two seconds in Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming, Pennsylvania and a handful of other states” (Reece pg.3). This is a very alarming statistics that sets the mood of the rest of the book. Reece then goes into the harmful affects not only on the wildlife in these states but towards the landowners as well.

Reece begins two separate arguments, the consequences of coal mining towards both the wildlife and the residents of Kentucky versus the necessity of such a cost-efficient producing fossil fuel. He brings two great arguments to the table in the first 85 pages. Reece does a wonderful job depicting mountain removal with his first hand experiences as an observer. He brings in specific examples of various landowners losing their property or losing loved ones that really changed my view of strip mining. I knew little to nothing about coal mining before this class, but I have already formed various opinions on the topic. Not only is strip mining killing millions of species, it is killing the surrounding citizens of the mountain. The ironic point of this argument is the people that are dying are the ones who worked as coal miners, providing millions of people across the country with electricity. How is that fair? Companies like Kentucky Coal Association know exactly what the harmful consequences of strip mining does to the environment, the workers and the landowners. The only concerned factor of these companies is money. Strip miners are paid little to nothing for the hard work they do everyday; they risk their lives and are not given any other opportunity of work. Reece brings up a great argument, was this planned? Did these companies wipe out all other job opportunities and provide as little education as possible, for the reassurance that they will be guaranteed workers? Even after reading just eighty-five pages of Lost Mountain, I have already formed pretty strong opinions and I am very interested in what the rest of the year looks like through the eyes of Erik Reece.

My first impressions of the two main sites are both positive and negative. I liked the first site titled, This is Reality because it was a creative introduction to the website but I felt the website had limited information on Clean Coal, only providing users with a video and a dozen facts on coal. The second website titled America’s Power is a little less creative but more in depth site. This website has far better organization and allows the reader to browse through the website based on what they want to learn and read about. This website goes beyond just the facts, they justify who they are along with issues and policy’s throughout the United States.

After thoroughly reading both websites I believe what is at stake in this debate is that the United States is using CC as a means of advertisement to increase productivity of the commonly used fossil fuel, coal. For as long as I can remember I have been taught that coal has murdered millions of miners and not to mention any persons who have had daily interactions with coal because of the deadly toxins it gives out. The new CC technology involves energy efficiency, renewable generation, Unified National Smart Grid, and automobiles, states This is Reality. The logical appeal of these so called new technologies is it appeals to the public. Going green is the “new” thing today therefore if a company spreads the word through advertisement and changing their labels, telling the consumers they have increased energy efficiency then therefore making their product look superior to others. The consumer now sees the Green symbol on that specific product and may feel they have no choice but to buy it only because they think they are helping the environment. Honestly, sometimes I give into the silly advertisements myself. If I see a product that does a pretty good job convincing me they are energy efficient and there is another product that does not exemplify these qualities, for the same price, why not buy it?

The audiences for both websites are similar but not the same. The audience for This is Reality, I think of the younger age group of adults who are just browsing the idea of clean coal. The audience for America’s Power seems to tend to the older adult who wants specific information on clean coal and what they can do to help in their area.

The sponsors of This is Reality looks like it can be anyone who wants to submit an ad to their website, by approval of the editors. The Coen Bros. designed the This is Reality TV spot therefore are also sponsors of the website. The American Coalition, for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) and Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) all are sponsor’ of American Power. Theses websites interest those who want to learn about clean coal and what remains for the future in the clean coal industry. Thus proving America’s Power is by far more credible than This is Reality because they clearly state their sponsors and also provides a link going into further detail of the specific sponsors. This is Reality does not as easily identify the sponsors’ for their website, therefore giving themselves less credibility.

The pathos or the emotional appeal of This is Reality does a far better job than America’s Power, for example, the first page that pops up when the reader views the website is a bird flying around then dying, which immediately will affect the viewers emotion. Click again; the bird dies a different way. This may make the reader have a more emotional attachment to this idea than the other website, even though America’s Power gives the cold hard facts that obtain the emotional appeal in a different aspect. It may take a little more reading for viewers to gain the emotional appeal of the negative affects of coal but it definitely does appeal to ones’ emotions.

The visual role of both websites, again are completely different. This is Reality, gives a far more visual expression that gets the point across pretty quickly, which has an effective rhetoric strategies because it emphasizes the idea at the first click of the website. The visual expression of American’s Power is clean cut with pictures and different tabs to navigate the website. I feel this is also an effective rhetoric strategy that uses words rather than pictures to get their point across.

Introduction

Hey, my name is Susan. I grew up in Hudson, Ohio and lived there most of my life. My family recently moved to a New Albany, a suburb of Columbus. I am studying to become a Child Life Specialist, this involves working in a hospital setting as a liaison between a doctor and the patient, usually children and their families. I love snowboarding and pretty much any activity that is outdoors. I like to go out on the weekends and have fun with my friends. I can't stand sitting at home doing nothing. I am really looking forward to graduating soon and I plan on moving to Colorado, but I'll definitely miss OU!