Dickinson, Smith 1

Kaden Dickinson, David Smith

Kara Wines

Composition 1

22 November 2020

Ticking Time Bomb

The average temperature of Earth has increased by almost two degrees Fahrenheit since

1900. People may say that this is a minimal change, but the estimated future is saying different.

Fossil fuels have been a hot topic in the world for a long time on whether a switch should be

mandated sooner rather than later. Fossil fuels are the main contributor to global warming and

using them is destined to make the condition of the planet worse. With the rate of increase in

temperature this great, future generations will suffer this heat on a new scale. Fossil fuels are not

efficient, especially compared to alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels are one of the biggest

contributors to global warming and methane gas increase, and there are more cost-effective

alternatives with fewer consequences than fossil fuels. Other than that, fossil fuels are ruining the

environment, and the atmosphere is a necessity to survive. Many think the switch to renewables

is a challenging stride, however, in actuality, it's much easier than what people are making it out

to be, especially because the future planet and generations of humans would be incredibly

thankful for the transition.

As mentioned in the introduction, fossil fuels are ruining the Earth while it’s inhabited.

People are using fossil fuel-related energy as eighty percent of the worlds’ energy, and it is

continuously increasing as technology advances. Specifically, fossil fuels are not as efficient nor

cost-effective as other fuels could be, distinctly because the government is paying valuable

money to keep the fossil fuels company stable. “In the United States, the government has moved
 Dickinson, Smith 2

to prop up the oil and gas industry as it spins into financial free fall. Billions of dollars—much of

which was meant to support the public and small businesses—have gone to aid publicly traded

fossil fuel companies and ease their debts” (Westervelt n.pg). Billions of dollars that are

supposed to be spent to provide financial help to American businesses are being spent on fossil

fuels’ debt that is everlasting. Obviously, this shows for change, which needs to be shown sooner

rather than later; especially when tangible alternatives can easily be accomplished. “They found

that, in California, without energy storage, one-third of the renewable energy could be lost, or

never collected in the first place-and adding storage technologies (batteries and the like) could

reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90%. Under the study's models, holding energy from

renewable sources also made the system much more efficient, as just 9% of renewable energy

was lost.” (Arenschield 68). Wind and solar energies are the major considerations for a new

energy source for the world, but there have been studies showing that they lose almost a third of

energy while extracting. With energy storage, though, it turns out that there is only a nine percent

loss of energy, and it could potentially reduce carbon dioxide emissions almost completely. With

greater positives than negatives with fossil fuels, it should be an easy choice to make the first

step to a new and renewable energy source. Other than the waste of money that fossil fuels bring,

one of the latest conflicts that has arisen in recent years is climate change.

Multiple times, the claim that fossil fuels are ruining the environment appears. But

specifically, climate change is the real culprit for the damage. Scientists say there is a ninety-five

percent chance that fossil fuels are the main reason for climate change, and there is not enough

opposing evidence for anything else to be valid. “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that

climate change is real, and substantially caused by humans. Corporations continue burning fossil

fuels, thus increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it persists for a long
 Dickinson, Smith 3

time. This leads to the earth developing a warmer average temperature. The more greenhouse

gases emitted, the warmer it will be when a new equilibrium temperature is reached...If nothing

changes, we can expect climate change to kill more people and be more disruptive over time”

(Anastasiadis 299). With the notice of climate change picking up, people would assume that the

world is making a transition plan to go into alternative energy, yet nothing has been said while

fossil fuels are at a new high. Scientists are looking for more extreme-cooling as a solution, but

there are already negatives popping up. “Without cooling, heat exhaustion can disrupt the body's

functioning and lead to extreme ailments like organ failure and, eventually, death. The number of

people who die of heat-related illness could grow to more than 250,000 by 2050” (Worland 17).

With this info, it is assumed that without either a transition into new energy or a massive cooling

technological advance, more people every year will die from heat-related causes. Global

warming is a worldwide problem that is leaving permanent effects on Earth, but that is not the

only mass problem that comes with the usage of fossil fuels.

Oftentimes, during the debate of who's to blame and how dangerous the threat of climate

change truly is, many factors are forgotten. Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is often the only greenhouse

gas that is mentioned when talking about climate change. While it is the main contributor to the

problem, methane is another large factor. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas that is

incredibly dangerous to the world in large amounts just like carbon dioxide. As “CO2 emissions

are not the only issue that needs to be addressed in the use of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel value

chain, across natural gas, coal, and oil production and use, is estimated to emit 110 million tons

of methane annually. This represents a large share of all methane emissions. As a powerful

greenhouse gas, methane emissions must be significantly reduced” (Pros & Cons Of 30). This

evidence supports the fact that methane is a large contributor to global warming as it is a
 Dickinson, Smith 4

powerful greenhouse gas. Because of this, on top of carbon dioxide, fossil fuels are putting an

incredibly large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere accelerating the rate at which

global warming occurs. This is becoming a dire situation in need of attention as the planet

already does not have much time left until the effects of climate change become irreversible.

What is incredibly difficult to understand is how this problem is still unsolved as, “The negative

impacts of leaks and fugitive emissions have been widely acknowledged for years” (Pros & Cons

Of 30). As attested above methane is a large problem and this is reinforcing this point by saying

what has been known for years, yet no actions are being done towards the eradication of the

fossil fuel industry. Knowing the downsides of this gas, humans are continuing to produce it at

an alarming rate that must be corrected as quickly as possible. These are only two factors of

global warming as well, there is a whole slew of strong and dangerous greenhouse gasses that

could prove to be detrimental to the world and those inhabiting it. While the gases themselves

are a problem the true reason this hasn't been fixed yet are those behind the fossil fuel industry.

Those that advocate the use of fossil fuels argue that the cost of the switch is too much of

an expense and they often deny the fact that fossil fuels affect global warming. Too often is it

seen that someone is denying the fact that global warming is an incredibly dangerous problem

that must be solved. Due to this, it is seen that those same individuals support the fossil fuel

industry as they see no problem with it at all. Those who at least acknowledge the fact of global

warming often say that the cost of switching is far too great and that countries can not afford to

do this unless heavy taxation is implemented. “The UK government's target of 10% renewable

generation by 2010 will cost the consumer and taxpayer more than £lbn a year by the end of the

decade” (Taxpayer Foots Renewable 7). With this statement, it is shown that the money would

potentially come from the people, and this is something that many do not like the thought of as
 Dickinson, Smith 5

it's money that they earned and they have the right to do what they wish with it. The problem that

citizens have with their money being spent is somewhat understandable, however, the fact that

global warming is a true threat is not something that can just be put off. Fossil fuels play an

incredible part in the event that is global warming. In just a few years after renewable energy

sources are implemented, the countries will be making money that could go towards the people.

“In 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that two-thirds of the world's 25,000 polar bears

could disappear within fifty years if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated” (Witze n.pg)

This is showing that the emissions of fossil fuels are truly affecting the environment as proven by

the reduction of polar bears and their habitat, the ice in which they live. The amount of ice in the

Arctic doesn't just melt on its own to this degree, but because the global temperature is

increasing it is slowly melting away, which would create a whole slew of problems such as sea

levels rising as well as a loss of many important historical records in which can be found in the

ice. Another fact is, “China is spending US$32 billion on renewable energy infrastructure

abroad. This provides domestic firms with opportunities to innovate and earn influence around

the world” (Gabreldar 20). This reinforces the idea that the upfront cost is just a gateway into a

less expensive market. With the upfront cost, China can provide, not only for their own domestic

needs, but also do things around the world to increase the likelihood of success rendering the

thought of failure even less likely. It also covers another cost, the cost of human life. Fossil fuels

are detrimental to the health of the people, and by ridding the world of fossil fuels, better living

conditions will follow. Regardless of what the other side says steps must be made to save the

world from becoming a ball of fire. Everything that is used to deny the problems of fossil fuels

can be refuted with simple facts and logic. With a science-backed conclusion, everyone would be

able to get behind fixing an irrefutable problem that the world is facing.
 Dickinson, Smith 6

The contribution fossil fuels have had on the environment and their detrimental nature on

the planet are proven by scientifically inarguable evidence. As this is the case, it is hard to refute

it with anything but intuition, which has little to no fact behind it. The burning of fossil fuels will

indefinitely lead to paying the ultimate price. While fossil fuels prove to continue to be a

detriment to the world, now is as good a time as ever to start the transition and follow the green

energy transition, just as other countries have already done. Fossil fuels have released too many

greenhouse gasses into the air and this is an incredible problem for the world. Renewable energy

is not only cleaner, but also more efficient and cost-effective compared to fossil fuels, making it

the obvious choice to move forward in the future. If the transition is not made soon, the entire

fate of the world hangs in the balance. Today is a great day to take the step required in the right

direction to save humanity from a very warm fate.

 Dickinson, Smith 7

Works Cited

Anastasiadis, Stephanos. “The Big Problem in Understanding Climate Change.” Peace Review,

vol. 17,

no. 2/3, Apr. 2005, pp. 299–306. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/14631370500333039.

Arenschield, Laura. “Energy Storage Could Reduce Emissions That Cause Climate

Change.” USA Today Magazine, vol. 148, no. 2892, Sept. 2019, pp. 68–69.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=138801667&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.

Chala, Girma T., et al. “Trends in an Increased Dependence towards Hydropower Energy

Utilization—a Short Review.” Cogent Engineering, vol. 6, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 1–12.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/23311916.2019.1631541.

FENTON, DAVID. “The Real Job Killers.” Nation, vol. 292, no. 5, Jan. 2011,

pp. 6–7. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=57290399&site

=ehost-live&scope=site.

GABRELDAR, BUSHRA. “FUELING HUMAN PROGRESS: Climate Change and the Future

of Renewable

Energy.” Harvard International Review, vol. 39, no. 2, Spring 2018, pp. 18–20.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
 Dickinson, Smith 8

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=129196180&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.

Howard, Gerald. “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes.” Nation, vol. 265, no. 10, Oct. 1997,

pp. 46–50. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=9710091063&s

ite=ehost-live&scope=site.

KUMAR, SUPRIYA. “No Stopping Fossil Fuels.” USA Today Magazine, vol. 143, no. 2830,

July 2014,

pp. 14–15. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=97261100&site

=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Pros & Cons of Rolling Back Methane Emission Rules: Reducing Regulatory Burdens versus

Fueling Climate Change.” Congressional Digest, vol. 99, no. 9, Nov. 2020,

p. 30. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=146405923&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Taxpayer Foots Renewable Costs.” Power Engineer, vol. 19, no. 2, Apr. 2005,

p. 7. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=17144498&site

=ehost-live&scope=site.

“UK Electric Power Goes Green.” New Scientist, vol. 245, no. 3264, Jan. 2020,

p. 17. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(20)30062-2.

WESTERVELT, AMY. “Can There Be a Green, Just Economic Recovery?” Audubon, vol. 122,
 Dickinson, Smith 9

no. 2, Summer 2020, pp. 16–17. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=143868713&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.

Witze, Alexandra. “Swift Action to Cut Greenhouse Emissions Could Save Polar Bears.”

Science News, vol. 179, no. 2, Jan. 2011, pp. 5–6. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1002/scin.5591790204.

Worland, Justin. “The Chilling Impact of Air-Conditioning.” TIME Magazine, vol. 192, no. 4,

July

2018, pp. 17–18. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=130820465&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.

Arenschield, Laura. “Energy Storage Could Reduce Emissions That Cause Climate

Change.” USA Today Magazine, vol. 148, no. 2892, Sept. 2019, pp. 68–69.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio&db=aph&AN=138801667&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site.