Carolina Reader Chapter 7 Question 5

Often times people talk about supporting the environment, and you hear about new-age technology that will make this possible. In both of their articles, Jamie Lincoln Kitman and Patrick Moore make somewhat surprising arguments about the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles and nuclear energy respectively, one with technology and ideas supposedly supporting the environment and one with technology and ideas hurting the environment. They both present their opinions, opposite of what you would expect based on knowledge that they support the environment.

Jamie Lincoln Kitman’s article entitled “Life In The Green Lane,” discusses the new popularity and technology that is associated with hybrid cars. Kitman argues that people purchase new hybrid cars because they have been led to believe that hybrid cars are better for the environment. He argues, however, that although a car may be a hybrid car, it might not be as good for the environment as a normal gas car. He talks about how hybrid cars receiving positive response from the government, even though they do not really deserve it. Also, when people talk about getting a hybrid, he suggests that they look at the fuel efficiency and miles per gallon that the car gets so they can be informed on what they are buying. He counters people who say hybrids are always better by showing that they are only better during city conditions where the battery engines can work comfortably. Once a hybrid car is driven on the highway, the computer tells the car to use the gas engine, being less efficient than a similarly sized gas car, which costs much less. In addition, he does not agree that hybrid cars should receive special treatment on the highway and in parking spaces because they really are not as beneficial.

Patrick Moore’s article entitled “Going Nuclear: A Green Makes The Case,” discusses the different energy sources and that we should convert our energy sources to nuclear power. He says that globally emissions will be greatly reduced. Also, he discusses how nuclear power would be less expensive than coal-fired electric plants and natural gas plants, more reliable and predictable than wind and solar power plants, therefore leaving it as the only viable substitute for coal. There are counterarguments that are made about nuclear energy, and he disputes these arguments. When people think nuclear energy is too expensive, he talks about how it is one of the least expensive energy sources. People often think that nuclear plants are unsafe because of Chernobyl, however he talks about how that was set up for disaster and failure, and that the incident on Three Mile Island is a good piece of evidence on how a problem at a plant can be easily controlled and contained. It is thought that nuclear waste will be dangerous for long periods of time, buy yet again he states that within 40 years, less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity of used fuel remains, and even this can be reused. When it is thought that nuclear plants are vulnerable for terrorist attacks, he states that they are well protected, and there are other, more penetrable places to attack.

After reading these two articles, I will no longer think that anything relating to supporting the environment will be about technology being good, and I will think that it is necessary to gain all information before making a decision on an issue. I think that these two are very persuasive because of their biography. By knowing that they are all for supporting the environment and maintaining it, they gain credibility and are able to be persuasive when they go against the stereotype and voice their true opinions. They are also persuasive because they back up their arguments with factual information. It is not very common that people in favor of supporting the environment will have these opinions, so when they do, the are very effective.