Graphic Representation:

Main (Value) claim: Fossil fuels are not dirty; it is a plentiful, cheap and trustworthy source of energy which
outperforms solar and wind power. Therefore, we should continue to adopt it as the main source of energy.

Argument
1
:Todays
industrialized environment
is the cleanest, healthiest in
history
P1 Modern centralized
power plants are cleaner
than old-fashioned means
of harnessing energy like
open air burning
P2
With
technology
powered by fossil fuels, we
are more physically fit than
we used to be.

Argument 2: Alternative
sources of energy such as
wind and solar power are
unreliable.
P1 They are expensive and
have low concentration
streams of energy
P2 They did not win out on
markets
P3 Relying on unreliable
energy sources leads to
industrial
decline
and
unemployment

Argument 3: dirty energy

objection is a dirty trick
P1 Every human and nonhuman activities creates
waste products
Building large-scale
solar/wind
projects
requires
hazardous
materials
Fossil fuels are used in
large quantity to run
wind/solar power plant

Summary
In the article Fossil Fuels Improve the Planet, Alex Epstein addresses the issues of whether fossil fuels are dirty and
if we should replace it with other sources of energy. His value claim is that fossil fuels are not dirty; they are plentiful,
cheap and trustworthy sources of energy which outperforms solar and wind power. Therefore, we should continue to
adopt it as the main source of energy. He argues for his main claim via three key arguments. Epsteins first key
argument relies on the premise that technology powered by fossil fuels enable us to better cope with changes in the
environment and are good for humans physical well-being. In addition, he argues that burning fossil fuels via modern
centralized power plants is cleaner than old-fashioned means of harnessing energy like open-air burning. Therefore,
Epstein concludes that todays industrialized environment is the cleanest and healthiest in history. Epsteins second
key argument relies on the premises that alternative sources of energy are costly and have low efficiency, they are
unable to gain consumers favor and the relying on them leads to economic stagnation and rising unemployment . In
his third argument, Epstein argues that calling fossil fuels dirty is a conspiracy since every human and non-human
activity creates waste products. He challenges the perspective that large-scale solar/wind projects are clean and points
out that fossil fuels are also used in large quantities to run these plants.
(235words)

Evaluation 1:
The conclusion of Epsteins first key argument is that todays industrialized environment is the cleanest and healthiest
in history. This argument comprises two premises. The first premise claims that modern centralized power plants are
cleaner than old-fashioned means of harnessing energy, like open-air burning; and the second premise points out that
technology powered by fossil fuels is good for our physical well-being. While Epsteins first argument is a deductively
valid, both premises of the argument are likely to be false as I will go on to prove. For the first premise, it is
inconclusive whether or not the modern centralized power plants produce less pollution than the older methods which
were less-developed. In a study conducted by Dwivedi et al (2014), it was found that relative savings in greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission with respect to a unit of electricity derived from fossil fuels in the United Kingdom range
between 50% and 68% when wood pellets are used as substitute for fossil fuels. The result of Dwivedi s study is also
confirmed by a study led by European Commission (2011) showing that the EU had a biofuel share of 3.5% in 2008
and an overall weighted green house gas saving of 49% relative to fossil fuels replaced(energy allocation method) or
43%(Substitution method). Both cases showed that biomass energy emits far less GHG than fossil fuels. Other than
releasing greater quantities of greenhouse gas, from a study led by Rahman(2012), the burning of fossil fuels also
produces hazardous sulphur dioxide which is responsible for acid rain and global warming, imposing more severe
damage on the environment. What these three studies show then, is that the premise claiming that fossil fuels are
cleaner than biomass is challenged. Hence, the truth of the first premise is questionable. The second premise of
Epsteins argument is likely to be false because, as Epstein says energy is what we need to build sturdy homes, to
produce huge amounts of fresh food, to generate heat and air conditioning, to irrigate desertsoil is what enables us
to explore to our hearts content he seems to assume that oil energy is the sole source of energy that has made all the
things listed above possible, which is definitely not the real case. In a report released by International Energy Agency
(2013), it was found that renewable accounts for 20% share of total energy use in 2011, which is significant compared
to the share of 68% of fossil fuels. Hence, his second premise is problematic. Given that the truth of both premises is
in question, I therefore conclude that the first key argument offered by Epstein is not sound.
Evaluation 2:
The second key argument is that we should not replace fossil fuels with alternative sources of energy such as wind and
solar power because the latter are unreliable. The argument comprises 3 premises. First, wind and solar energies has
not gained customers favour or politicians advocate because of their drawbacks. Second, wind and solar powers are
expensive and inefficient as Epstein mentions they have lower concentration streams of energy. Third, relying on
wind and solar power leads to economic stagnation, decline and unemployment. The second key argument is like to be
inductive. It proceeds from specific observations as to the drawbacks and repercussions of utilizing wind and solar
power to arrive a general conclusion that we should avoid using them. While the argument seems inductively valid, it
is not cogent as the premises are questionable. For the first premise, it claims that wind and solar energies have not
gained politicians advocate. It seems to contradict with the third premise. I can argue that it is precisely because
German and Spanish political leaders has visionary views on the long-term benefits of green energies, despite the
potential repercussions such as economic downturn and unemployment, they still adopted the renewable energies. For
the second premise, it presents a short-sighted view that we should avoid using wind/solar energies because they are
economically unviable and inefficient. The reason why it is shorted-sighted is because, firstly, fossil fuels are
exhaustive. Based on the study led by Rahman et al (2012), fossil fuels are formed over a period of millions of years
by the decomposition of animals and plants. According to the study by Shafiee and Topal (2008), the fossil fuel time
depletion is calculated to be around 35, 107 and 37 years for oil, coal and gas, respectively. Thus it leaves no
hesitation for the need to seek for new energies to substitute fossil fuels which are expected to deplete in the next
century. Secondly, the premise ignores the trend that with technological advancements, costs are falling over the years.
This can be demonstrated by a study led by Kaygusuz (2008), for on-shore winds, costs have declined by 12%-18%
with each doubling of global capacity; for solar photovoltaic module, costs have declined by about 20% for each
doubling of installed capacity. This shows that with market maturity and technology advancement, costs could

possibly cut down significant and no longer a primary hindrance to the popularization of renewable energy. Therefore,
his second premise is also questionable. Given that the truth of both premises is in question, I therefore conclude that
the second key argument offered by Epstein is not cogent.

Reference:
Dwivedi, P., Khanna, M., Bailis, R., &Ghilardi, A. (2014) Potential greenhouse gas benefits of transatlantic wood
pellet trade. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/2/024007
Renewable Energy: Progressing towards the 2020 Target. (2011, January 31). European Commission Staff Working
Document. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/sec_2011_0130.pdf
Rahman, D. M., Rahman, M., Amin, R., &Sakhawat, N. B. (2012). A study on renewable energy: A sustainable
solution for future energy security. International Journal of Energy Engineering, 2(3), 63. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1356928309?accountid=13876
WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2013 FACTSHEET. (2013). International Energy Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/media/files/WEO2013_factsheets.pdf
Shafiee, S., Topal, E. (2008). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37, 181-189.
Kaygusuz, K. (2008). The future of nuclear power and renewable energy sources in the european union. Energy
Sources, Part B - Economics, Planning and Policy, 3(4), 348. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/14882726?accountid=13876
Reference:
Dwivedi, P., Khanna, M., Bailis, R., &Ghilardi, A. (2014) Potential greenhouse gas benefits of transatlantic wood
pellet trade. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/2/024007
Renewable Energy: Progressing towards the 2020 Target. (2011, January 31). European Commission Staff Working
Document. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/sec_2011_0130.pdf
Rahman, D. M., Rahman, M., Amin, R., &Sakhawat, N. B. (2012). A study on renewable energy: A sustainable
solution for future energy security. International Journal of Energy Engineering, 2(3), 63. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1356928309?accountid=13876
WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2013 FACTSHEET. (2013). International Energy Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/media/files/WEO2013_factsheets.pdf
Shafiee, S., Topal, E. (2008). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37, 181-189.
Kaygusuz, K. (2008). The future of nuclear power and renewable energy sources in the european union. Energy
Sources, Part B - Economics, Planning and Policy, 3(4), 348. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/14882726?accountid=13876