Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zoe McDaniel
Professor Douglas
ENG 112-01
7 February 2017
Earth has been supplied with numerous resources to obtain and harness energy from, but
the prevailing issue of global warming has incited an urgent need for scientists to make changes
with todays main energy source. Utilizing nuclear reactions as a substitute energy source for
fossil fuels has been an extensive and controversial topic dating back to the 1950s (Nuclear
Energy). In the 2013 article Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming, written by Colin
McInnes, a professor at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, McInnes argues for the
benefits of nuclear energy, claiming that the economic and environmental advantages outweigh
the drawbacks of this resource. In opposition to McInnes view, the 2013 article Nuclear Power
Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global Warming, published by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) in New York City, claims that nuclear energy is completely unappealing
financially and due to its associated risks, other natural resources should instead be considered to
aid in the depletion of global warming. Both McInnes and the NRDC are pleading to the general
public to consider their points of view, but McInnes article poses a stronger rhetorical argument
McInnes article Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming, argues that the
switch from fossil fuels to nuclear energy is practical and will eventually diminish the effects of
global warming and help cover the initial costs of starting nuclear plants. His focus was on the
McDaniel 2
environmental and social aspects of utilizing nuclear energy. McInnes explained why nuclear
energy plants are more beneficial than coal-burning plants, wind farms, and solar energy panels
For comparison, each year a city-powering 1000 MW coal plant will dump 7.5 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide as a gas directly into the atmosphere and produce approximately
400,000 tonnes of fly ash. An equivalent nuclear plant will produce 27 tonnes of spent
fuel in solid form which can be easily separated from the environment, equal in volume
to a box of less than 3 cubic meters (McInnes 4).
McInnes provided logical information confirming that nuclear power would be an efficient
resource to utilize in the diffusion of global warming. McInnes article contains detailed
scientific information, yet he wrote his article with diction that can be easily read and
understood. While McInnes shared genuinely beneficial information on nuclear energy, there
were only a few counterclaims presented by McInnes on why nuclear energy should not be used
to deplete global warming issues. Instead, he promoted nuclear energy and the idea that energy
production has been evolving for centuries. McInnes simply explained why nuclear energy
should be the next step in this evolution without providing the benefits of other sources. Overall,
McInnes arguments are solid, logical, and easily understandable; however, he could have added
In the NRDCs article Nuclear Power Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global
Warming, the focus is on the financial issues and high risks associated with nuclear energy. The
NRDC claimed that the government should not provide subsidies for nuclear energy projects
until the nuclear industry demonstrates it can further reduce the continuing security and
environmental risks of nuclear power- including the misuse of nuclear materials for weapons and
radioactive contamination from nuclear waste- (1). This organization focused on the initial
start-up costs of nuclear energy plants, as well as the high, but extremely rare, risks associated
McDaniel 3
with nuclear energy, rather than its direct ability to inhibit global warming issues. The NRDC
does an adequate job of acknowledging counterviews to their own; however, they do not dismiss
these claims with comparable or strong rebuttals. They prepared an economic evaluation on the
startup costs of nuclear energy plants, for example, but they did not provide the startup costs for
other sources of energy, such as fossil fuel plants, solar energy installations, or wind energy
farms to make a proper comparison to. The NRDC wrote their article with overwhelming run-on
sentences filled with intricate vocabulary, making it difficult to read and understand the first go-
around. They also added somewhat snarky remarks, assumptions, and biased statements about
the use of nuclear energy, creating a relationship between the reader and the writer that pressures
the reader into acquiring the writers views. The NRDCs argument clung to the horrifying
what-ifs of nuclear energy, such as potential terrorism and radioactivity, without mentioning
how rare the risks associated with nuclear energy are or the aftermath of events that have
These two articles examine nuclear energys potential uses from different points of view,
ranging from environmental views, to financial views, to social views. McInnes formed a logical,
cohesive argument more efficiently than did the NRDC. Though McInnes only briefly mentioned
counterclaims when absolutely necessary, he effectively used logos in his argument to strongly
convey the idea that nuclear energy could reshape society, the current environment, and prevent
global warming in the future. The NRDC utilized pathos to appeal to their audiences fears of
nuclear energy to persuade them to look at other alternative energy sources; however, their
argument focused more on the expensive startup costs and risks of nuclear energy rather than its
practicality or ability to decrease the effects of global warming. While the NRDC was effective
at reaching out and connecting with their audiences worries and fears, the message was difficult
McDaniel 4
to ascertain. McInnes argument was stronger than that of the NRDCs because he successfully
conveyed his message to his audience with easily comprehensible language and logical
Works Cited
McInnes, Colin. "Nuclear Power Can Help Fight Global Warming." Nuclear Power, edited by
Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints.
url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010843220/ OVIC?
Feb. 2011.
Natural Resources Defense Council. "Nuclear Power Is Not a Sound Strategy to Fight Global
Warming." Nuclear Power, edited by Lynn M. Zott and Helga Schier, Greenhaven Press,
url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010843221/OVIC?
"Nuclear Energy." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, ezproxy.cpcc.edu/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999227/