Argument Essay Outline and Updated Bibliography

1) Introduction

Thesis: A transition to using solar power coupled with other forms of alternate energy for our main sources of energy must be utilized in the near future. This must be done to eliminate the current rate of destruction of the environment and ecology's that currently is in place by the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.



2) Pros of Solar Energy

a. The sun has a massive energy potential- enough to power the earth by 27 times if 100% of it's energy is utilized (Solar and Renewable Energy)

b. There is little harm done to the environment as compared to the large quantities of pollution given off by the utilization of fossil fuels.

c. Solar technology could easily be wired into the current power grid.

d. tax credits, federal loans and stimulus packages can be utilized to promote the use of solar power and its derivatives, which also could help stimulate the local American economy. As compared to spending billions of dollars on foreign oil for example.



3) Consequences of Not Making the Transition

a. the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels emits large quantities of hazardous chemicals into the environment.

b. According to the University of Michigan's geologists Osman Chughtai and David Shannon, at our current rate of fossil fuel production our sources will be depleted within 50-70 years.

c. we would continue to spend billions of American dollars on foreign oils and other fossil fuel production plants.

d. we don't know the exact long term side effects of mass fossil fuel use, but from what we do know now the long term outcome can not be beneficial to the environment and its inhabitants.



4) Economic Effects

a. The vast majority of money spent on the entire situation would be used locally. The technology, man power to make the transition, solar energy collection and utilization can all be done in the US alone, reducing the need for foreign goods and services.

b. The transition would create many jobs, helping fix the current unemployment crisis.

c. By not completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels, there will still be a market for them. This means a significant amount of jobs currently in place by using fossil fuels would still be available.



5) What Needs to be Done to Make the Transition

a. The public needs to make an effort to promote the use of alternate sources of energy to the different levels of our government.

b. Current Solar technology needs to be put in place, but allow for future advances in technology.

c. The current power grid can be utilized

d. Neither fossil fuels or solar power should completely phase each other out. I believe the best situation would be one where solar power is the main source of energy with fossil fuels being used to pick up the energy demands that solar can not.



6) Conclusion



Updated Bibliography:



(2010). Sustainable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Sustainable Energy, INC, New York, New York., Website: http://www.sustainabletable.org/.



(2009). Solar Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Solar Energy Initiatives, INC. Jacksonville, FL., Website: http://www.solarenergy.com/.



(2010) Solar and Renewable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from the Alternate Energy Organization., Website: http://www.altenergy.org/



Chughtai, O., and Shannon, D., Fossil fuels. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2010, from The University of Michigan Geology Department, Lansing Michigan., Website: www.umich.edu/gs265/society/fossilfuels.

Schmitz, Andrew. (2009) The Economics of Alternate Energy Sources and Globalization: The Road Ahead. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2010., Website: www.cnas.tamu.edu/orlandoenergyconf

(2007) Solar Energy Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Solar Energy Advantages,. Website: www.solarenergyadvantages.org.

(2010) Solar Energy Revolution. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from the American Solar Energy Society., Boulder CO. website: www.ases.org

Food INC. p 183-218

After reading the section of the book written by Joel Salatin about his farming operation and what his opinions are on the subject of mass factory produced food I found myself leaning more and more towards what he thought on the subject. His farming techniques of grazing animals, letting them forage around as they were naturally supposed to seems much more ethical and "clean" than the mass production of food by large companies. They call his ways unsanitary because the meat he butchers is out in the open air, which I don't believe is true at all. That is mostly because my family as butchered our own cattle, pigs and hunted animals like deer, rabbit, and squirrel for years and I don't know of a single one who has ever been sick from eating any of it. Where just myself personally have gotten food poisoning twice from fast food restaurants. Also another large aspect that the large food producing food companies leave out is all the chemicals and antibiotics they pump into the animals. Then, they never once mention how the animals are kept in buildings knee deep in their own messes, that to me raises the question: which is really "cleaner." Then, as far as Salatin's procedure's for how he raises his animals is a lot more efficient. For example: he grazes the cattle, they digest it then excrete it, then it acts as fertilizer for new grass to grow and the cycle continues. Not once is it swept into water sources is large quantities, nor is it ever pushed aside not being used or are the animals ever living in it. Then, the last part that stuck out to me was how the term unpronounceable ingredients came up multiple times. I agree with that these are problems, and so are most other additives, because who knows what long term effects these things have on the body. I'm in a major concerned with medicine and human physiology which requires a lot of chemistry and when I can't read a third of the ingredients list I get to wondering how can all of this be good for me. I felt how he presented his opinions were very organized and each thought was explained fully, which did not leave many questions.

Another section that stood out to me was the "Questions for a Farmer" section. I felt this was very informative, but at the same time they started to get repetitive. I started to get this feeling during towards the end of the movie also. Yes they were portraying their opinions and information in different ways, but it was the same time the bottom line was the same. Not saying that it was ineffective, both the book and movie changed/is changing my opinions on the food that I put in my body. Just I'm almost to a point that "there is such a thing as kicking a dead horse."

Lastly in response to the "Eating made Simple" section I felt that it was a good part of the book because it gave a nutritionist's/biologist's viewpoint on the subject. I felt this to have more merit to it than if it were written by a spokesperson, writer or anyone directly involved in the matter because their opinions would obviously biased. Another aspect that I liked about this section is that she repeatedly used research to base her hypotheses. She made her statements using tried and true proven scientific facts, not a mere opinion to boost profit or passing ideas that she heard from someone so it has to be true.

Food INC. Part 2 p91-122 and 169-177

After reading the section about the ethanol section about how much of our nation's, and worlds corn is used to make ethanol. I have stood at the gas pump and have read the stickers saying this such and such a gas contains 10% ethanol grown and produced in America. Until now it was one of those that sounds like a good idea kind of things, especially with the positive pitch the stickers give. But, now after reading and seeing how inefficient the process is and how harmful it is. These harmful aspects being everything from higher food prices to increased air pollution to increased water pollution. Also, the fact that really stood out to me was how inefficient the whole process is. As Lester Brown is quoted in the book "The grain required to fill a 25 gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feel one person for a full year." (Pg.93) This really struck me two ways: one is of how inefficient the process is, it takes a lot of corn to feed one person for a whole year, and the second being with almost a billion people lacking sufficient food stores why would we support filling fuel tanks and not starving children's stomachs? Then, the big reality set in: it's all about the money, which is sad. Also, it doesn't make sense of increasing the amount of ethanol (corn usage) when our surplus is at its lowest since 1997.

Another thing that stuck out to me in the reading was from the short chapter about pesticides. What stuck out to me here was the fact that according to the EPA "children receive fifty percent of their lifetime cancer risks in their first two years of life." (p 103) Then, right after that the results form blood tests of children under the age of 6 pesticide levers were up to six times higher in children who eat conventionally grown foods, compared to children who eat organic foods. It was one of those facts that I knew there was a difference, but I was unaware that there was a 6 fold difference, that fact wanted me to throw out all of my nieces baby food jars and go home to our cellar and get some of our home canned fruit and vegetables for her. Also, I liked how Wendell Berry's name came up again on page 172 talking about the environment crisis. Then, Pollan went on to talk about how he was impatient with people who supported big fossil fuel companies and he criticizes how modern societies desire to delegate "specialists" has grown and. Then, the main thing that stuck out to me was how Pollan, and Berry was brought up again, saying the reason we rely on specialization is to make things cheap. Again it all boils down to the fact of people with power wanting to make a cheap and easy dollar, which is sad given the side effects given to the rest of the population and the environment.

Research Argument Position Statement

Throughout the research that I have done on the topic of solar energy as an alternate source of energy I have become very opinionated in the fact that this needs to become a working reality, not just an idea that sounds good. At first, I was on the fence post not leaning towards either alternate sources of energy or towards using fossil fuels to produce our energy needs. After researching the topic and seeing the pros and cons of each I believe it is important that we rely less on fossil fuels as our dominant source of energy. But, at the same time I want it to be clear that I don't think we should completely phase out fossil fuel consumption all together also. I feel that we should slowly (over the next decade, two at the most) transfer over to alternate sources of energy such as hydro power, wind power and solar power, all of which that are controlled by the sun's energy that is radiated to earth. In my opinion an optimal scenario would be one in which solar power, and its derivatives, are the main source of energy, but fossil fuels still be in place to pick up the slack that is left by the alternate sources of energy (if there is any slack). This would accomplish two main things: it would decrease the environmental hazards of burning fossil fuels and it would be utilizing a form of energy that is easily available for the most part and has more than enough energy to power the earth. Also, by using both alternate sources of energy and fossil fuels we get the best economical effect. By burning less fossil fuels we will not deplete our surplus stores as quickly. Also with that the environment will be healthier leading to less money used cleaning up the environment and on illnesses caused by fossil fuel byproducts. Not only that but, at the same time some fossil fuels will still be mined and used keeping a significant percentage of the jobs available, and what is eliminated from the fossil fuel side, can be picked up on the building and upkeep of the alternate forms of energy production side.

David Harp's Chesapeake Bay Lecture/Slide Show

After attending Mr. Harp's Lecture tonight on the Chesapeake Bay and the work that he has done there I felt very moved by his work and intrigued at how he did it. I have never been to the Chesapeake Bay, but after hearing his talk and seeing his photographs I feel that I have a good sense of everyday life in the area. Also, I thought this lecture was interesting because most of the lectures that I have attended are lecturers standing in front of a crowd talking, then answering questions. That tactic is fine and very effective at times, but through seeing his photographs I feel so much more informed and knowledgeable about the area and its inhabitants. I think this is because in a typical lecture and/or from a book your imagination (which is different from person to person) plays a large role in the mental picture you you create. Whereas with the photographs you know exactly what the scenery looks like. Also, He did a great job of telling a story with his pictures, then complimented that with spoken words to give added strength to the points that he was trying to get across. One example of this that stuck out in my mind was with the oyster fishers. He started off by showing pictures of many fishing boats with multiple fisherman on each. Then, he showed more modern pictures where there were sometimes only a few to a couple of boats, most of which only had one to two fisherman on them. Just those few pictures alone told the audience that there has been a large decline in oyster fishing in the bay. Then, he started going into the topic of how there were no restrictions on fishing oysters and how the boom in population, and therefore pollution had contributed to a 95% decrease in the amount of oyster's harvested, which is due to a huge decline in population.

Another photograph which stuck out to me was the one of the house on the island from back at the turn of the 20th century. He went on to say that the isolated island had 400 people living there at one time. Now all that was left was that one house, which had water completely surrounding it up to its foundation, and a cemetery. All the other structures had been abandoned and crumpled over time due to the island slowly being covered by the rising water levels.

To conclude I was glad that I attended Mr. Harp's lecture and slide show. It was an interesting way to learn about the area and his life's work. I felt that the photographs really added to the story that he was trying to portray. With that I felt that he wasn't trying to just tell a story, he showed us the real live snapshots of the story as it unfolded. For example, I feel like if it was someone up at a podium telling us about the flowers, soft shell crabs, the oysters, muskrats, fish, and otters that I wouldn't have gotten as much out of it as I did with Mr. Harp showing pictures of each of these individual animals.

Food, INC. Film and reading pg 1-64

Personally I felt the film was extremely educative about the true problems that we currently have as far as mass food production. It is nice and reassuring that people such as Karl Weber and Eric Schlosser are being proactive and going against large and power figures to lead the movement to a healthier and more economic form of food production. As far as the movie goes, The part that I was most stricken by was the mass chicken farms. Throughout the interviews, video, pictures and the saddened music during some transitional aspects of the section I felt a growing concern for how our food is being produced. The fact that a few major companies are in total control of basically all of our food farms is disheartening, especially how they don't care about the farmers, the environment or to an extent the chickens themselves. All they care about is getting the most chickens to the butcher in the shortest amount of time and spending as little money while doing so. When the company is making hundreds of thousands of dollars off a single chicken barn while the farmer only receives, I believe it was $18,000 a year is horrible. Then, another aspect the section is how there were dead chickens piled up laying on the ground around the live chickens. There were so many chickens in the small area it was hard to see the ground at times. Then, the last thing that bothered me about this part of the movie was when they were loading the chickens to take to the processing plant. How they were just throwing the chickens into bins didn't bother me as much as how they said that the bulk of the workers gathering them were foreign illegal aliens being used as cheap labor. Which is bad among itself, but worse by the fact that they are taking jobs from Americans, even though it may be a bad, crap job it is a job all the same which is better than no job at all.

As far as the reading goes, I felt it did a good job portraying the bad parts of the large scale food producing (the big powerful companies side) and the unhealthy aspects of it as well. But mostly what stuck out to me was how the the book stayed positive with a large section talking about how Gary Hirshberg chair, president and "CE-YO" of Stonyfield started a small scale organic yogurt company, which grew to be a worldwide company. Then, while doing this large transition they became more eco-friendly and even more organic. The major point of this section pf reading that stuck out to me was the following quote talking about eco-solutions: " The fact that eco solutions (to me, that prefix signifies both ecological and economic) like organics, waste reduction and GHG reductions present the biggest business opportunities in the history of mankind." (p. 59) This stood out to me because it shows that he is not only worried about just making money like the big companies. He is concerned about being more eco-friendly, and making money while doing it. But, not only making just money, making a healthier environment and source of healthier food for the mass population. This supplemented the point that the movie was trying to get along well I believe by not just saying here is the bad and we need to change it. I says that there is a way to get the same end result, and here is a healthier and more efficient way of achieving that goal, it showed a positive amongst all the negatives. I felt the majority of the first section of the reading did a good job of this thought. Then, another section that stuck out to me was the chapter on the Dirty Six, about the worst animal practices in agribusiness. Some of the apects I had already known about such as the long distance transport for example. But there were some that I had not thought about such as the force feeding of Foi Gras to food birds which caused them to expand and making movements very difficult while inhibiting their liver functions. This is horrible to me, especially from the ethical side. This section opened my eyes to parts of agribusiness that is often shaded from the everyday public.

OU Beyond Coal Panel Extra Credit (revised)

After leaving the discussion panel tonight I definitely had a different outlook on the topic than I had going into it. Going into it I felt like changing out sources of energy was a great idea and needs to happen quickly. But, after listening to the panel speak, and mostly after the Q and A session I feel a bit less sure about the ease of the transition. Granted I still believe it needs to happen, and that it will work once the transition is started, I feel it will be a much more difficult road that I had originally had expected. I felt that overall the answers to most of the questions were very complex and I almost got the feeling that they know the subject well as scientists, but not yet well enough to put everything into lamen terms that any Joe walking down the street would at least have a slight understanding of the topic. I believe what makes me think this is the lecture about Charles Darwin last night. This being said because every biological scientist knew that organisms changed over time but that was it. Darwin took that and through expansive research and refinement was able to put the theory that forever changed science into lamen terms that it taught to almost every middle school student in science class. The other part I thought that was disadvantageous was where due to the snacks arriving late, they were passed out between the panel and the Q & A. I felt it would have been more beneficial for them to go straight into the Q and A while they had the audiences fresh attention.

On the positive side though, I was glad to see that cutting edge research in terms of alternative fuel sources are being studied right here at OU. It goes to show that OU has an interest and is one of the leading institutions that realize that an alternative source of fuel is needed before it is too late. I enjoyed listening to Mr. Stuart's and Ms. Botte's sections about algae and ammonia as a bio-fuel. I think this is mostly because I had never heard about the possibility of these being used to produce energy before. All I had ever heard about before was fossil fuels, solar, wind, water and nuclear. Where the fact that we could use our own wastes as a source of energy, instead of letting it contaminate other water sources caught my attention. We could fix two problems(waste management problems and our current means of energy production) with something we throw away daily. Another good thing that was brought to my attention is when the director of facilities here at OU closed with a statement that they are in the process of signing contracts with companies to increase the efficiency. This meaning that by contract these outside companies are in charge of providing up to date equipment, strategies to improve efficiency and high quality coal. This is reassuring in the fact that even though they are still burning coal, they are at least aware that a change is needed and that they are taking steps to reach those needed changes. Also, I liked how Mr. Bennett, the solar and wind specialist was very open yet straight to the point with his answers about how to transfer OU from coal to solar power. He was asked how this would happen and he immediately said that it was possible that there was enough sun to power OU. But he also made it very clear that no form of energy production would meet our needs by itself and that it's not a snap your finger and the process be over situation, it would take a lot of time and effort. He was the one that after hearing him speak that it hit me that only one form of energy production will not do the job as well as we need it done. A combination of energy sources must be utilized to get the best of both worlds as far as a benefit vs. costs standpoint is concerned.

David Quammen Evolution Lecture Extra Credit

After attending Mr. Quammen's Lecture on Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution I find myself intrigued with Darwin himself. Everyone has at least heard of him, and most know why he is popular. But I feel like I know a whole new side to his works after hearing a more in depth aspect to Darwin as a man and how his works evolved. I was under the impression that Darwin was a hard headed and a "I'm always right" kind of guy. But after hearing the lecture about him my mindset greatly changed. Mostly because of Quammen's topic of how Darwin had two traits that set him aside from other scientists; he was very cautious and honest. For the cautious aspect, it took Darwin over 21 years of constant critiquing to actually publish his work on evolution after he had completed it. Then, for his honesty side, he never once felt he was misleading science and that there were a fix set of laws for life and evolution.

As far as Quammen's lecture I felt that he did a great job keeping the audiences attention and interest. He did this by keeping the mood light with bouts of humor. Then, at the same time he did a great job staying on task and portraying his information. Another strategy I felt he used very well was that even though you could tell he had an opinion, he never steered to any extreme as to offend anyone in the audience. Quammen made it clear that Darwin was not trying to disprove creationism, only that those creations evolve to set laws. He wasn't completely all for Darwin, he was sure to point out that Darwin had his faults. I think he did this to seem (be in my opinion) more credible and seem a little less biased.

I feel like I gained a lot of knowledge by attending the lecture. Not so much more knowledge as much as just a different insight on the topic. I would recommend attending the lecture to any person, be spiritual or science based, wanting to gain a new aspect on Darwin and his works.