Pittman1

Joe Pittman
Connie Douglas
Eng 112-78
7 September, 2016
Is the Switch Necessary?
With global temperatures on the rise, both polar ice caps melting, and unprecedented
weather behavior, global warming has without a doubt become a problem that needs to be
addressed. The current use of fossil fuels is known to be one of the main causes behind global
warming. Knowing this, the question must be asked, what should be the future of fossil fuels in
our world? The answer can be found when we look to two different authors with opposite views.
The first article, written by Don Pettit and entitled Lets Get Serious About Energy, states how
carbon based energies are the main contributor to global warming and if the world does not make
the switch to clean energy, there will be devastating consequences. The second article, written by
Alex Epstein entitled Fossil Fuels Have Made All of our Lives Better, has a completely
different view point. Epstein argues that the use of fossil fuels is vital to the worlds success and
therefore their use must be maintained and the use of pollution reduction technology will be used
to combat global warming. After analyzing the two articles, Pettit is able to deliver a much more
convincing argument through his use of appealing to the audiences logic and emotions.
In the article, Lets Get Serious About Energy, Pettit attempts to persuade the audience
to believe global warming problems have become so bad that an immediate need to stop using
fossil fuels has risen. The author portrays this information in a clear and easy way for the

Pittman2

audience to understand. He uses facts about the direct negative and irreversible consequences
that the use of fossil fuels has done to the environment. A prime example of this is when Pettit
says, Its not global warming anymore. Things arent just warming up (which for Canadians
sounds kind of ok) theyre screwing up, badly and its starting to affect everything: increased wild
fires around the world, increases in storm frequency and severity, the death of coral reefs,
massive and persistent droughts and heat waves its happening now. This argument directly
appeals to our logos style of thinking. It is hard not to recognize the problem and need for change
when the consequences are so abundant. To further clarify his argument, Pettit offers a solution
to fix the problem in two distinct easy to follow steps: 1) becoming more efficient in how we
use energy and 2) rapidly switching to non-carbon energy sources like solar and wind power.
With these points the reader is able to gain a clear understanding of the goal of the article and
reinforces the authors position.
One thing that might be misconstrued in Pettits article is the use of casual language
within the piece. The use of common language and attempts to lighten the mood of the article
could be perceived as unprofessional. When Pettit says, Things arent just warming up (which
for Canadians sounds kind of ok) theyre screwing up badly and its starting to affect
everything. he attempts to make a joke to a specific audience and uses poor slang choice by
saying screwing. By doing this he narrows his range of targeted audience and could cause
some readers to lose credibility in him due to the serious agenda of the article.
Pettit does an excellent job highlighting the importance of switching from carbon based
energies to the readers attention. He can accomplish this by stating commonly known facts
about the consequences of using fossil fuels. At one point Pettit states that, Toxic pollutants are

Pittman3

now everywhere, from pole to pole, in the air, water, and soil, from the highest mountains to the
deepest oceans. The ice caps at both poles are melting at absurd rates, as well as most of the
glaciers. This point plays right into fear and uses the pathos appeal to convince readers of the
need for change. With that being said, the article does lack credible quoted facts and statistics
from scholarly works. With these incorporated into the article the argument can stand stronger
and serve to convince readers more effectively. Pettit also fails to address the big argument
against clean forms of energy; the cost of them. Without a viable cost, effective solution
presented readers are left with the question of how this can be accomplished.
In the article, Fossil Fuels Have Made All our Lives Better, Epstein has a differing
opinion on the approach to the future of fossil fuels. He attempts to persuade his audience by
highlighting and reinforcing that all of societies progression over the last few decades is thanks
to fossil fuels, and that to make any switch off them will cause the world to lose the ability to
successfully progress further. To make his article convincing, Epstein uses examples of how
beneficial the use of fossil fuels is to our society and all the advances they have provided. When
Epstein says, Only then did humanity recognize fossil fuels potential to generate power. That
power in turn, was used to create the technological and economic advances that took us from no
indoor plumbing to landing on the moon in less than 200 years, he is attempting to appeal to the
audiences logos. He presents a point to get the reader thinking about how will life remain the
same without fossil fuels and how will society be able to expand and grow for the better. To
further strengthen his argument, Epstein stands firm on and clearly states his main point by
saying: (Fossil fuels) allow us to improve human well-being and make the world a better place.

Pittman4

The way in which the article, Fossil Fuels have made all our Lives Better, is organized
only serves to make the article more convincing. The author starts off by addressing the
unpopularity of his viewpoint and then begins to reinforce his point with facts before making his
final stand. This choice to withhold the firm stand on the issue to the audience is affective
knowing people are likely to disagree. Epstein presents facts that are easy to agree with and in
his favor to open the readers mind on an otherwise definitive stance on the issue.
Epstein does however, fail to mention the existing environmental damages that fossil
fuels have done and if or how that can be fixed. This main issue that is mainly plaguing the use
of fossil fuels and to fail address this only weakens the other arguments he has given in the
article. The only suggestion mentioned in the article is a process for reducing emissions of fossil
fuels and with little information given it does not sooth the minds of the readers at all. He does
briefly mention alternative energy when he says: alternative energy sources are either too
expensive, too difficult to access or simply inefficient. The problem is that with little
information and no facts to support it the reader is not going to be convinced and therefore
unable to support the point.
After examining both articles, it is clear that Don Pettit was able to present his argument
better. He does so by playing towards the audiences logos appeal. Pettit was able to present clear
convincing facts that all prompted the urgency of change to non-fossil fuel energy. Each article is
a direct insight into differing opinions of each side of Americas views on the argument. On one
hand, you have Epstein, who is scared the change to green energy will destroy our standard of
living, but somehow ignores the environmental impacts due to fossil fuels. On the other hand,
Pettit gives view into the rational realization for the need to change to greener energy while

Pittman5

accepting the challenges along with it and points out too much damage has been done for any
other course of action. Pettit over all, convinced the reader into agreeing with his point more
efficiently than Epstein did.

Pittman6

Work Cited
Epstein, Alex. "Fossil Fuels have made all of our Lives Better." South Florida Sun - SentinelNov
29

2014. ProQuest. Web. 8 Sep. 2016 .

Pettit. "Let's Get Serious about Energy." Alaska Highway NewsJan 13 2016.ProQuest. Web. 8
Sep. 2016 .