Compare and Contrast Articles

The United States has long been a leading nation in energy consumption, with demand only increasing as the years go on. As such, energy policy is a hotly contested topic, with there being a wide range of opinions on the best way to move forward. This paper will be comparing and contrasting two articles that take opposing views on energy policy in the United States. The first article, titled "The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To", was written by Michael Shellenberger and by Forbes in 2019. In it, the author makes the case that renewable energy is expensive, unreliable, and often requires subsidies from taxpayersand, ultimately, that renewables were never meant to provide all the energy for an industrialized nation like the US. In the second article, titled Should We Burn More Fossil Fuels, Not Less? by Suhaas Bhat and Connor Chung, published in Foreign Policy in 2022, the opposite view is taken, where the authors argue for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy production in the United States as a way to create jobs, reduce pollution, and increase energy security. While both articles make valid points, I ultimately side with Shellenbergers argument simply because it is more pragmaticand when it comes to energy it is important to be practical rather than ideologically idealistic. I believe that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs, and that it is important for the United States to take steps to shore up its energy independence using methods that work, that are dependable, and that can be effective. Renewable energy can be helpful, but it cannot fill the void left behind by abandonment of fossil fuels. Additionally, I believe that Shellenbergers argument is more convincing overall because he provides more concrete data to support his claims while Bhat and Chung rely heavily on opinion, criticism and conjecture. Ultimately, I believe that Shellenberger has the more persuasive article because it shows quite plainly that although renewable energy is an important part of the future of energy production in the United States it should not come at the expense of fossil fuels as the backbone of energy independence.

Themes and Points of the Two Articles

The theme of the article by Shellenberger is this: renewables are not capable of powering modern civilization because they are not as reliable or as efficient as fossil fuels. Additionally, he argues that the production of renewable energy requires more...…future and that the important thing to do is to maintain the course. But this is not a recommendation that logically follows from data readily obtainable. The situation in Europe is dire, as it moves away from fossil fuels supplied by Russia. The energy lost is already throwing the continent into chaos. What would happen if there was total abandonment of fossil fuels and commitment to only renewable? Civilizations the world over would topple in a matter of months. That is why a practical approach to this issue is really important, as Shellenberger points out. That is why I think his is the more persuasive, ultimately. He argues for a position of facts and data, and applies logical thinking to reach conclusions that extend from the analysis of the data. The other authors start from a conclusion (renewable are necessary) and work backwards to the current situation, recommending policy changes while ignoring the facts as irrelevant.

Conclusion

Shellenberger writes from a perspective of objectivity, while Bhat and Chung write from a perspective of ideologyand that is why I find the former more persuasive than the latter. Shellenberger provides concrete examples to support his claims. Bhat and Chung rely more on speculation. For me, the facts are what matter.

Works Cited

Bhat,…