Chapter 7 Question 5

Patrick Moore and Jamie Lincoln Kitman discuss unconventional ways to help the environment. Both authors support protecting the environment, but their arguments on the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles and nuclear energy may come as a surprise to those who are less familiar with the subject.

In Jamie Lincoln Kitman's essay, "Life in the Green Lane", he describes the ineffectiveness of certain hybrid cars when it comes to protecting the environment. Rather than being an advocate of hybrid cars, as most would expect, Kitman discusses the reasons that hybrid cars aren't as beneficial as most believe. He begins by comparing hybrid cars to fat-free desserts. If you eat enough of these desserts, you can still gain weight. This is the same as buying a hybrid car that claims to save gas, but instead, can only save gas under certain conditions. Hybrid cars are designed to save gas when driving at moderate speeds through town, but when one is driven on the highway, the battery powered cell is not enough to make the car accelerate and stay at a higher speed. At this point, the car switches to gas power, thus using the same amount of gas as a conventional car. Kitman also writes that a conventional car is always better than a hybrid SUV, because the "21 miles per gallon is not particularly brilliant", as compared to the gas mileage of a conventional car. The government has begun making tax incentives and special parking spots for these very same cars that waste more gas than a regular car, while people that save gas by using regular cars have to walk a further distance and pay more money for actually saving more gas. Because Kitman is a bureau cheif for a car magazine, he knows more about cars than the average person (I assume); the article may come as a shock to those that don't know the truth about hybrid cars.

In Patrick Moore's article, "Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case", he writes about the advantages of nuclear energy. He admits that he was once against this idea, but now is an advocate. His pro-environmental stance makes it surprising that he supports this idea, but my high school chemistry teacher preached about the wonders of nuclear energy, so it really doesn't come as a shock to me. He begins by giving a history of nuclear energy, including fatal accidents (and he stresses that they were accidents) and stats about CO2 emissions from electrical energy plants. He talks about solar and wind energy, two useful energy sources, but that they are so unpredictable that they can't be relied on. There are five problems with nuclear energy that he is able to counter-argue. Nuclear energy may be expensive now, but with technological advances, it will be more affordable in the future. Nuclear energy has had an unsafe history, but only because the reactor was lacking safety measures that are now instilled in the plants now. Some believe that nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years, but within 40 years, the used fuel will have less than 1/1000th of the original radioactivity. Nuclear reactors are believed to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but chemical plants, natural gas plants, and political targets are far more vulnerable. Finally, nuclear fuel can be diverted to nuclear weapons, but Moore argues that many things that are potentially harmful (such as car bombs, made of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars), but have not been banned. Because Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, an organization devoted to the protection of the environment, his article is persuasive, because his has the environment's best interest.