Introduction
Paul Krugman argues that using the sun as a source of energy is cost-effective and safe in comparison to fracking. The politicians have been supporting fracking as a way of accessing gas to produce energy. Fracking results in pollution of the environment and adverse health effects. The fracking companies are, however, not paying for the damage they are causing to the environment.
Summary
Krugman talks about the fall in energy power calling for the need to explore other sources. Fracking has been one of the methods which have been introduced, fracking, however, causes environmental pollution and health effects due to the radioactive materials released. Fracking is also expensive, and the citizens are required to pay for it. The sun is also a source of energy and cost-effective, thus should be embraced by the people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Presentation
The information is accurate as it is comparing to other studies done on the effects of fracking on the environment and health. The data is significant because it is aimed at persuading people to embrace the sun as the source of energy. Krugman has clearly defined some hard terms such as fracking thus making it possible to understand what he is talking about. The author is biased as he favors the sun as the source of energy over fracking.
Response
I agree with Krugman on using sun as a source of energy. It is cost-effective which means the citizens do not require paying excess money. Fracking is not only expensive, but it also has other negative effects on the environment and health.
Conclusion
The information presented by Krugman is valid as it presents a current issue. The author was successful at convincing the audience on the advantages of the sun over fracking as a source of energy. The weakness of the article is that no other sources are included on where Krugman got the information.
