Bjorn Lomborg, a writer for the National Post, in his article “The whole idea of Earth Hour is not too Bright” argues that the organizers of the Earth Hour campaign of turning off lights for one hour in solidarity against CO 2 gas emissions is not effective since it does not solve the problem but worsens it. Lomborg develops his arguments through various examples, rational and ironical, reinforced by statistical facts. He writes that CO 2 emissions can be reduced by “focusing on green R&D” to produce inexpensive energy that does not damage the environment. Lomborg writes for an audience interested in environmental conservation, as evidenced by his grasp and articulation on environmental issues. Further analysis of outside sources challenges Lomborg’s views on the usefulness of green energy that is already available.
In his article, Lomborg first sets the stage by describing the vain attempt by environmentalists to organize a campaign of switching off the lights for one hour to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the increasing rate of CO 2 gas emissions caused by electricity. He goes further to show how vain that symbolism is because instead of reducing CO 2 gas emissions, the campaign was in fact, worsening the situation. Lomborg provides rational arguments and examples to support his assertions by comparing such an action with the available alternatives, which appear not to solve the problem of CO 2 gas emissions. He gives reasons why such alternatives cannot reduce C O2 emissions: the use of candles does not offset the amount of CO 2 emissions from electricity; switching off the lights does not mean turning off other devices that use electricity, and the amount of energy needed to turn on the power again is equivalent if not more than that which was saved in the one hour of a blackout. Possible solutions to the problem, Lomborg suggests, should be the adoption of green energy that is cheaper and can only be developed by focusing on research and development. He has an issue will the available green energy that is produced by solar and wind energy, terming them as not only being pollutants but also expensive. The use of coal and, he argues, are unreliable and only pollute our immediate indoor environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Throughout the article, Lomborg provides statistical examples to strengthen his argument. However, he does not use outside sources to reinforce those arguments. This is an area that weakens his arguments because of credibility issues. The reader is left in limbo and only depends on his “rational” arguments and unsubstantiated examples to wade through the topic at hand. However, a look at other sources reveals that emissions from fossil fuels like natural gas and coal produce little or no global warming emissions from installation, operations, manufacturing, and decommissioning ( Explainer, 2008). The source goes further to argue that global warming emissions associated with renewable energy, of which green energy is part, are minimal. This kind of information weakens Lomborg’s arguments about the unreliability of green energy in replacing electric energy. It renders his position on green energy null and void and goes further to demonstrate why individuals should embrace the use of such energy. One would think that, after all, green energy in its present form is a better alternative in the reduction of CO 2 emissions in the environment. The source informs us further that increasing the supply of green energy will help society to replace energy sources that are carbon-intensive that would consequently reduce global warming.
Lomborg, however, appeals to his audience by his ethos and logos appeal, drawing from his rational examples and statistics, which sound convincing and able to influence the readership. He points out examples of why the use of available green energy is not only expensive but also harmful to the environment. He also goes further and takes issue with the uptake of both power and wind energy, which he terms as minimal. He claims that the expense involved in their adoption is not possible given that many people are still unable to afford electricity in countries such as Germany, where approximately 800 000 people are unable to pay their electricity bills. Lomborg tries to offer solutions to this problem by urging the concerned authorities to stop depending on the available green energy but to embrace research and development in an effort to produce reliable and cheaper forms of energy that do not increase the amount of CO 2 emissions in the environment. He, therefore, is of the opinion that switching off lights for one hour is not a good idea for reducing CO 2 but the adoption of and green energy that is sustainable and able to guarantee a future free of harmful emissions. Even though his arguments sound convincing, they still miss the credibility that can only be reinforced by facts and evidence from other reliable sources. He solely depends on his credibility as a writer from a reputable media organization.
In closing, Though Lomborg begins his article by effectively persuading his audience of the vainness in engaging in the Earth Hour campaign of switching off lights for an hour to symbolize the reduction of CO 2 emissions. He loses his power in the end by not drawing from factual evidence and reliable sources to reinforce his arguments. Readers are able to see the problem clearly about the effects of electric energy on the environment. However, his lack of evidence and dependence on heresy is not enough to convince the reader to adopt his stance. The author has produced a good article, but his arguments lack the support of reliable and credible facts, which could have helped him have a strong argument for his case.
References
Explainer . (2017). Benefits of renewable energy use. Union of concerned scientists.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use#:~:text=Increasing%20the%20supply%20of%20renewable,reduce%20US%20global%20warming%20emissions.&text=They%20found%20that%20renewable%20energy,approximately%2081%20percent%20%5B5%5D.
Lombord, B. (2013). Bjørn Lomborg: The whole idea of earth hour is not too bright. National Post. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-the-whole-idea-of-earth-hour-is-not-too-bright
