Climate

From the article ???The Climate for Change??? by Al Gore, his purpose is to make readers aware of a problem and to call for a change solution. His claim is to invest in new technology in America by implementing the five part plan and following that to produce one hundred percent of energy from carbon-free sources within ten years (paragraph 12). While his article may less successful in proving that his plan is the best approach, and lacks necessary counter-evidence, Gore offers Americans adequate proof that we needed to solve the climate crisis by his ???five part plan???.
Al Gore??™s claim seems to apply not only to scientists and public, but also policy-makers, ???young American??? (paragraph 21). In fact, he offers specific recommendations to ???the new president??? and ???new Congress??? should ???offer large-scale investment in incentives for the construction of concentrated solar thermal plants…could produce large amounts of electricity??? (paragraph 13). He proposed his five-part plan to clearly define the action he wants readers to take: concentrate ???solar thermal plants???, ???wind farms??? (paragraph13); unify ???national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity??? (paragraph 14); help ???Americas automobile industry??? (paragraph 15); ???retrofit buildings with better insulation and energy efficient??? (paragraph16); ???putting a price on carbon??? (paragraph 17). He indicates that ???our dependence has doubled from one-third to nearly two-thirds??? (paragraph 8). Also, he states that ???at the time, the United States imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries??? (paragraph 8). Here the author could acknowledge possible exceptions, given that President Richard Nixon already was doing what he asks.
The primary reason Al Gore offers in support of his claim is global climate crisis leading to pollution, especially carbon dioxide- have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal (paragraph 10), oil, natural gas and forest (paragraph 17), and temperatures have increased. Throughout most of the article Al Gore develops this reasoning by propose ???efficient ways to reduce global warming pollution quickly??? (paragrap17). This first reason logically follows from his overall claim: to stop the pollution, we need to ???produce 100 percent of our electricity from carbon-free sources within 10 years??? (paragraph 12). His reasoning likely would appeal to his readers that ???It is a plan that would simultaneously move us toward solutions to the climate crises and the economic crisis-and create millions of new jobs that cannot be outsourced??? (paragraph 12). To support his reason, he used statistical data: ???Approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States come from buildings??? (paragraph 16). The relevance of these statistics showing the polluted situation in United States and he tries to get more readers attention.
A second reason Gore presents in support of his claim is that, in his view, to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year oversea in return for that oil, people should ???work replacing 19th-century energy technologies that depend on dangerous and expensive carbon-based fuels with 21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth??? (paragraph 11). Gores plan is relevant, because it would be helpful for our nation. He develops and supports his reason by effective evidences. Gores plan to make America independent of fossil fuels within such a short period of time. He supports his reason by giving economists thought ???our economy will fall behind if we continue spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign oil every year??? (paragraph 5). Here Gores logic is questionable, and may show faulty cause and effect fallacy. He also used historical event that states ???thirty-five years ago???, President Richard Nixon ???set a national goal that, within seven years, the United States would develop the potential to meet our own energy needs without depending on any foreign energy sources??? (paragraph 7). He proves that in the past, we ???imported less than a third of its oil from foreign countries??? (paragraph 8). He also shows that ???the cost of this modern grid-$400 billion over 10 years-pales in comparison with annual loss to American business of $120 billion??? (paragraph 14).
While Gore may succeed in showing readers the meaningful solution ???five part plan???, he may be less successful in proving that his plan is the best approach. Another key weakness in his argument involves Gores counter-arguments, which fail to offer sufficient and persuasive counter-evidence. First, Gore addresses an objection that ???If the coal industry can make good on this promise, then Im all for it???. But he refutes this objection by stating that ???But until that day comes, we simply cannot any longer base the strategy for human survival on a cynical and self-interested illusion??? (paragraph10). Then, he writes ???heres what we can do-now??? and shows his plan to readers (paragraph 11). Second, he indicates that this plan has ???impossible goals??? (paragraph 21). He writes ???There is little doubt that this same group of energized youth will play an essential role in this project to secure our national future???. Gore refutes this objection by stating that ???This year similarly saw the rise of young Americans, whose enthusiasm electrified Barack Obamas campaign??? (paragraph 21). And he also says at the beginning of the article that ???lays the foundation for another fateful choice??? (paragraph 1).
Gore offers reasons that logically follow from his claim, to appeal the readers, especially policy-makers, to find a meaningful solution to pass a law establish a cost for global warming pollution (Reason 1). Also, in terms of energy independence (Reason 2), readers should adopt his plan as its ultimate goal in the immediate future. In addition, a main deficiency is his lack of representative evidence to prove more about how global climate became polluted.