- Position‹2 of 3›
- Climate Change Deniers
Human progress goes hand in hand with increases in energy consumption; this can be seen in areas such as sanitation. Therefore the net benefit of using hydrocarbons is positive.
The argument
Proponents of this view do not begin from a claim about the atmosphere. They begin from an accounting of what fossil fuels do. Fossil fuels play a critical role in our society: they power our cars, homes, computers and more, and they are integral to the production of plastics, medicines, and most everything we use. The point of that list, on this argument, is that fossil energy is not one sector among others but an input that most other sectors depend on, so the cost of doing without it would be spread across the whole of modern life rather than confined to energy supply. The environmental question is then treated as one term in a comparison rather than as the decisive consideration. Fossil fuels may or may not be damaging to the environment, proponents argue; either way, what is bought with them is the technological innovation they incur, and that is worth the cost. The reasoning is explicitly one of trade-off. The claim is not that there are no environmental impacts, but that whatever impacts there are must be weighed against everything carbon-based production makes possible, and that the balance comes out in favour of continued use. The further step is developmental. The benefits of the technology that carbon-based production gives us are held to far outweigh the costs and to mark an important step in the technological advancement of the human race — the medicines, the materials and the mobility being achievements reached through fossil energy that proponents hold could not have been reached without it. On this account, then, the benefits of fossil fuels offset their negative impact on the climate. The argument concedes that there might be harm and maintains that it is a price already repaid by what fossil fuels have delivered.
Context
As humankind has advanced through the ages and developed new technologies, we have learned to utilize the Earth's resources in new ways. A huge technological advancement was the ability to use fossil fuels buried in the ground, which today power much of our society's technological achievements.
Premises
Counter-arguments
As nice as life is using fossil fuels, our planetary environment is more important. We can't enjoy the fruits of technological innovation if we don't have a planet to live on, and the health of the Earth must come above all else. There are other, sustainable ways to accomplish the same things that carbon based fuels do.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Other, less harmful resources can replace the uses of fossil fuels. [Rejecting P2] The Earth's health is most important.
Framing
Technological innovation and its benefits to the modern lifestyle should be valued above the environment.