Reliance on electricity has caused more carbon emission during quarantine
Electricity is something that society runs on. Before electricity, oil, steam, and horses existed as the main power sources. Even though electricity seems more efficient than any of those things, it comes at a price. Electricity is powered by carbon emissions which is bad for the environment.
<
(1 of 2)
Next argument >
Context
COVID-19 (coronavirus) broke out in China during December 2019. In January 2020, the virus spread to other countries like Thailand and Japan. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. As each country had the virus spread, people have been ordered to self-quarantine. Self-quarantine has reduced many outdoor activities. Self-quarantine has made society rely on electricity now more than ever. Schools are using virtual ways of learning and businesses are meeting via video calls. It should be noted that around 40% of the globe’s power source comes from electricity. This electricity is powered by coal mills.
The Argument
The coronavirus outbreak has put a halt on a fast-paced society. People have been self-quarantined, and some countries have put a stop to traveling. All that seems left is nature. It is currently untouched or barely interacted with.
Because of this, some wonder if that is a good thing. Global warming and environmental health have been a concern for many decades now. Carbon emissions and fossil fuels have been eating away at the ozone layer. Now that there are barely any cars or planes around, an individual could easily assume that the environment would improve.
But the opposite is true. The coronavirus has not been a great helper for the environment. Instead, it has probably done nothing at all. Electricity has become humanity’s main power source to function now.
Electricity is powered mostly by coal mills. These coal mills burn coal to generate electricity. This means that carbon fumes rise in the air and affect the ozone layer. The more people rely on electricity to power their lives during isolation, the more the environment will suffer.
Counter arguments
The coronavirus has indeed helped the environment in some small way. Although a good portion of the world relies on electricity, it should be noted that electricity is only a small problem compared to what vehicles of transportation do. Vehicles such as cars, buses, and planes are used constantly in society. They leave a large amount of carbon in the air as well.
But it also should be noted that they do much more than that. The more cars that are made, the more roads are built. This means more pieces of land that are frequented by animals will become urbanized. Vehicles bring more problems than stationary coal mills.
Plus, electricity doesn’t just come from coal mills. There are methods of gaining electricity such as windmills and water turbines.[1] These are being encouraged by environmentalists and activists. The world is slowly switching to cleaner energy.
In the long run, the coronavirus is doing some good. It would be better to rely on electricity and cut down on transportation than having both coal mills and transportation like normal. Vehicles result in the cutting away of organisms’ territories while coal mills directly affect the air. Taking care of one problem always improves a dire situation.
Proponents
Premises
[P1] The coronavirus is not helping global warming.
[P2] Electricity will increase global warming.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Coronavirus is taking away transportation, which is a big cause of global warming and other environmental issues.
[Rejecting P2] Electricity can be gained through other methods other than coal mills.