Does fossil fuels represents our future?

by Meli.caron007 on November 20, 2013 - 10:56am

 In the next 5o years, there will be no more fuel in the world if we continue consuming energy like we do presently. One effect of this over consummation is global warming. Even though citizens and governments are aware of these issues, we do not see how critical the situation is and how fossil fuel devastate the environment.            

 Fossil fuel damage the environment and the society.

 :  Thousands of risks and spills  

-          In Canada, the pipeline that cross the country has made many oil spills in Alberta since the very beginning of its construction. An article from Global News, placed the entire oil spills on a virtual map and explains where the spill was, the year it happened and the name of the company of gas. Some spills still happened three or four years ago, in Alberta

with some spills of 4m2 and more.

-          There are also unbelievable accidents, like the one in the Gulf of Mexico in the year 2010. When they developed the platform, they had to make a choice; whether they decide to choose the lowest price and more risk or the expansive, but secure way. BP, the oil company that was holding the platform when it they created the platform until it explodes, decided to take the cheaper way.

-          There is many risk in implanting a platform and drilling fuel at 4,130 feet under water for example; risk of drilling at a high pressure, risk of losing all the oil in the ocean, etc.  

Society over consumes compare to its needs.

-          Fossil Fuel represents 85% of the producer of energy in the United States.

-          The energy is the base for the new world. How could we live without electricity? It is by burning coal and fuels that plenty companies are producing this energy supposed to be clean.  The author Ingrid Kelly thinks that we use more energy than we can produce in America.


 Global warming

-          More recently, many scientist are against the pipeline that crosses Canada, and do believe that the pipeline has negative effects on the earth. If we want to have a chance to stop the climate change, we better stop moving bitumen from underground.

-          In 2008, there were 436 nuclear power plants in the world. We could think that nuclear is a cleaner energy than fuel or coal, but the uranium use during the process creates radioactive waste that scientist estimate will last for 24,000 years or 12 generations.


We can clearly conclude that fossil fuel represents a danger for the environment by creating spills and risks by installing either pipeline, platform or power plants. The only thing the world now need to consider is how are we going to stop consuming fossil fuels? And can we reduce this amount to zero by the end of 2030? 



I am commenting about this post because the situation of the environment and the global warming are important issues that our society faces. The risk of losing the oil in the ocean is interesting because it is an accident that have tragically impact on the environment. You could talk about the impact that it had when it arrived. Your global warming argument is pretty good and I think that your explanation about pipeline’s consequences is also very good. Finally, we can easily understand what you are saying. In other words, your writing is good.
I’m concerned by this subject because I love go at my parents’ cottage and spend time in the nature. I can stay 3 hours outside only looking at the beautiful view I have. So, the environment is something important for me. Before a devastation due to fuel fossil or other environmental issue, I hope that my children and grand-child can spend time as I am doing now. I support the fact that we should take care of our beautiful world instead of taking risk for our economy.
Here is a link that can help you with the impact of the Gulf of Mexico’s catastrophe. For example, there is a lot of animals and species that have been affected by this accident.

Hi Meli caron,

I enjoyed reading your post on the effect of using fossil fuels to the environment, people and future economy. It specifically portrayed and represented what our future could be in terms of the destruction of the world through global warming and the negative loop effect it will have on the population. I like that you not only focused on its effects to the world itself but the effects that will come after fossil fuels have run out due to the dependency humans currently have on it. It was interesting to read because when I think about fossil fuels my mind primarily thinks about the negative effects it has on the environment, which would be normal as I’m an environmentalist not an economist, but it raised a good point. When thinking about the effects of global warming, as conflicting as it sounds, environmentalists and economists should be working together as it has a huge impact on both issues. The article was well balanced in that sense. I believe it’s something environmentalist should highlight in political debates, when addressing the public on climate change issues and getting them to listen as it relates directly to the people.
Without fossil fuel industries many people will be out of a job. The article “Fossil-fuel subsidies ae the real job killers” by May Boeve and Brendan Smith would be useful to use, fact wise, in terms of the economic effects the consumption of fossil fuels has. It states that even though major oil companies such as Shell, BP and Chevron generated $546 billion in profits in 2005-2010 they had to slash their work force by 11,200 people. These figures alone should be an eye opener to the world that there use of fossil fuels and their decency on it will come to an end, slowly but surely. These figures should be used and brought to the public’s attention in order to inspire them and encourage them to contribute towards finding a cleaner solution which is sustainable and reusable so that their jobs aren’t on the line and they can depend on it.
The article goes onto say that US oil production in Louisiana had been directly affected by hurricane Katrina which to me is fairly ironic. The burning of fossil fuels is a main contributor to global warming which has been linked to freak extreme weather conditions like hurricanes. The article states that economists have been studying the long-term economic effects of hurricane Katrina and concluded that the hurricane resulted in 129,000 people losing their jobs in New Orleans which was 19% of the total workforce. This is a fair example of the adverse effects the dependency of fossil fuels has both to the environment and the economy.
I like that you have used a lot of statistics in your post as it gives the reader something to visualise and relate too. However you have laid everything out in bullet points and I personally think your argument would benefit more from writing in paragraphs so that your work could flow better and make it more readable. I also believe that your post did very well in showing the direct effect fossils fuel consumption has on different regions but could also benefit from more examples on the environmental effects. Your post was also very focused on oil and coal which is understandable as they are one of the main contributors but it would also be good to mention others, a good website to use to find more information on different fossil fuels is:

About the author