Facing the consequences of our lifestyles

In my paper I will talk about and include in my introduction that it seems that we have come to a point where society does not even include “environment” or “nature” in its vocabulary anymore. I will follow this by presenting the problem that people think that a world that uses the ground resources, such as oil, which moves lots and lots of money, does not need green energy. That is the indeed the main problem. Oil has become the main natural resource used in this world. It does not matter if it hurts the environment or not, because it moves money.

However, green energies do not move enough money and companies are not willing to make the investment on those, because it is not worth the cost. Money is a thing of the present; it does not see a future. This capitalism world only cares about material and money, not nature. I will also present a discussion of how we have gotten comfortable with this lifestyle with the use of vehicles, factories, massive production and other oil uses and we have not seen or experience any big changes on Earth yet, but future generations will. People do not see the advantage of using green energy, they only see the sacrifice that we would have to do, such as short showers, public transportation, reduction of the use of electricity…etc. Finally, I will finish conclude my paper with the proposal of using green energies and what it would mean to society, which would be used to satisfy human needs and stop hurting the environment. However, big companies use and control oil and they move enormous amounts of money, and money governs the world. Money does not care about future.

Thesis: facing the consequences of our lifestyles by not taking measures such as stop using oil and the concept of using green energies.


First source

Copland, S. (January 19, 2012). The Drum Home ABC. retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3776760.html. This source from ABC titled “the war against renewable energies” from Simon Copland talks about the consequences of the rise of new companies that are using green energy against oil companies.

Second source:

Geographic, N. (July 26, 2011). National Geographic Daily News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110726-nsf-oil-impact-lipid-video/ Here “National Geographic Daily news” mentions and explains the impact of oil spills on the environment.

Third source:

Heinberg, R. (2006). The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse. Clairview books. A book from Heinberg in which he discusses a plan to prevent oil wars and economic consequences of the massive use of oil.

Fourth source:

Walker, C. (October 28, 2008). National Geographic. Retrieved from National Geographic News: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1028_041028_alternative_energy.html From National Geographic’s website, Cameron Walker discusses and analyses the different renewable energies.

Fifth source:

C2es. (2011). C2es.org. Retrieved from http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil This article from the website “C2es” explains everything about oil: price, impact on the environment, spills, availability…etc.



2 responses to “Facing the consequences of our lifestyles

  1. Luis,
    Sorry it’s taken me a few days to comment. Your paper sounds very interesting! However, I’m not sure I understand your thesis. “Facing the consequences of our lifestyle” sounds more like a topic than a thesis. Turn that into a definite claim — a statement of the position you are attempting to defend — and you’ll be in good shape.
    Your sources look pretty good. I’d strongly suggest you check out some of what Bill McKibben has written about climate change and the role of economics and “Big Oil” in blocking attempts to change energy policy in the US and around the world. In particular, his widely read essay published last year in Rolling Stone seems relevant to your paper: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719.
    More substantively, I would encourage you to refine one of your central claims, that money “does not care about the future.” I would say that money (and, more to the point, money-makers) very much care about the future: that’s why investment is such a huge part of economics. Money wants to make more money, and that means anticipating, looking ahead, being prepared for tomorrow. Perhaps a better way to make the point is to say that money doesn’t care about ethics, or quality of life, or, really, anything that is not money (or at least convertible into money). So, for instance, if it suddenly became clear to Exxon or Chevron or whoever that oil was no longer profitable, or would no longer be profitable in 5 years, don’t you think their business model would change drastically? This ties in to your point that green energy can’t compete right now with oil because it doesn’t “move enough money” (nice phrase, by the way).
    It’s a difficult problem, to say the least. I look forward to reading what you have to say about it!

    • Dr. Findling,

      I understand that you are busy. I will take a look at Bill McKibben’s article in the rolling stone’s website. Also, what I meant by “money does not care about future” was that money did not care about ethics, environment impacts, climate change…etc. I just did not use the right words but thank you for letting me know though. I will change that and the thesis statement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s