Drill or Not to Drill

Drill or Not To Drill

Samuel Mazzie

HUM/111

June 16, 2012

My position on this issue is that we should switch to wind and solar power energy because in the long it will save us from drilling in Alaska and just save the economy on money also. It would cost a great deal of millions to switch. I recommend the Solar use as we have sufficient source form the sun. The price of electricity will increase which will cause Citizens spend thousands on electricity because of the rising cost of oil. Also the oil supply is decreasing daily and evenly that source will be extinct so why not start with alternative sources. Some argue that alternative sources are too expensive but fail to realize that if he or she was to invest in an alternative source such as solar panels. We have to spend money to make the money. If we were to switch over now. It will take a way to save the money, but wouldn’t anyone would like to save money in the long run. Nearly 10 billion tons of energy 70 billion barrels of oil equivalent, with fossil fuels, oil, natural gas, and coal representing 90% of this amount. This is equivalent to roughly 12 barrels oil per capita per year. It is no secret the world's appetite for energy is expected to continue to grow (Smith, 2004).

Face saving is my habit that is hindering my critical thinking about drilling for oil. In the ch43text,( rationalizing is a dishonest substitute for reasoning whereby we set out “to defend our ideas rather than to find out the truth about the matters concerned.)(Ruggiero). It stated if the subject prove and provide evident behind their reasoning then he or she does hinder their critical thinking skills. Provide by the text, my process of rationalization is not hindering my critical thinking skill or process. Evident is behind all of my reasoning so, therefore I can rational without hindering my critical thinking process. I understand the oil company stance on drilling. The oil companies do what they do because people, who live...