Energy & Place
Essential Questions
1) How does energy production impact place?
2) How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions regarding energy production?
Joint Scientific Statement
1) How does energy production impact place?
2) How does your sense of place, environmental ethic and understanding of our energy needs influence your perception and decisions regarding energy production?
Joint Scientific Statement
Opening & Closing Statements
Project Reflection
The motion I debated for was "Natural gas found in shale formations is a cheap, clean and abundant source of energy that should be a cornerstone of our energy portfolio for the next several decades". I was content with being for this motion because I agree with using energy that will not pollute the air or emit gases as much as coal and oil do. Because we dedicated so much time to researching the effects, benefits, uses and facts about natural gas, I was only further convinced that this source of energy is very useful and could potentially lead to further progress in energy production. The pros greatly outweigh the cons, and quite frankly, the cons are not guaranteed to follow up with putting natural gas fracking sites in place; they are only possible outcomes.
During our debate the opposition did not do well to argue their reasoning, in my opinion. They did not provide hard facts that proved natural gas was the root of a series of accidents or disasters. They stated that contamination of ground water was due to the hydraulic fracturing sites. We argued that this was not a result of the fracking process itself, but rather the disposal of the fracking fluid as well as water used during the process. They also said that these problems caused damage to the ecosystem. However, if you look at the big picture a couple ecosystems taking some harm because of a couple fracking sites is not the issue when emissions from coal and oil could potentially destroy ecosystems across the globe. In the long run, natural gas will lower gas emissions, not contribute to the problem. This argument, I think, was strong in addressing the benefits of natural gas.
They brought up the effects that an oil rig had in North Dakota on the economy and the people in the area. There were many negative results of this one oil rig and they made the point that a natural gas rig could have similar effects. The trouble with this claim is that it is an assumption that what happened there, will surely happen elsewhere. There is no way to prove that the consequences of all drill rigs will be bad and harmful, it is senseless to make such an allegation. I can't even.
Someone who disagreed with my motion would be intellectually engaged because our arguments did well to bring logos and ethos into our reasoning. I feel that the ones in favor of this motion would have a utilitarian perspective and it is difficult to prove them wrong. I would like to argue the benefits of natural gas to someone who did not support it because of how much the pros surpass the cons. Looking at the long-term effects that natural gas would have, I think anyone could be convinced of the prosperity it would bring.
When deciding what my position was for this debate, I had to think in the most rational and logical way I could. I did not want to have a bias based on my own personal morals; I'd rather have an open mind rather than one closed by belief. This is why I am still for the motion, because of research and facts I am not against natural gas drilling. This is a much cleaner source of energy and at this point, we kind of need some clean energy producers. Mankind has done irreparable damage to the land all over the world, that is true. But we did things believing that we were progressing and furthering our achievements. The intentions of humans are not bad, it's how we go about fulfilling them that makes us look bad. Natural gas is one way to bettering our previous actions because of it's resourcefulness, abundance and usefulness. To think that we can go and use this energy and completely end our coal energy production is amazing, but we don't. We could turn around our previous actions that have had serious consequences and make them good. When people turn a blind eye to these facts, I am astounded.
I was very glad about this project for all that I learned and all that I now understand about energy production. The knowledge that I gained helped me to see both sides of the matter and not go into the debate totally one-sided because natural gas is not the perfect source for energy, and everyone knows that. But I think that our motion was the most informative and plausible when it came to winning the debate. The opposition could have appealed to the emotions by listing all the negative connotations that have come with drill rigs, but they didn't. Judgment is often clouded by pathos and I think decisions should be made based on the logic and factual arguments given. Our team did well to address the facts so I'm satisfied with our debate.
There were a few questions I tried to find the answer to but floundered: What are the statistics for how many accidents/disasters have occurred as a result of
natural gas drill rigs? What exactly caused seismic events because of hydraulic fracturing sites? Was it the drilling process? Disposal of fracking fluid?
Debate Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAgc5vnm7Q
Link to Humanities Project
http://robdp.weebly.com/sense-of-place-project.html
The motion I debated for was "Natural gas found in shale formations is a cheap, clean and abundant source of energy that should be a cornerstone of our energy portfolio for the next several decades". I was content with being for this motion because I agree with using energy that will not pollute the air or emit gases as much as coal and oil do. Because we dedicated so much time to researching the effects, benefits, uses and facts about natural gas, I was only further convinced that this source of energy is very useful and could potentially lead to further progress in energy production. The pros greatly outweigh the cons, and quite frankly, the cons are not guaranteed to follow up with putting natural gas fracking sites in place; they are only possible outcomes.
During our debate the opposition did not do well to argue their reasoning, in my opinion. They did not provide hard facts that proved natural gas was the root of a series of accidents or disasters. They stated that contamination of ground water was due to the hydraulic fracturing sites. We argued that this was not a result of the fracking process itself, but rather the disposal of the fracking fluid as well as water used during the process. They also said that these problems caused damage to the ecosystem. However, if you look at the big picture a couple ecosystems taking some harm because of a couple fracking sites is not the issue when emissions from coal and oil could potentially destroy ecosystems across the globe. In the long run, natural gas will lower gas emissions, not contribute to the problem. This argument, I think, was strong in addressing the benefits of natural gas.
They brought up the effects that an oil rig had in North Dakota on the economy and the people in the area. There were many negative results of this one oil rig and they made the point that a natural gas rig could have similar effects. The trouble with this claim is that it is an assumption that what happened there, will surely happen elsewhere. There is no way to prove that the consequences of all drill rigs will be bad and harmful, it is senseless to make such an allegation. I can't even.
Someone who disagreed with my motion would be intellectually engaged because our arguments did well to bring logos and ethos into our reasoning. I feel that the ones in favor of this motion would have a utilitarian perspective and it is difficult to prove them wrong. I would like to argue the benefits of natural gas to someone who did not support it because of how much the pros surpass the cons. Looking at the long-term effects that natural gas would have, I think anyone could be convinced of the prosperity it would bring.
When deciding what my position was for this debate, I had to think in the most rational and logical way I could. I did not want to have a bias based on my own personal morals; I'd rather have an open mind rather than one closed by belief. This is why I am still for the motion, because of research and facts I am not against natural gas drilling. This is a much cleaner source of energy and at this point, we kind of need some clean energy producers. Mankind has done irreparable damage to the land all over the world, that is true. But we did things believing that we were progressing and furthering our achievements. The intentions of humans are not bad, it's how we go about fulfilling them that makes us look bad. Natural gas is one way to bettering our previous actions because of it's resourcefulness, abundance and usefulness. To think that we can go and use this energy and completely end our coal energy production is amazing, but we don't. We could turn around our previous actions that have had serious consequences and make them good. When people turn a blind eye to these facts, I am astounded.
I was very glad about this project for all that I learned and all that I now understand about energy production. The knowledge that I gained helped me to see both sides of the matter and not go into the debate totally one-sided because natural gas is not the perfect source for energy, and everyone knows that. But I think that our motion was the most informative and plausible when it came to winning the debate. The opposition could have appealed to the emotions by listing all the negative connotations that have come with drill rigs, but they didn't. Judgment is often clouded by pathos and I think decisions should be made based on the logic and factual arguments given. Our team did well to address the facts so I'm satisfied with our debate.
There were a few questions I tried to find the answer to but floundered: What are the statistics for how many accidents/disasters have occurred as a result of
natural gas drill rigs? What exactly caused seismic events because of hydraulic fracturing sites? Was it the drilling process? Disposal of fracking fluid?
Debate Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAgc5vnm7Q
Link to Humanities Project
http://robdp.weebly.com/sense-of-place-project.html