Chapter 7, Question 5

In his essay “Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case,” author and co-founder of the anti-nuclear organization Greenpeace Patrick Moore states the claim that the United States should increase our reliance on nuclear power sources. Moore begins his argument by discussing how much nuclear technology has improved in the last thirty years. Much has changed since the near accident at Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster. He then makes the bold statement that nuclear power is quickly becoming our only alternative. Hydroelectric power sources are nearly built to capacity, and oil and coal come with a large environmental impact, so nuclear is becoming a logical choice. To support this, he counters the popular myths about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is in fact one of our least expensive energy sources, they are much safe than people believe they are (“no one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the US civilian nuclear reactor program” (310)), and they are no more dangerous to terrorist attacks than other power plants or political offices. Most importantly, nuclear power plants have lower CO2 emissions compared with coal and oil. Times have changed, and Moore believe in order to keep up nuclear energy is the way to go.

In his essay “Life in the Green Lane,” author Jamie Lincoln Kitman discusses how hybrid cars may not be all that people claim they are. He says that many people buy them based on the propaganda-fueled belief they are better for the environment. Unfortunately, many people buy hybrid models of inefficient cars, like SUV’s, which in actuality do not give much greater performance. They also have more negative feedback because of the troubles that go with hybrid batteries and their deficiencies on open highways. He believe the technology is being used the wrong way, and in some cases we may be better off sticking with an average, gas running sedan that does not have the hybrid related problems. Kitman is disgusted at the preferential treatment hybrid drivers receive, such as special parking spaces and highway lanes, when hybrid cars really are creating additional problems.

I believe the author’s biographies have a large influence of there persuasive. In the first article, Moore comes from a background highlighted by co-founding Greenpeace. One of this organizations foundation argument is against nuclear weapons and power sources. This means he clearly did his research about nuclear technology while the organization was under development. It also shows how far technology has progressed if a man so opposed to it is now a strong supporter of it. He is knowledgeable on the subject and has the open-mindedness to see and accept that the numbers do not lie; today’s nuclear plants are far more efficient. The second author, Kitman, is a high-ranking editor for Automobile Magazine, and is a self-proclaimed “professional car-tester” (306). He clearly has been around cars for quite some time, and has an extensive knowledge of the automobile industry and its political and economic ties. Moore examines cars for a living, so he would know how hybrids work and the impact the government is having on their sales and the impact they are having. Both authors use their backgrounds to their advantage when established ethos for their essays. This is very helpful in persuasive essays because it proves instant credibility and allows for a good background on the issue they are addressing.