9. A Fracking Good Story

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2012/09/thanks_to_fracking_u_s_carbon_emissions_are_at_the_lowest_levels_in_20_years_.html

On September 15th, Bjørn Lomborg wrote about what has and what has not caused carbon dioxide emissions to have dropped in the U.S. He opens his essay by saying how carbon emissions need to be lowered and that the effects of global warming are already being clearly seen. He gives some statistics which demonstrate how much carbon dioxide emissions have declined and says that the main reason is the switch from coal to natural gas in order to generate electricity. To explain his title to the readers, he says that a new technique called hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has enabled the U.S. to obtain more natural gas. Lomborg claims that natural gas is much more efficient and compares it to other methods used to decrease air pollution such as the use of biofuels, windmills, carbon tax, and solar panels. He provides the reader with more statistics and information from other countries to support his statement that these other methods are much less effective than the use of natural gas. With these figures, Lomborg continues to say that windmills and solar panels cost more to make compared to their emissions reduction and ends with a single phrase summarizing his opinion: “Fracking [hydraulic fracturing] is not a panacea, but it really is by far this decade’s best green-energy option.”

The author’s purpose in this article is to show the reason for the decrease in carbon emissions and explain why other methods that are meant to do the same are not as effective. In his title, he may have tried to make it humorous by using the word “fracking.” It is a good attention getter since people would want to read to learn what the word means. His language is formal using terms appropriate to his topic and he uses several words which are uncommon such as “paltry”, “panacea”, “bonanza” however they do not interfere with the comprehension of the text. In Lomborg’s essay he seems to be biased toward natural gas and writes as if he were arguing a point. One time he wrote that natural gas is completely free when comparing it to other methods of decreasing carbon emissions, however to extract this resource it is necessary to invest some money to do so.