On April 6th, an
article was posted on the Economist discussing the business of the European investments
in wood as a “renewable” source of energy. The author presents the argument for
why European nations considered wood as a renewable energy, even though it
sounded ludicrous, and then he explained how it would hypothetically work. Each
step of the progress to elevate wood as a main renewable energy is presented,
showing what companies were able to take advantage of this label and how they
did it. The author explains the way companies intend to profit from the use of
wood and predicts the estimated amounts companies would gain from that business.
However, halfway through the article, the author says that this method of using
wood as a source of renewable energy is not efficient since the process to
convert the wood into wood pellets and to transport it from other places
outweighs the amount of carbon absorbed from replanted trees. He also says that
the theory disregards other facts about carbon emissions and concludes that using
wood as a renewable energy source is more costly, does not decrease carbon
emissions, and discourages other more effective renewable energy sources.
The author’s purpose
in writing this article is to inform their readers and to persuade them to believe
that wood should not be considered a renewable source of energy. He uses
statistics as well as quotes from large companies and professionals to explain
the side of the issue that supports the use of wood as well as to explain the
side which refutes the idea. The author appeals to logic to explain his
reasoning and uses definition in the article to use terms appropriate to the
topic. The tone is informal with the use of contractions and certain words, but
the author maintains a good posture in his writing presenting his own views on
the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment