In terms of critique, I think there are two separate sides to be addressed here. Namely, the writing aspect versus the accuracy aspect.
Writing wise, you have a fairly solid rough draft of an oral argument. I would definitely not consider this an essay, but as an oral argument, it's fairly solid. However, you could easily improve it by formalizing the language somewhat, distancing the tone to a more neutral-sounding standpoint, and citing sources for your information.
And I love political songs; if you ever write a song on the subject or whatnot, it would be way cool if you could post lyrics or a recording. :3
Now as far as accuracy, I disagree with you on a few key points.
First up, I'll break your argument into bullets. Basically, this is what I see as your key points:
- The U.S. went into Iraq for oil.
- Within the next century, global oil stocks will be depleted.
- Not enough consideration is being given to alternative energy sources.
- You speculate on a World War III, though I think that has all of the likelihood of a Tom Clancy novel (in fact, I'm fairly sure there was a Tom Clancy novel on a world oil war).
I gotta say, I disagree with you. I'm not defending President Bush, either. I don't support the War in Iraq, but for entirely different reasons.
First point of contention: the War in Iraq was started for oil.
Frankly, this argument has been around for a long time and just isn't very bright. When you think about it, the U.S. was on fairly good terms with Iraq pre-war. After all, we put Saddam in power. Many of the weapons used by his forces were U.S. military surplus. While there had been antagonism, in general, Saddam wasn't ready to cut off the oil trade. That said, he
was willing to control it. I.E. one of the publicly stated reasons that we went in was to stabilize the oil trade and prevent one nation from abusing its control over the market sector to wreak havoc on the global economy. THAT said, the U.S. invasion of Iraq actually DISRUPTED the oil trade significantly. And now, oil prices are skyrocketing.
So invasion in Iraq = / = cheap oil.
Second point: oil will be gone by the end of the century.
Oil will never be completely "gone." Fossil fuels come from fossilized bio matter. While there is still bio matter, there will still be oil. The main concern about oil depletion is not the end of oil, but the end of CHEAP oil. In other words, this is not an environmental thing. This is not, "We're killing the planet! OH NOES!" It is quite frankly a, "We're making gas more expensive! Shit!" Oil depletion arguments are all about cost/benefit; there will always be more oil somewhere - we just have to wait for it to become cheap again. That may take decades or centuries. As far as your estimate, I would love to see some sources cited on that. Reputable sources, mind you.
Third: not enough consideration is being given to alternative energy sources.
All I gotta say is supply and demand. The global marketplace adjusts; when oil becomes too expensive to act as a sustainable energy source, more demand will be placed on finding alternative sources, and thus the supply of those sources will increase. In other words, when enough people get tired of paying $20 a gallon at the pump, they'll throw their money towards alternative energy sources.
Now I completely disagree that not enough credence is being given to alternative fuel sources. We've come leaps and bounds. Hybrid cars are a first step. There already are some entirely electric cars; once again, demand becomes a problem with spreading their usage.
As far as the environmental factor, most people love to point at nuclear power and biopower as examples of ideal, "clean" energy. Sorry, but these are pop culture myths. First, nuclear power. Frankly, I find this the dumbest possible argument. People who support widescale use of nuclear power, but condemn the use of fossil fuels because we're "depleting" them are simply dumb.
Most fossil fuels are chemically stable in the natural environment. Nuclear fuels are not. In other words, the supply of nuclear fuels is diminishing
on its own. That's just basic chemistry. Beyond that, there are less stores of nuclear fuels than there are of oil. Nuclear fuels are more of a depleteable resource than oil!
As far as biofuel, I would refer you to this extremely well-written article:
bulletin board
Next thing I disagree with you on: "Electricity and all it's beauties will be dead."
Flat out not true. Electricity = / = oil. I can make electricity with a lemon and two prongs of copper. Be more precise with your wording.
Next thing: "The government CANNOT run on such a large scale without electricity."
Government in the United States ran on a large scale for close to 200 years WITHOUT electricity. As far as "government" in general, I highly doubt the Romans had light bulbs, and they were about as large scale as you get. Humanity has survived MILLENNIUMS without electricity.
And everything you said on the fictional third world war is utter speculation, and not even likely or researched.
Then you go into global warming.
"One day the coasts will just be drowned. Millions, maybe billions of people will die."
That made me burst out laughing. Turn off
The Day After Tomorrow and read an article on climate change. It's not sudden death from the seas, it's a slow and measured change.
Overall, you have a well-written argument, but it's not researched. It's not particularly "good." Only well-written.
Linear Mode
