argument top image

Should we phase out fossil fuels? Show more Show less
Back to question

Fossil fuels are used to generate power in various facilities, providing energy for our homes, appliances, and devices. This energy has become critical to our daily lives, in turn making the use of fossil fuels essential. Despite this, debates have sprouted forth, contesting the use of fossil fuels to generate power. The questions posed by these debates are: Should the use of fossil fuels be discontinued due to their effects on climate? Or should we continue to use them for fear of economic setbacks?

No, we should not phase out fossil fuels Show more Show less

Fossil fuels are too important to get rid of, and doing so will only do more harm to our society than it will any good.
< (2 of 2)

Phasing out fossil fuels would negatively impact the job market

The fossil fuel industry holds a considerable place in the job market. Getting rid of the fossil fuel industry would result in a substantial loss of jobs, putting many people out of work.

The Argument

The fossil fuel industry is a pivotal resource for the job market in most countries. In the United States, the fossil fuel industry has allowed the country to become energy independent from foreign countries. Some believe that withdrawing from ventures in oil and natural gas such as fracking would hurt American independence and cost America the millions of jobs the industry provided for it. [1] This notion alone makes industries like fracking irreplaceable as people's livelihoods depend on these jobs, especially in states whose economy revolves around the use of fossil fuels like Pennsylvania and Texas. This trend manifests itself in the economic policies proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden. A drastic change would need to take place within America's economy to subsidize renewable energy. These changes would need to be so widespread that researchers estimate it would cost America 4.9 million jobs. [2] While people must do what they can to protect and preserve the environment, it should not come at the cost of the livelihoods of the people these policies exist to protect.

Counter arguments

Despite concerns surrounding the phasing out of fossil fuels, perhaps phasing them out will be beneficial to the job economy. Fossil fuel jobs pay well and do provide people with jobs, but once the resource in question runs dry, workers are often laid off and forced to find work elsewhere. From June 2019 to June 2020, oil and gas production have recently experienced a downward trend, with U.S. crude oil production falling to 38% and natural gas production to 31%. Following this trend, states like North Dakota saw a rise in their unemployment rate, attesting to the downward spiral the fossil fuel industry seems to be taking. [3] In contrast, finding work in the renewable resource sector does not have the same issue, as it uses resources that do not run out. This aspect of the renewable resource industry makes it more appealing to workers since they don't necessarily have to worry about the stability of their position.

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/10/15/biden-harris-anti-fracking-kill-jobs-stifle-prosperity/
  2. https://reason.com/2020/09/24/newsom-attempts-to-mandate-full-transition-to-electric-cars-by-2035/
  3. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renewable-energy-jobs-replacing-fossil-fuel-jobs-oil-wind/
This page was last edited on Thursday, 5 Nov 2020 at 03:51 UTC

Explore related arguments