This article, published in The Economist for the week of 4/6/13, discusses a "new, carbon-neutral" fuel called biomass, though some might refer to the source as its more-common name, wood. Although wood may not be widely known as a carbon-neutral source of energy, it certainly is possible with proper reforestation policies in place. In fact, many European countries -- including Germany, one of the most prominent countries in terms of energy reform -- are making moves toward a heavier reliance on biomass with new subsidies and importing measures. After further analysis, the article finally claims that wood is inefficient in fighting the carbon battle for 100 years, even surpassing coal as the dirtiest resource for several years of its first applications as fuel.
The author of this article is clever at first grabbing the attention of its audience flipping through the pages of The Economist through the irony of a picture of a caveman lighting a fire and the headline: The Fuel of the Future. In addition, the article's first paragraph asks a couple questions about renewable energy, leaving the reader wanting to know the answer. Furthermore, it answers the question with wood, a source that is rarely ever thought as a "future-like" energy source.
The article continues by detailing countries' advancement of their "biomass" subsidies and importation of "biomass", clearly a more dependable word than "wood." Also, the author builds up to the underlying question in the reader's mind: "But is it efficient?" The article answers the question directly: no. This climax finally resolves the reader's newly opened mind on the subject of using wood as a major carbon-neutral source.
The author of this article is clever at first grabbing the attention of its audience flipping through the pages of The Economist through the irony of a picture of a caveman lighting a fire and the headline: The Fuel of the Future. In addition, the article's first paragraph asks a couple questions about renewable energy, leaving the reader wanting to know the answer. Furthermore, it answers the question with wood, a source that is rarely ever thought as a "future-like" energy source.
The article continues by detailing countries' advancement of their "biomass" subsidies and importation of "biomass", clearly a more dependable word than "wood." Also, the author builds up to the underlying question in the reader's mind: "But is it efficient?" The article answers the question directly: no. This climax finally resolves the reader's newly opened mind on the subject of using wood as a major carbon-neutral source.
No comments:
Post a Comment