There are many conflicting opinions whether the development of the oil sands in Canada should proceed or whether it should slow down on any plans to move forward. Although both arguments have valid points, when it comes to educating the general public, the results depend on who presents their argument in a more understandable and convincing way. I found that between the articles Why Canada needs to develop the oil sands and Stop Oil sands expansion, says Canadian and U.S. Scientists. The former was a superior article because of its detail and organization as well as the evidence provided to support their statements.
The first article, Why Canada needs to develop the oil sands, starts out by discussing the diverse economy of Canada and how …show more content…
Scientists presents the opposite argument. This article focuses on the scientists point of view on the issue. It begins by saying that over one hundred Canadian and U.S. researchers are calling for a moratorium because scientists are concerned with the carbon emissions worsening climate change. These scientists argue that stopping the oil sands will not hurt the economy, they aren’t asking that all existing projects be shut down, but to merely refrain from starting new ones until more information is available. It is argued that with the goal to end the use of fossil fuels by 2100, there is no logical reason to start a project that could be shut down in a few decades. The article ends on the notion that more and more scientists are joining the debate, and we should be spending more on research into the …show more content…
I found that it lacked solid proof for their “facts”. At the start, Ten reasons for a moratorium on new oilseeds projects are briefly mentioned but the author never goes into detail on any of those reasons. This lack of background information makes it hard to not only understand what is being discussed in the article, but also difficult to trust any information you are presented with. They make the argument that stopping oil sands will not hurt the economy but do not provide any proof or further discussion on that issue. The author expects the readers to trust the scientists viewpoint solely based on the fact that they are educated scientists. They do not provide any facts or credibility besides the fact that the number of scientists involved in signing for a moratorium went up from eight scientists, to one hundred in one year. All that this proves, is that word on this issue is spreading as I'm sure the opposing side has also had in influx of supporters. Lastly, the article seemed to be saying that scientists in fields other than climate change are a silly waste of time. The author makes it seem as if humanity is doomed and focusing on other fields is betraying human life. I found this article to be very one-sided and I didn’t feel that they represented their viewpoint very
The first article, Why Canada needs to develop the oil sands, starts out by discussing the diverse economy of Canada and how …show more content…
Scientists presents the opposite argument. This article focuses on the scientists point of view on the issue. It begins by saying that over one hundred Canadian and U.S. researchers are calling for a moratorium because scientists are concerned with the carbon emissions worsening climate change. These scientists argue that stopping the oil sands will not hurt the economy, they aren’t asking that all existing projects be shut down, but to merely refrain from starting new ones until more information is available. It is argued that with the goal to end the use of fossil fuels by 2100, there is no logical reason to start a project that could be shut down in a few decades. The article ends on the notion that more and more scientists are joining the debate, and we should be spending more on research into the …show more content…
I found that it lacked solid proof for their “facts”. At the start, Ten reasons for a moratorium on new oilseeds projects are briefly mentioned but the author never goes into detail on any of those reasons. This lack of background information makes it hard to not only understand what is being discussed in the article, but also difficult to trust any information you are presented with. They make the argument that stopping oil sands will not hurt the economy but do not provide any proof or further discussion on that issue. The author expects the readers to trust the scientists viewpoint solely based on the fact that they are educated scientists. They do not provide any facts or credibility besides the fact that the number of scientists involved in signing for a moratorium went up from eight scientists, to one hundred in one year. All that this proves, is that word on this issue is spreading as I'm sure the opposing side has also had in influx of supporters. Lastly, the article seemed to be saying that scientists in fields other than climate change are a silly waste of time. The author makes it seem as if humanity is doomed and focusing on other fields is betraying human life. I found this article to be very one-sided and I didn’t feel that they represented their viewpoint very