Rockefeller Charity pulls out of fossil fuel interests: Should we ban fossil fuels?

  • Yes of course

    Fossil fuels are destroying the ocean. They stunt oysters and starfish, degrade shells on animals that live in shells, and kill whole ecosystems. We can stop this. This is why we have wind energy and solar energy. If people switched we would be in a much better place environmentally. We can save the ocean and the world if we try. We can all be super heroes.

  • Yes we should.

    Fossil fuel are destroying the enrivonment at an alarming rate and something drastic needs to be done to change that. There will certainly be resistance by the fossil fuel insdustry to these kinds of laws, but in the long run it will be good for the rest of the world.

  • No, we rely too much on fossil feuls

    Even though banning fossil fuels would be great for the environment, we as a community do not have the right alternatives to still adequately get by. Once we are able to create more accessible alternative methods is when we can ban fossil fuels gradually. This is definitely one of those resources we can't ban cold turkey, too many people own products that run off of them.

  • They are helpful.

    America became what it is today on the back of fossil fuels. These energies are inexpensive, easy to capture, and revolutionized life in the 20th century. To ban fossil fuels would be to undo years of growth and economic prosperity. People should be allowed to use the energy they want to in order to live their life.

  • No, a ban isn't practical

    Since a large part of the world's economy is based on fossil fuels, it is not a reasonable action to ban fossil fuels. We can, however, better regulate the industry to put safeguards for the environment and better promote renewable energy. We can also do a better job of having the fossil fuel energy buying politicians for their self interests.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.