XXII. In this moment, the developed countries — I point to them, because these countries have already burnt massive amounts of carbon dioxide for energy to build their economies — are faced with a real energy conundrum. On the one hand, developed countries are battered because of a fast-heating planet; temperatures have gone through the roof; droughts and extreme weather events are hitting them as well. On the other hand, ordinary people in these countries are worried, not just because of climate change but because of the lack of energy to heat their homes this coming winter. In the US, gas prices went up in summer, so much so that people travelled less and consumption of fuel dropped. But now prices are down and it is business as usual.
The fact is that this energy disruption has provided the much-needed vault to the beleaguered fossil fuel industry. Governments are asking this industry to supply more. Europe has baptised natural gas, a fossil fuel less polluting than coal but still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, as “clean”. The US has passed a climate bill, which will invest in renewable energy but conditional to increased spends on oil and gas and the opening up of millions of hectares of federal land for drilling. Through this bill the US will do more than ever before to build a manufacturing base for renewable energy, particularly solar. Europe, even in this desperate scramble for gas, is working to ramp up its investment in renewable power. So, it is the worst of times. It could be the best of times, but there are some caveats. One, this renewed interest in fossil fuels must remain temporary and transient. Given the nature of economies, once the investment has been made in this new infrastructure or the supply of fossil fuel has increased from new oil and gas discoveries, it will be difficult to wean off. Two, these countries should not be entitled to more use of fossil fuels in our world of shrunk carbon budgets. They need to reduce emissions drastically and leave whatever little carbon budget space that is remaining to poorer countries to use, thereby satisfying such poorer countries’ demands. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from “New energy conundrum”, by Sunita Narain, DownToEarth]
Assuming the aim of the US climate bill is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, which of the following would be the strongest argument that it will fail to achieve such an aim?
Correct Answer :
The bill is self-defeating, since it makes investments in renewable energy conditional to more expenditure on oil and gas and making millions of acres of federal land available for drilling, which would lead to an increased consumption of fossil fuels.
Solution :
Correct Answer: The bill is self-defeating, since it makes investments in renewable energy conditional to more expenditure on oil and gas and making millions of acres of federal land available for drilling, which would lead to an increased consumption of fossil fuels.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Analyze the Aim and Context:
The question asks us to identify the strongest argument showing why the US climate bill will fail in its goal to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
2. Evaluate the Passage Details:
According to the passage, the US climate bill "will invest in renewable energy but conditional to increased spends on oil and gas and the opening up of millions of hectares of federal land for drilling." Furthermore, the passage explicitly warns that "once the investment has been made in this new infrastructure or the supply of fossil fuel has increased... it will be difficult to wean off."
3. Evaluate the Options:
- Option 1: Suggests the bill does not provide enough increase in fossil fuel investments. This directly contradicts the passage and the premise of reducing fossil fuels.
- Option 2: Discusses technical language and public readability, which is irrelevant to whether the bill structurally fails to reduce fossil fuel reliance.
- Option 3: Points out that by tying renewable energy investment directly to expanded oil/gas spending and federal land drilling, the bill inherently promotes and locks in increased fossil fuel usage, rendering its goal self-defeating. This directly mirrors the reasoning in the passage.
- Option 4: Misinterprets carbon budget concepts and does not address the direct mechanism causing failure.
4. Conclusion:
Therefore, the strongest argument for the bill's failure to reduce fossil fuel consumption is that its requirement of increased oil and gas spending makes it inherently self-defeating.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.