The writer’s point is that environmentalists who argue for green energy alternatives are basically reaping the benefits of the same issue that they fight against.
The writer’s point is that environmentalists who argue for green energy alternatives are basically reaping the benefits of the same issue that they fight against.
George F. Will goes through his explanation of the environment toll of the production of ice cream to illustrate his view of environmentalists—that they contradict themselves by advocating for green initiatives such as clean energy, while utilizing products that pollute the environment all the way from the farm to the table. He is using humor to drive his point home by basically highlighting the hypocrisy in what they say and do and further suggests that the agenda of the environmentalists align closely with the political agenda of the left.

After reading the article called, "Being Green at Ben and Jerry's" written by George F. Wills, I disagree with his claim that there is no real oil crisis. Will fails to give consideration to the seriousness of the effects of greenhouse gasses and pollution in general, and instead chooses to distastefully mock his opponents on the issue. This failure in my opinion, diminished his authority on the subject, as any good writer should address valid concerns of the opposition.
First of all, Will offers no authoritative sources in his comparison of the size of the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Is the size of the drilling area accurate? Let’s for a moment accept his assessment of the space as accurate – did he stop to consider whether or not this area is protecting important wildlife and forests? I would argue that the size of the drilling space is irrelevant if there is a potential threat to the park’s ecosystem.
In his third paragraph, Will claims that there is no energy crisis stating that energy use is unchanged per capita. He failed to note that an increase in population size means that more resources are being utilized, which further increases levels of pollution.
He further claims that ANWR can give us energy independence of foreign oil for at least twenty-five years, however, upon investigation these estimates vary, which weakens his argument on the subject. I think it is irresponsible for him to make assumptions about reserves when no one has a definite idea on the amount. Furthermore, he failed to address what happens when we run out of these reserves. Our supply of oil is not bottomless, therefore logic tells me that it will run out eventually. Our reserves should remain for use in times of crisis.
Will continuously pokes fun at environmentalists for wanting alternative energy resources that are safer for our planet, but this issue is no joke. In order to build a future that is energy stable, the responsible thing to do is explore other alternative solutions such as windmills and solar energy, as they are safer for our environment. Will is irresponsible to build his argument on resources that cannot sustain us for generations to come.