Counterargument

Thesis statement to my argument for solar power:
Solar power is a clean, efficient and economic way to produce energy that needs to be adopted worldwide to aid the fight against climate change and reduce our carbon footprint for a healthier planet to hand down to future generations.

Counterargument:
Some readers may believe that solar power is the best choice for an environmentally responsible source of energy, but what about the environmental damage it causes? The solar power industry may argue that the earth would be better off with solar power rather than fossil fuels such as oil. This argument however is flawed. In order for solar power to be effective, there need to be huge fields of solar panels laid out in the sun. These fields are usually in rural areas and deserts where there is not much other development, areas that are typically home to many species of plants and animals. If huge swaths of natural habitat are covered up, shaded by these huge panels, that environment is ruined for wildlife, who’s wellbeing becomes threatened. Oil on the other hand is pumped out of the ground, leaving the surface of the environment largely in its natural state. Anyone who has ever seen an oil pump knows that sunlight falls all around it, leaving the natural wildlife to go about its business of thriving.

Response to counterargument:
Though the argument made by oil industry proponents, that solar fields take up large swaths of land may be true on that note, the truth remains that solar power is less destructive than fossil fuel. The space that solar fields demand does not cause anywhere near the danger that pollution caused by drilling for, pumping and burning oil does. One day the human race will be discover a way to provide energy to society without disturbing the natural environment at all, but until then switching from fossil fuels to solar power is the smartest and kindest thing to do.