Monday, February 15, 2010
Reflection 1.2
The comments from my first draft really helped me improve my paper. My main goal on writing this second draft was to satisfy all the comments that my group members gave me. My main focus on this draft was to add a well constructed works cited page and making sure that my thesis was clear in the introduction. I listed all of my sources in MLA format which made it easier to comprehend when i cited them in the paper. I really changed the wording of my thesis in my second draft because it was not very clear in the first draft.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Essay 1.2: (Problems to the Climate Bill)
Global Warming is a topic that is heavily debated everyday in our society. These greenhouse gases are slowly ruining our planet which asks for drastic solutions. Last December, representatives from 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to make a plan that will drastically change the course of global warming. This meeting aimed to reduce carbon emissions in the air created by burning of fossil fuels. The meeting urged the nations to create a plan that will “reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels” (Vergano). In The New York Times editorial “The Case for a Climate Bill”, the author talks about the importance of a bill that puts both a cap and a price on carbon emissions. This climate bill is having a hard time passing through Congress because even though it will reduce carbon emissions, there are many side effects to this plan. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” resorts to using President Obama as the only hope for this bill to pass. “They will need help. Mr. Obama is the best person to provide it” (Case for a Climate Bill). President Obama will need to make a case for this bill to be even considered by congress. This bill will hurt both developing and developed countries because it will only harm the recession this world is already facing.
There are many reasons to why this bill will not work in this society we live in. Nations have no intention on letting the developed world force them to stop using fossil fuels. Many nations depend on these carbon emitting fuels to create energy and run their country. Restricting these nations from this source of income would greatly affect their economy denying many nations to industrialize and keeping their population in poverty. This is what this bill is asking the world to accept. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is ignorantly saying “a good program would create more jobs than its cost”. This bill will affect every household in the country. “In June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of creating a carbon "market" to achieve such cuts would be about $175 a year by then for the average household.”(Vergano) This amount of money every year is not worth lowering the temperature by 2 degrees Celsius in the next couple hundred years, especially with most of the world still staggering from the worst recession in 40 years.
Developed countries here also have no interest in this bill because of the consequences of trying to cut carbon emissions. All the economic models show that to keep the temperature increases of the earth less than 2 degrees Celsius, nations would need to start putting a carbon tax on carbon emissions. If this bill passes, the bill will be asking the refiners somewhere “between $30 billion and $110 billion a year” (Helman). This will drastically increase the price of gasoline in this recession filled world. There are many calculations that predict that this is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage this bill seeks to prevent. So, the main reason this bill is not getting much attention is because the price of solving this problem is far more expensive than the damage this bill is trying to prevent.
The main debate focuses on how man can cope with this man-made problem. For many years, environmentalists have been following the same path on solving this situation by urging governments to pass laws that will drastically lower the carbon emissions in the air. We see this same pattern occur again in the meeting at Copenhagen. Policy makers need to realize this and quickly change their plan before it is too late. So, what is next? What can we do to solve this problem more effectively? The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions that are slowly ruining the planet we are living in. So, it should make sense to stop creating energy via burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our fossil fuels without hurting the world’s economy in this recession is to invest in green energy creating technology. Unlike the editor’s theory of “The Case for a Climate Bill” about the bill creating more jobs, the oil refiner companies begs to differ. If this bill passes “Ihne predicts that at least 15 of the current 150 plants, capable of processing roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day, will close, eliminating 5,000 jobs” (Helman). The only way to solve this problem is by investing in technologies that create non carbon based energy.
This new way of going about solving this problem will create more jobs. The increased spending on research and development will create more jobs, which will also help the economy. Some examples of non carbon based energies are nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Although there are many alternatives to creating energy, they are not nearly as effective and productive as burning fossil fuels which unfortunately create carbon emissions. So, our next step should be investing on creating new technologies and ways in which we can create energy without hurting our environment. Instead of putting a tax on carbon emissions, just a little percent of the global GDP can create breakthroughs needed to stimulate a carbon free future.
The bill that the editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is supporting will only hurt the economy and stop nations from industrializing. Policy makers have been arguing and debating about putting a tax on carbon emissions will help nations, yet not one nation is willing to accept this change. The reason for this is because they know that there will be more problems from this than solutions. The only solution to this is by investing on technologies that creates carbon free energy. We need to realize that all these meetings of nations, such as that at Copenhagen, are not working. We need to find alternative ways of creating energy without generating global warming.
Vergano, Dan. "Global warming cuts have a price." EBSCOhost. USA Today, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010..
Helman, Christopher. "Cap-and-Smother." EBSCOhost. Forbes, 30 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010..
"The Case for a Climate Bill." Editorial. New York Times [New York] 24 Jan. 2010, New York ed., WK9 sec. NYTimes. 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2010..
There are many reasons to why this bill will not work in this society we live in. Nations have no intention on letting the developed world force them to stop using fossil fuels. Many nations depend on these carbon emitting fuels to create energy and run their country. Restricting these nations from this source of income would greatly affect their economy denying many nations to industrialize and keeping their population in poverty. This is what this bill is asking the world to accept. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is ignorantly saying “a good program would create more jobs than its cost”. This bill will affect every household in the country. “In June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of creating a carbon "market" to achieve such cuts would be about $175 a year by then for the average household.”(Vergano) This amount of money every year is not worth lowering the temperature by 2 degrees Celsius in the next couple hundred years, especially with most of the world still staggering from the worst recession in 40 years.
Developed countries here also have no interest in this bill because of the consequences of trying to cut carbon emissions. All the economic models show that to keep the temperature increases of the earth less than 2 degrees Celsius, nations would need to start putting a carbon tax on carbon emissions. If this bill passes, the bill will be asking the refiners somewhere “between $30 billion and $110 billion a year” (Helman). This will drastically increase the price of gasoline in this recession filled world. There are many calculations that predict that this is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage this bill seeks to prevent. So, the main reason this bill is not getting much attention is because the price of solving this problem is far more expensive than the damage this bill is trying to prevent.
The main debate focuses on how man can cope with this man-made problem. For many years, environmentalists have been following the same path on solving this situation by urging governments to pass laws that will drastically lower the carbon emissions in the air. We see this same pattern occur again in the meeting at Copenhagen. Policy makers need to realize this and quickly change their plan before it is too late. So, what is next? What can we do to solve this problem more effectively? The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions that are slowly ruining the planet we are living in. So, it should make sense to stop creating energy via burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our fossil fuels without hurting the world’s economy in this recession is to invest in green energy creating technology. Unlike the editor’s theory of “The Case for a Climate Bill” about the bill creating more jobs, the oil refiner companies begs to differ. If this bill passes “Ihne predicts that at least 15 of the current 150 plants, capable of processing roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day, will close, eliminating 5,000 jobs” (Helman). The only way to solve this problem is by investing in technologies that create non carbon based energy.
This new way of going about solving this problem will create more jobs. The increased spending on research and development will create more jobs, which will also help the economy. Some examples of non carbon based energies are nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Although there are many alternatives to creating energy, they are not nearly as effective and productive as burning fossil fuels which unfortunately create carbon emissions. So, our next step should be investing on creating new technologies and ways in which we can create energy without hurting our environment. Instead of putting a tax on carbon emissions, just a little percent of the global GDP can create breakthroughs needed to stimulate a carbon free future.
The bill that the editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is supporting will only hurt the economy and stop nations from industrializing. Policy makers have been arguing and debating about putting a tax on carbon emissions will help nations, yet not one nation is willing to accept this change. The reason for this is because they know that there will be more problems from this than solutions. The only solution to this is by investing on technologies that creates carbon free energy. We need to realize that all these meetings of nations, such as that at Copenhagen, are not working. We need to find alternative ways of creating energy without generating global warming.
Vergano, Dan. "Global warming cuts have a price." EBSCOhost. USA Today, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
Helman, Christopher. "Cap-and-Smother." EBSCOhost. Forbes, 30 Nov. 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
"The Case for a Climate Bill." Editorial. New York Times [New York] 24 Jan. 2010, New York ed., WK9 sec. NYTimes. 24 Jan. 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
Reflection 1.1
The comments that my group members provided me helped me a lot. The feedbacks made me realize all of the flaws in my essay. The most apparent flaw in my essay was the thesis statement in order to let the reader know what I will be addressing. I also need to do a better job of incorporating sources in my essay. A works cited page at the end of the essay will really help out my essay. For my next draft, I will also be doing a better job of using quotations to back up my points. The feedbacks from my group also helped me realize that my transitions from paragraphs were clear. I need to do a better job of that to help my essay flow better. My process has been just trying to do more research on the subject and trying to get more facts to back up my ideas. The main thing I want to accomplish in my next draft is to satisfy all of the feedbacks that my group members left me. I will also be adding a works cited page to help the readers fully understand my usage of sources. Overall, the feedbacks were a great help to me, which will definitely make my essay better.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Essay 1.1: (Problems to the Climate Bill)
Global Warming is a topic that is heavily debated everyday in our society. These greenhouse gases are slowly ruining our planet which asks for drastic solutions. Last December, representatives from 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to make a plan that will drastically change the course of global warming. This meeting aimed to reduce carbon emissions in the air created by burning of fossil fuels. The meeting urged the nations to create a plan that will reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels (source # 1). In The New York Times editorial “The Case for a Climate Bill”, the author talks about the importance of a bill that puts both a cap and a price on carbon emissions. This climate bill is having a hard time passing through Congress because even though it will reduce carbon emissions, there are many side effects to this plan. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” resorts to using President Obama as the only hope for this bill to pass. “They will need help. Mr. Obama is the best person to provide it.” President Obama will need to make a case for this bill to be even considered by congress.
There are many reasons to why this bill will not work in this society we live in. Nations have no intention on letting the developed world force them to stop using fossil fuels. Many nations depend on these carbon emitting fuels to create energy and run their country. Restricting these nations from this source of income would greatly affect their economy denying many nations to industrialize and keeping their population in poverty. This is what this bill is asking the world to accept. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is ignorantly saying “a good program would create more jobs than its cost”. This bill will affect every household in the country. “In June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of creating a carbon "market" to achieve such cuts would be about $175 a year by then for the average household.”( source 1) This amount of money every year is not worth lowering the temperature by 2 degrees Celcius in the next couple hundred years, especially with most of the world still staggering from the worst recession in 40 years.
Developed countries here also have no interest in this bill because of the consequences of trying to cut carbon emissions. All the economic models show that to keep the temperature increases of the earth less than 2 degrees Celsius, nations would need to start putting a carbon tax on carbon emissions. If this bill passes, the bill will be asking the refiners somewhere between $30 billion and $110 billion a year (Source 2). This will drastically increase the price of gasoline in this recession filled world. There are many calculations that predict that this is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage this bill seeks to prevent. So, the main reason this bill is not getting much attention is because the price of solving this problem is far more expensive than the damage this bill is trying to prevent.
The main debate focuses on how man can cope with this man-made problem. For many years, environmentalists have been following the same path on solving this situation by urging governments to pass laws that will drastically lower the carbon emissions in the air. We see this same pattern occur again in the meeting at Copenhagen. Policy makers need to realize this and quickly change their plan before it is too late. So, what is next? What can we do to solve this problem more effectively? The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions that are slowly ruining the planet we are living in. So, it should make sense to stop creating energy via burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our fossil fuels without hurting the world’s economy in this recession is to invest in green energy creating technology. Unlike the editor’s theory of “The Case for a Climate Bill” about the bill creating more jobs, the oil refiner companies begs to differ. If this bill passes “Ihne predicts that at least 15 of the current 150 plants, capable of processing roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day, will close, eliminating 5,000 jobs.” (Source 2). The only way to solve this problem is by investing in technologies that create non carbon based energy.
This new way of going about solving this problem will create more jobs. The increased spending on research and development will create more jobs, which will also help the economy. Some examples of non carbon based energies are nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Although there are many alternatives to creating energy, they are not nearly as effective and productive as burning fossil fuels which unfortunately create carbon emissions. So, our next step should be investing on creating new technologies and ways in which we can create energy without hurting our environment. Instead of putting a tax on carbon emissions, just a little percent of the global GDP can create breakthroughs needed to stimulate a carbon free future.
The bill that the editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is supporting will only hurt the economy and stop nations from industrializing. Policy makers have been arguing and debating about putting a tax on carbon emissions will help nations, yet not one nation is willing to accept this change. The reason for this is because they know that there will be more problems from this than solutions. The only solution to this is by investing on technologies that creates carbon free energy. We need to realize that all these meetings of nations, such as that at Copenhagen, are not working. We need to find alternative ways of creating energy without generating global warming.
There are many reasons to why this bill will not work in this society we live in. Nations have no intention on letting the developed world force them to stop using fossil fuels. Many nations depend on these carbon emitting fuels to create energy and run their country. Restricting these nations from this source of income would greatly affect their economy denying many nations to industrialize and keeping their population in poverty. This is what this bill is asking the world to accept. The editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is ignorantly saying “a good program would create more jobs than its cost”. This bill will affect every household in the country. “In June, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of creating a carbon "market" to achieve such cuts would be about $175 a year by then for the average household.”( source 1) This amount of money every year is not worth lowering the temperature by 2 degrees Celcius in the next couple hundred years, especially with most of the world still staggering from the worst recession in 40 years.
Developed countries here also have no interest in this bill because of the consequences of trying to cut carbon emissions. All the economic models show that to keep the temperature increases of the earth less than 2 degrees Celsius, nations would need to start putting a carbon tax on carbon emissions. If this bill passes, the bill will be asking the refiners somewhere between $30 billion and $110 billion a year (Source 2). This will drastically increase the price of gasoline in this recession filled world. There are many calculations that predict that this is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage this bill seeks to prevent. So, the main reason this bill is not getting much attention is because the price of solving this problem is far more expensive than the damage this bill is trying to prevent.
The main debate focuses on how man can cope with this man-made problem. For many years, environmentalists have been following the same path on solving this situation by urging governments to pass laws that will drastically lower the carbon emissions in the air. We see this same pattern occur again in the meeting at Copenhagen. Policy makers need to realize this and quickly change their plan before it is too late. So, what is next? What can we do to solve this problem more effectively? The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon emissions that are slowly ruining the planet we are living in. So, it should make sense to stop creating energy via burning of fossil fuels. The only way to reduce our fossil fuels without hurting the world’s economy in this recession is to invest in green energy creating technology. Unlike the editor’s theory of “The Case for a Climate Bill” about the bill creating more jobs, the oil refiner companies begs to differ. If this bill passes “Ihne predicts that at least 15 of the current 150 plants, capable of processing roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day, will close, eliminating 5,000 jobs.” (Source 2). The only way to solve this problem is by investing in technologies that create non carbon based energy.
This new way of going about solving this problem will create more jobs. The increased spending on research and development will create more jobs, which will also help the economy. Some examples of non carbon based energies are nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal. Although there are many alternatives to creating energy, they are not nearly as effective and productive as burning fossil fuels which unfortunately create carbon emissions. So, our next step should be investing on creating new technologies and ways in which we can create energy without hurting our environment. Instead of putting a tax on carbon emissions, just a little percent of the global GDP can create breakthroughs needed to stimulate a carbon free future.
The bill that the editor of “The Case for a Climate Bill” is supporting will only hurt the economy and stop nations from industrializing. Policy makers have been arguing and debating about putting a tax on carbon emissions will help nations, yet not one nation is willing to accept this change. The reason for this is because they know that there will be more problems from this than solutions. The only solution to this is by investing on technologies that creates carbon free energy. We need to realize that all these meetings of nations, such as that at Copenhagen, are not working. We need to find alternative ways of creating energy without generating global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)