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.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Blog Post # 3
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24sun1.html
“The case for a climate bill” was an editorial published in The New York Times on January 23, 2010. The main claim of this editorial is to make people realize the importance of passing this bill. The editor looks at all the angles and eventually concludes that this bill will help the country and the world in the long run. One of the main reasons that he uses is the fact that the bill will produce more job opportunities. The editor supports this by providing different scenarios that must be fulfilled for this to work. He uses an outer reliable source such as “Congressional Budget Office” to back up and support his reason.
The editor also uses the acknowledgment and response rhetorical strategy. He effectively realizes and acknowledges the fact that this bill only has a slight chance of passing through the house and senate. Although he recognizes the opposite’s views, he gives his views to counter argue. The main audience in this editorial would be the people interested in global warming and politicians of the United States. He has to persuade the Senators and the House of Representatives that this bill would work and cure global warming. The occasion of this editorial was to let the public know about the bill that is being passed could effectively hurt or help the economy. Although there are many doubters and nonbelievers, he does his best to provide reasons and evidence to support his claim.
The author also uses Aristototle’s three rhetorical appeals. An example of him using logos would be when he is talking about how the bill “would create more jobs than it cost”. He uses evidence to support this by using ethos. He refers to President Obama and how he could help pass this bill. “President Obama can start to prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week.” The last rhetorical appeal, logos, is crucial to help passing this bill. He talks about how limited our time is when it comes to fighting global warming. “The long-term trend in greenhouse gas emissions is up (the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record), and the sooner emissions decline, the better.” He appeals to the emotions here to make people realize the importance of this bill and how it can help prevent global warming.
“The case for a climate bill” was an editorial published in The New York Times on January 23, 2010. The main claim of this editorial is to make people realize the importance of passing this bill. The editor looks at all the angles and eventually concludes that this bill will help the country and the world in the long run. One of the main reasons that he uses is the fact that the bill will produce more job opportunities. The editor supports this by providing different scenarios that must be fulfilled for this to work. He uses an outer reliable source such as “Congressional Budget Office” to back up and support his reason.
The editor also uses the acknowledgment and response rhetorical strategy. He effectively realizes and acknowledges the fact that this bill only has a slight chance of passing through the house and senate. Although he recognizes the opposite’s views, he gives his views to counter argue. The main audience in this editorial would be the people interested in global warming and politicians of the United States. He has to persuade the Senators and the House of Representatives that this bill would work and cure global warming. The occasion of this editorial was to let the public know about the bill that is being passed could effectively hurt or help the economy. Although there are many doubters and nonbelievers, he does his best to provide reasons and evidence to support his claim.
The author also uses Aristototle’s three rhetorical appeals. An example of him using logos would be when he is talking about how the bill “would create more jobs than it cost”. He uses evidence to support this by using ethos. He refers to President Obama and how he could help pass this bill. “President Obama can start to prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week.” The last rhetorical appeal, logos, is crucial to help passing this bill. He talks about how limited our time is when it comes to fighting global warming. “The long-term trend in greenhouse gas emissions is up (the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record), and the sooner emissions decline, the better.” He appeals to the emotions here to make people realize the importance of this bill and how it can help prevent global warming.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Blog Post # 2
The three publications I looked at were The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Breeze. These three newspapers had many selections of opinions and editorials about the latest issues happening in the world. Most of the editorials in these newspapers focused around politics and controversial issues around the world. The natural disaster that struck Haiti has been a hot topic in all of these publications. The opinions in the editorials all focus around how America is continuing its tradition of helping other nations that are in need. There are also criticisms on the speed of America’s aid. Editorials that involve controversy and debate are the kinds of issues that interest me. The different viewpoints to these issues make it more interesting. Editorials that involve politics seem very uninteresting and boring to me. The issues involving around the economy and the job loss situation do not really interest me because those issues are very repetitive in all of these publications.
One issue I really want to learn more about is global warming and its effect around the world. This subject matter is very controversial because many people have different opinions on its existence. Global warming is slowly ruining the world we are living in and many people are still avoiding this reality. There are many scientific facts that back up and prove that global warming is happening right now and we need to act accordingly before it is too late. Many people don’t worry or even care about this because they do not fully realize the consequences if we don’t act now. They are all caught up in their busy lives to realize what is going on around them. Controversial issues like this really grabs my attention because they are opinionated and at the same time they are very important.
One issue I really want to learn more about is global warming and its effect around the world. This subject matter is very controversial because many people have different opinions on its existence. Global warming is slowly ruining the world we are living in and many people are still avoiding this reality. There are many scientific facts that back up and prove that global warming is happening right now and we need to act accordingly before it is too late. Many people don’t worry or even care about this because they do not fully realize the consequences if we don’t act now. They are all caught up in their busy lives to realize what is going on around them. Controversial issues like this really grabs my attention because they are opinionated and at the same time they are very important.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Arthur: A Childhood Reflection
When I was younger, I read many different kinds of children oriented texts. I admired reading and watching all of them but the one that really interested me was Marc Brown’s “Arthur”. The reason I loved this book so much was because it also had a TV series to go along with its book series. Arthur revolves around the lives of Arthur Read, the main character, his friends and family. Arthur is an eight year old aardvark who lives in a fictional town called Elwood City with his parents and his younger sister. The show basically dealt with the lives of young children and the difficulties they face in elementary school. The main reason I enjoyed watching and reading this series was because it related to my daily life as a young kid. The conflicts in the story interrelated with the same problems I was going through when I was in elementary school. The thing in the stories that appealed to me was the innocent character of Arthur and his frank personality. Arthur’s social life involved many different friends with a broad range of personalities. The author did a great job of adding different personalities such as bullies and nerds which gave the show a reality feel to it. I could relate it to my elementary school because I had the same kinds of friends.
As an adult, my perspective on this has changed vastly. When I was younger I only cared about the stories and the humorous personality of the characters but now I have a greater knowledge about what Marc Brown was trying to do with his books. The books have a great educational value and do a great job of trying to teach children about the right and the wrong. It puts an emphasis on the library and why it is important to read books and learn. As an adult, I truly understand why Marc Brown gave the characters a great relationship with their parents and friends. I believe even though I didn’t realize all this when I was a kid, it still gave me a great insight on what was right and what was wrong in society. I would recommend this book to any child who is looking for something fun and educational at the same time. I believe the reason I loved this book so much was because the author did a great job of giving the characters such a personality that all the readers could connect and relate to them.
As an adult, my perspective on this has changed vastly. When I was younger I only cared about the stories and the humorous personality of the characters but now I have a greater knowledge about what Marc Brown was trying to do with his books. The books have a great educational value and do a great job of trying to teach children about the right and the wrong. It puts an emphasis on the library and why it is important to read books and learn. As an adult, I truly understand why Marc Brown gave the characters a great relationship with their parents and friends. I believe even though I didn’t realize all this when I was a kid, it still gave me a great insight on what was right and what was wrong in society. I would recommend this book to any child who is looking for something fun and educational at the same time. I believe the reason I loved this book so much was because the author did a great job of giving the characters such a personality that all the readers could connect and relate to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)