This assignment is for Honors Civics Period 6.
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's first reading is Public Agenda's Energy reading and gives a strong overview of energy. The second reading is from Chapter 8 from Justice.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the readings. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to the reading above. You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- Create a short synthesis paragraph on the one of the texts and your text.
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 11/8, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Wednesday and Thursday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
The text I found online this week is called “Energy, Climate Change, and Our Environment.” This text is a summary of the ways Obama plans to reform our country’s energy usage and why his plan is the best one for us in today’s economic state. At the moment, it is difficult to make any decisions on energy and the environment because some solutions are expensive, dangerous, or difficult to apply in a short amount of time. Obama believes that one of the most important issues a reform should address is America’s dependence on foreign oil. This idea is very similar to the ideas presented in approach two from Public Agenda’s “Energy,” which is also to increase domestic oil production. The two texts are easily comparable because they both present similar solutions addressing America’s energy usage.
ReplyDelete“Energy, Climate Change, and Our Environment” comes from www.whitehouse.gov. This website is extremely credible because it is the official site of the United States’ White House, where the president lives. His view on many issues are listed on here so it is important that everything is accurate because they were some of his reasons for people to vote for him in the recent election. There is no way the White House or Obama would publish false information to jeopardize his chances of winning. Also, the fact that the site ends in “.gov” means it’s a government website. The government in general would definitely be cautious about the accuracy of what they post because the people do have a right to hold the government accountable for what they say, otherwise they also have a right to revolt or take the issue to the court.
The evidence provided in the text is strong because it uses statistical exemplification from Obama’s successes in his first term to prove how he can continue to improve our energy usage in the second term. First, we are given a bar graph showing that the amount of US oil production has increased every year that Obama was president. The author also goes to state that in fact, “American oil production reached the highest level in nearly a decade” in the year 2011. The second bar graph shows the percent of oil that the US imports and whether or not it is below or above 50% of the total oil we use. According to this graph, every year that Obama was president, the amount of foreign oil we use continuously decreased to the point where only 45% of all the oil we use was foreign. These bar graphs are strong evidence because they are likely to convince people that his plan is the best fit for our country if he can prove that his plan has worked for multiple years.
Obama’s plan to make America more energy independent is closely related to approach two in “Energy.” Both approaches stress the importance of domestic oil production. It is easier for our country to produce it’s own oil, therefore making it cheaper for people to purchase. Considering the economic crisis we are in, this is the best solution possible at the moment because people cannot afford the rising costs for energy, such as the gas for their cars. Public Agenda states that energy consumption has significantly increased “due mainly to population growth” (4) and because we “[drive] more than ever and [use] more technology than any generation before us” (4). Basically, since the demand for energy is increasing, competition among countries for this limited amount of oil will also increase. Because of the basic laws of supply and demand, the limited amount of oil and the high demand for it will increase the price for it, and many people suffering economically right now cannot afford for this to happen. Obama’s plan to make the country as energy independent as possible will improve energy security because we will easily be able to access it on our own land while making it more affordable at the same time. Not only is this addressing an energy issue, it is also addressing our economical crisis. Therefore, Obama’s approach, similar to approach two in “Energy,” is the best approach considering our contemporary crisis with the economy and energy security.
Coral Davenport’s article “U.N. Climate Chief Lauds Progress in Cutting Greenhouse Gases, But Says It's Not Enough” focuses on the challenges we face regarding our energy use and how we’re deteriorating our ecosystem. Although we have been progressing and improving these energy related issues, we have to work harder if we want to avoid the disasters that come with the extreme climate change from our harmful emissions. This article connects to the Public Agenda’s A Citizen’s Solutions Guide: Energy because it illustrates how our society must take action into using our energy in an effective and beneficial manner. Our nation has to work together in order to be able to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the air, and must understand that we have to be mindful of the compromises we decide to make in order to avoid creating even more negative scenarios. As stated by the Public Agenda, “[we have] to consider our values and priorities, decide which options are most environmentally and economically viable and then weigh the costs and tradeoffs needed to make them work” (4).
ReplyDeleteThe article’s source, the National Journal, is credible because it is a highly recognized news source that informs their readers with information supported by data, statistics, and analysis. Citizens and government officials alike trust the National Journal, so it is expected that the information delivered is authentic and accurate, otherwise their reputation would be tarnished. Coral Davenport adds on to the article’s credibility since she is a colleague of the Metcalf Institute for Marine and Environmental Reporting, showing the reader that she has knowledge on topics concerning the environment.
Davenport provides strong evidence to support her argument towards having the nation do more to use energy efficiently and having the environment benefit from that effectiveness. When she states information about “negotiators [working] toward crafting a legally binding climate treaty that would require all the world’s major greenhouse-gas polluters to commit by 2015 to cutting their emissions, with the goals for reductions to enter into force by 2020”, the reader is able to see how we have clearly been making efforts to end greenhouse-gas emissions. Davenport also provides strong evidence to demonstrate how the nation has been doing a poor job of being able to improve the environment’s current status by stating that “The U.S. has historically been the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but the Senate refused to ratify the U.N.’s first legally binding climate treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and climate-change legislation has repeatedly stalled in Congress.” Statements like this show examples of how our government is a big reason as to why we haven’t taken the correct steps to get past this issue completely, although it is clear we have been trying as a nation.
The Public Agenda’s first approach to resolving the problem states that we should “Move away from fossil fuels as quickly and as safely as we can. This will protect the environment and in the long run will give us cheaper and more reliable energy sources” (5). Davenport would agree with this, since it would allow the U.S. to improve their current standing in this environmental issue by reducing the amount of fossil fuels used which in turn would reduce emissions. Coral Davenport’s article and the Public Agenda’s Citizen’s Solutions Guide on energy both explain in detail the numerous ways in which the U.S.’s energy use has become a serious issue that needs to be fixed. Davenport’s article gives specific evidence that shows how the U.S. has both attempted and lacked to improve the energy issue, while the Public Agenda’s guide is able to show us statistical data and approaches towards solving the problem. The texts explain how we are supposed to be making an effort to settle this issue. We should be allowing ourselves to improve our environment, eventually benefiting from the positives of a strong ecosystem.
In the article “US Government Budget Proposals Increase Clean Energy Funding” by Kevin Eber and Ernie Tucker, the problems presented in Public Agenda’s Solution Guide on Energy are being given a concrete plan that ensures improvements in the usage of energy throughout the United States.
ReplyDeletePublic Agenda’s Solution Guide on Energy gives readers an over view on how much energy is used in the U.S alone and how that impacts the environment and future generations to come. Some key facts on energy are that population and consumption is growing rapidly causing energy consumption to almost triple over the last 60 years. We also happen to be consuming a lot more than we can actually produce. This is a huge problem because the majority of the energy used, 83% to be exact, are nonrenewable resources; eventually, they will cease to exist if we continue overly using them. Not only do they negatively affect our environment, but we have become so dependent on them that changing the way we use energy could potentially take decades. In order to do this, however, we need to begin using other sources of energy that are renewable and not as harmful. This plan comes with a cost. Moving away from fossil fuels and creating “clean coal” doesn’t come cheap. The process is very expensive; in order to reach this goal, federal budget money must be spent on building infrastructures and investing for research and development. Given that we are barely making it out of one of the worst financial crisis to have hit the U.S, this goal might take years to reach. Although improvement seems to be something almost impossible, Eber and Tucker write an article that gives readers information on how the U.S government intends to fix the issue.
The article submitted by Eber and Tucker comes from renewablenergyworld.com, a network based in Peterborough, New Hampshire. It offers readers recent news and information on global renewable energy industries. Its writers, Kevin Eber (a senior science writer at National Renewable Energy Laboratory) and Ernie Tucker (an editor and writer at National Renewable Energy Laboratory), are beneficial individuals to use because both have researched problems facing energy, can provide statistics and evidence regarding those problems, and can submit solutions on how to fix these problems. This source is credible because the website along with the authors would not risk their reputation by providing false information to the public. Doing such thing would make them loose their audience and their trust with the public will diminish.
Eber and Tucker states that President Barack Obama “aims to reduce unnecessary energy use, boost renewable energy sources, and strengthen clean energy research,” They also state that with this plan, “The President's budget includes substantial increases for many EERE programs, including a 53% increase for wind energy, a 43% increase for the Weatherization and Intergovernmental program, a 32% increase for the Federal Energy Management Program, a 25% increase for geothermal energy, and a 22% increase for solar energy.” This plan is especially beneficial because the President is willing to use federal budget money to rectify issues regarding energy. His plan also aims to reduce usage in nonrenewable resources and invest on more reliable resources. In doing this, the President’s plan will be one that is eco-friendly and long lasting; the less fossil fuels used today, the more we will have in the future for specific uses.
This plan ties in closely with the first approach presented in the Public Agenda. Approach one states that we should “move away from fossil fuels as quickly and as safely as we can.” With the President’s plan, this approach can be fulfilled. Through investing in research and developments, the U.S can put themselves one step closer to using an alternative source of energy. Overall, both texts value the idea of shortening our usage of fossil fuels. Getting it done is the challenge.
The article I found this week is titled, “Paul Ryan-Sponsored Bahrain Trade Agreement Under Scrutiny Amid Crackdowns” by Joshua Hersh and Zach Carter. This article is about former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and his support of the U.S.-Bahrain Trade Agreement widely passed by Congress in 2005 and the current opposition by representatives towards it. This article is relevant to chapter 8 of Michael Sandel’s Justice because the article expresses the strong sponsoring Congress has on Trade Agreement, a government policy Sandel states that Aristotle would acknowledge as useful association, but doesn’t truly represent Aristotle ideal of political communities.
ReplyDeleteThis source is credible because it was posted by the Huffington Post, an online news website, a well-known organization who would avoid publishing false information to avoid tarnishing its reputation and maintain its vast amount of readers. Additionally, the Huffington Post has won the Pulitzer Prize, which demonstrates its national recognition and reliability. Additionally, the article was co-written by Zach Carter, who was included in the Columbia Journalism Review's compilation Best Business Writing 2012 and served on the steering committee at Americans for Financial Reform showing he is also widely acknowledged and has extensive knowledge on reforms.
The authors of the article provide strong evidence to present two viewpoints on the foreign policy in order to justify the opposition. The authors quote Ryan when he states, “’This is a way to help expand democratic capitalism, because through each of these trade agreements we require things like the rule of law and forcible contracts, women's rights, advancements towards openness, transparency and democracy.’” Evidently, Hersh and Carter are presenting a Republican view to display the positives of the agreement such as advancements in social rights and political justice globally. Hersh and Carter also include the consequences of the agreement through a Democratic Representative John Conyers who states, "’One of the reasons I and many of my Democratic colleagues opposed the U.S.-Bahrain FTA was our fear that Bahrain would not live up to its commitments to protect workers enshrined in that agreement’" This suggests the possible failure of the agreement as not all contracts can ever be completely fair. By providing both sides of the policy, Hersh and Carter not only produce a piece that represents both perspectives on the issue, but allows it to be unbiased and reliable.
Both “Paul Ryan-Sponsored Bahrain Trade Agreement Under Scrutiny Amid Crackdowns” and Sandel’s analysis of Aristotle’s perspective on politics demonstrates the evolution of beliefs of government and the role has played virtue. As stated in the article, “By finalizing the deal, Bahrain landed the biggest prize in global economics: unfettered access to American consumers, the largest market in the world… In return, the oil-rich kingdom agreed to reform labor practices and improve conditions for workers.” Clearly, Ryan and other Republicans of the U.S. hope to establish economic relationships with the Middle East by influencing reforms similar to the U.S.’s democratic reforms. However, Aristotle’s values of how virtue is prioritized over economic prosperity and diffusing government ideals are evident as he states, “’[A]ny polis which is truly so called… must devote itself to the end of encouraging goodness.’”(193). Clearly, because of America’s decision to accept Bahrain’s Trade Agreement America has lost its view on the significance of the common good and caring for the community as a whole, not just the economic gains. Aristotle would then argue that the U.S.’s views of politics are now spoiled by its ambition as opposed to teaching morality to its citizens as important as it was during his own time.
The article I found this week was called “Mitt Romney Energy Plan: More Oil & Natural Gas Production On Federal Land” by Steve Holland. This text was about how governor Mitt Romney wants to make sure that United States energy supply is greatly used in order to improve America. In making sure that the energy supply is used correctly, America will be energy independent as well as immigrants and citizens will be able to benefit from oil and the natural gas on their land.
ReplyDelete“Mitt Romney Energy Plan: More Oil & Natural Gas Production On Federal Land” relates to Public Agenda’s Energy reading because the reading states that increasing domestic oil production is important for its natives to use and at this point focusing on issues like this should be a priority especially since we need to protect our economic interests. According to governor Romney if we do not make energy a priority in our lives and as a country we will have to rely on other countries for resources that have to be paid by us and there is a possibility that the foreign country will not give us the right amount of material that we need especially with the increasing population in the United States. Individuals should pay attention to energy because we need it for our buildings, cars, and other appliances for example, the daily entertainment we find in our technology. The article I read this week also relates to the weekly reading because Romney wants to take advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear, renewables, wind, and solar. All of these energy related supplies will be an advantage to immigration and the United States nation because all of the individuals can benefit such as getting heat and being able to travel since we are so dependent on the balance of objects that involve kinetic and potential energy. Therefore, energy resources on land are essential in order for humans to survive without actually hurting each other and protecting the economy.
The article’s source, the Huffington Post, is credible because it is an American news website that educates Americans about daily issues that affect them and the U.S. nation. In addition, this source is credible because it was written by Steve Holland, an American journalist who understands both democratic and republican ideals especially because he has interacted with Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In this case, this source is credible because Holland is a supporter of Romney and truly understands Romney’s intentions for the United States.
Steve Holland provides strong evidence to support the argument that Romney makes towards how energy should be used to benefit the United States and its people. First of all, Holland uses statistical evidence to demonstrate how energy will impact America. Holland states that energy supply used correctly will help increase the amount of jobs for Americans suffering the drastic 8.3 percent unemployment rate. Holland continues to strengthen his argument by writing Romney’s statement “I want every American who wants a good job to have one.” In this case, Romney does not specify which individuals want and deserve a good job, therefore making readers assume that both immigrants and citizens will take advantage of energy in order to support their own financial needs as well as the American society.
Overall, both “Mitt Romney Energy Plan: More Oil and Natural Gas Production On Federal Land” and Public Agenda’s Energy reading prove that energy is highly needed in our nation. Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney makes sure to address energy in his campaign because he knows that the supplies on federal land affect our environment which is already suffering due to human action. In this case, most of the federal budget should go to the environment in terms of jobs for the people and reconstruction to make the United States a better place. Undoubtedly, although Obama was re-elected for president this week, Romney’s plan would’ve worked because environmentalists would support and encourage individuals to become involved in politics.
The article “The New Oil and Gas Boom” by Fareed Zakaria asserts that the recent technological revolution has led to the new oil and gas increase. This new method to draw energy has its benefits and drawbacks. This article relates to “Public Agenda’s Energy” because both see that a threat surrounding energy production is the negative environmental impact it creates. The reason for this increase in energy production is because of hydrofracking/fracking. Although fracking creates more energy it can prove to be a threat to the environment and should be accounted for in any method of producing energy.
ReplyDelete“The New Oil and Gas Boom” is a credible text because it comes from the source TIME Magazine. The TIME Magazine is an established enterprise with a strong reputation to uphold. Any flaw or inaccuracy in the information presented can ruin its reputation. Moreover, the author of this article, Fareed Zakaria, is very credible source given the fact that he is TIME Editor at Large. Additionally, he is a New York Times bestselling author and earned a Ph.D from Harvard University. The author of “The New Oil and Gas Boom” has strong credentials making this article trustworthy and accurate since the author can lose credibility for inaccuracies. There is not a strong sense of bias in this article because ideas are attempted to be presented on both sides of the argument on energy.
The author presents strong evidence because the pros and cons of this new energy production method are presented. Natural gas is replacing coal as an energy source and it also emits half of what coal emits in carbon dioxide. Zakaria utilizes statistical exemplification when he states, “The U.S.'s greenhouse-gas emissions in 2011 were 9% lower than in 2007”. This statistic is significant because this decrease is lower than the one from the European Union, according to Zakaria. This can be viewed as a positive prospect and a step in stopping climate change. This may seem like a productive and effective method but there is a better alternative. Zakaria claims, “As the oil and gas boom progresses, however, we should not forget that there is ultimately a better future for energy--namely wind, solar and other renewables--that provides unending supply, low price and almost no environmental damage”. Here the oil and gas boom are devalued and criticized, the statistic that is presented loses it value. This new approach to energy production leaves this current one out of favor. By comparing the two statements the benefits and consequences of this oil and gas boom are clear, strengthening the evidence by presenting both perspectives.
The author of “The New Oil and Gas Boom” would agree with “Public Agenda’s Energy” and the idea of renewable energy as one of the best approaches to energy production. Renewable energy is a positive prospect but the costs and benefits need to be weighed. Zakaria states, “The best bet for the U.S. is not only to expand oil and gas production but also to increase funding for research and development of new sources of energy”. Although renewable energy seems like a revolutionary idea the current energy system may not be ready for an extreme transformation. The cost of this development must be kept in mind since the deficit still looms large. Zakaria would agree with a similar idea in approach 2 of “Public Agenda’s Energy”. A line in approach 2 reads, “Focus on producing domestically more of the affordable fossil fuels we depend on now – coal, natural gas and oil – while also investing in alternative fuel development”. A combination of oil and gas and alternative fuel would ensure energy stability. This approach will help transition from this old method of energy production by laying the foundations for a new method of energy production. This new way of energy production would lower the deficit and stall climate change.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2127202-2,00.html
The text I found this week is, "How Far Has the Renewable Energy Industry Come in the Last 15 Years?" by Jennifer Clymer. This text explains how the renewable energy industry is growing in the U.S. and how it has had a positive influence on the economy because of its job-creating potential. This week's topic in class is energy, and this article explains the environmental and economic opportunities available in the renewable energy industry that if adopted may render the use of other sources of energy, like oil, obsolete in the future. The nation's concern over energy stems from the current fiscal crisis, as well as America's energy dependency on Middle Eastern nations for oil. However, this article gives insight on the ability renewable energy has to eliminate both of these concerns.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because its author, Jennifer Clymer, is the Environmental Manager of the Green Mountain Energy Company. This role requires Clymer to understand renewable energy in great depth and she has over a decade of experience implementing sustainable energy use. However, this text is heavily biased in that the Green Mountain Energy Company is a promoter of renewable energy use. Therefore, Clymer includes the positive aspects renewable energy would have on the nation without providing the negative aspects of an immediate nationwide conversion to renewable energy in order to improve the image of the renewable energy industry. Nonetheless, Clymer's experience and facts about renewable energy make this article a reliable source for renewable energy information.
Clymer introduces statistical evidence to emphasize the superiority of renewable energy in comparison to fossil fuels. She states, "Overall, the clean energy economy employs more than 2.7 million workers, which is more than the fossil fuel industry. In fact, jobs in the clean energy sector have outpaced the fossil fuel industry by a 3-to-1 margin"(1). This evidence highlights how the renewable energy industry can create triple the amount of jobs the dominant fossil fuel industry has. Since the renewable energy industry can create more jobs according to Clymer, than its largest opponent, it seems like a great idea to immediately make America renewable energy dependent in the wake of a fiscal crisis. By introducing this evidence Clymer creates an opportunity for her to abandon the typical environmentalist argument and support an economic argument that improves America's feelings toward the renewable energy industry.
The emphasis Clymer places on the economic benefits of a renewable energy dependent America is a replica of the main idea of "Approach One" in "A Citizens' Solution Guide Energy" by Public Agenda. "Approach One" argues that we should move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible because they are a finite source and renewable energy will, in the long run, be a cheaper and more reliable source of energy. Clymer outlines this argument in her article when she introduces the job creation evidence that I mentioned above. Both this article, and "Approach One" suggest that quickly adopting renewable energy as the main source of energy in the U.S. will economically benefit the U.S., but Public Agenda's text also explains that renewable energy requires a huge initial investment that, "Our government simply cannot afford"(5). In addition, renewable energy isn't at the stage yet where it will be as cost-friendly as a fossil fuel for the common consumer, therefore Public Agenda's text dismantles Clymer's economic argument for renewable energy on the grounds that job creation cannot outweigh the consequences of increasing the national debt.
The source I found is “Obama, GOP duel over rising college expenses” by USNews.com. The text talks about the candidates’ views on higher education and Pell Grants. Since a Telos of University is according to Sandel “to serve certain civic purposes” which is later explained that in order to live the good life you must have civic virtue to contribute to society. Since the purpose of Universities is to cultivate these civic virtues/purposes in order to be productive and live the good life you must refine you’re civic virtues.
ReplyDeleteThe article is credible since it was published in the US News and World Report, a long standing news magazine compared to the Times. The author is a graduate from City College in New York City and works for Associated Press which is an unbiased source for global news. AP provides many newspapers such has the Washington Times.
The article contains quotes from Romney’s “A Chance For Every Child”, it quotes "Flooding colleges with federal dollars only serves to drive tuition higher," This evidence is strong since it uses the candidates own views and not those written by their administration. The author also used Obama’s budget blueprint as statistics to present the Democrat’s view on Pell Grant and Higher Education.
With colleges and universities raising tuition 72 percent above inflation over the past decade will decrease the number of students that go to these institutions of higher learning. This in turn will decrease the amount of people who live the good life since they are unable to pay for this service. Even when taking into account the second Telos of a University “That academic promise should be the sole criterion of admission” according to Sandel. Without the Pell Grants that will help students finance their education they cannot obtain the good life or even if they show academic promise with more than half of the American students receiving Pell Grants this Telos cannot be fulfilled either. Romney’s running partners Ryan, “wrote a House-approved 2013 budget that would let the American Opportunity tax credit expire in January. It would freeze the maximum Pell grant at $5,500 for the next decade and it suggests rolling back some subsidies for student borrowers and recent provisions making the grants more widely available.” According to the article then not only will it provide the assistance needed based on when going to college was more affordable but then cutting the availability of the grant.
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2012/09/01/obama-gop-duel-over-rising-college-expenses
The article “Obama’s Alternative Energy Bankruptions” by Steve Hargreaves describes the pros and cons of federally-funded energy companies. This is relevant to this weeks topic because it revolves around the idea of energy and how there may be different approaches towards resolving the issue that energy presents towards the economy and the environment overall. Specifically in Approach Two which promotes the idea of having affordable energy now that supports the economy and ensures energy security, a way to carry this idea out is by investing money into research of clean coal technology which is similar to the funding the government is doing towards energy companies.The evidence that proves this evidence is credible is the location in which it comes from which is CNN.com, CNN is a United States cable news channel that was founded in 1980. CNN would not provide inaccurate information that could damage their reputation because this would lead to financial loses. This article was also written by Steve Hargreaves who is a CNN economy writer who is a staff writer CNNMoney.com, where he focuses on the energy industry. The evidence in this article is seen to be strong because it includes statistical exemplification such as the fact that the battery maker received a $249 million Department of Energy stimulus grant, this makes it clear that the government did indeed contribute towards the United States energy issue. The evidence is also seen to be strong because there is a testimony from a spokesman for the Energy Department which establishes that it has funded over 1,300 companies in the renewable energy space and less than 1% have gone bankrupt. This solidifies the idea that these programs funding energy programs have had success under President Obama. In “Obama’s Alternative Energy Bankrupcies” it states, “... EnerDel, received an $118.5 million grant to build two plants outside Indianapolis to manufacture batteries for electric cars and other uses. This related to A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy because making vehicles more fuel efficient is an approach in order make the use of energy more sustainable. Manufacturing batteries for electric cars would be a form of making vehicles fuel efficient. These are approaches that would benefit the environment due to less fossil fuel emissions.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found is titled “Hydrofracking will create jobs.” It discusses the positive outcomes of underground drilling and disputes the claims that it pollutes water.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to one of the “triple threats” of our energy policy, environmental impact, in Public Agenda. In this week’s reading, the three main problems of energy use are stated and the environment is one of them. Public Agenda includes both sides of energy use, the positive; job creation, the decrease in dependency of foreign energy, and the minimizing the use of coal and electricity, and the negative; contamination of water supply, low preservation of our forest and protection from our wildlife. In“Hydrofracking will create jobs,” the same issues are addressed by Governor Coumo as he believes that hydrofracking is a negative action for our environment. His claims are disputed by experts in the field who address the positive sides of the issue.
The article I found is from Times Union. Times Union is a newspaper serving New York's capital region of Albany, Schenectady and Troy in association with Hearst Corporation, one of the world's largest publishers of monthly magazines. The author, Taylor Smith, has written many articles on government and social policies, and she is currently the policy analyst in The Heartland Institute.
Taylor Smith provides statistical exemplification and expert testimony to undermine the negative facts about hydrofracking. Referring to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Smith states that “New York experienced the largest spike in its unemployment rate compared to every other state in the country and that unemployment rate sits at 9.1 percent,” and that allowing hydrofracking could be the quickest and most effective move for Governor Cuomo to increase jobs in New York. Lisa Jackson, environmental protection agency administrator, and John P. Holdren, President Obama's senior science adviser, have separately testified before Congress saying there is no proven case of water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing, Smith includes.
It is mentioned in Public Agenda that hydrofracking can have harmful impacts to our environment, including unearthing naturally occurring carcinogens and radioactive elements, which will then contaminate our water supply, but hydrofracking can have great long-lasting needed effects for our country. According to my article, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality spent months monitoring air quality near the Barnett Shale, one of America's large natural gas fields, and found no immediate health concerns in the area. There is no evidence of any environmental damage or health concerns. In fact, drilling underground oil has a greater impact in decreasing our current unemployment state, decreasing our dependency on foreign energy, and moving away from coal and electricity.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteThe article I found this week was “Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need to Know about Where the Candidates Stand on Energy Policy” by Daniel and Jackie Weidman. In this article the authors get specific on energy and the ideals of both former candidates for president and introduce their opinions on the controversial Keystone pipeline proposal, to further prove how both candidates are on opposite ends about the topic.
This article connects to this week’s text because it many presents the different poses to improve the current energy situation that will affect the future development of the nation. This is related to the arguments against the Approach two in “Public Agenda Energy” that is supported by Obama in his ideas of Energy mention the article I found this week and Romney actually agrees with the ideas of Approach two the energy topic. That is goes further by giving the real time example of the Keystone XL pipeline that would go from Alaska threw the middle to Nebraska which poses a savvier threat to the environment of the Mid-west.
The article “Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need To Know About Where The Candidates Stand On Energy Policy” was published on Think progress a government funded nonpartisan organization that won an award for journalism excellence which is a prestigious award only given to organizations that provided high quality work. Further it would jeopardize both the organization and the award committee if they post incorrect work. This organization is also government funded that would only allow qualified people with years of experience publishes on important political issues concurrently considering our country. For example Weidman is a special Assistant for energy policies at the Center of American Progress which is another government funded nonpartisan organization. That is qualified on the in topic of energy.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteConcerning issues of energy recently discussed in the current election between the presidential candidates, the authors of this article input strong relevant evidence directly from the candidate’s ideas and speeches. One example is when Obama disagrees on the keystone pipeline development. In the article, “Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need To Know About Where The Candidates Stand On Energy Policy” states “...affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment.” This is strong evidence to not build the pipeline because it jeopardizes the safety of the American public especially since the pipeline goes right through the middle of the county. This helps Obama’s argument because here he is highlighting the downside of construction of the pipeline which Romney is clearly for, which as a result helps him gain public favor by sticking up for the environment and public safety. Romney’s defense on the pipeline’s construction is “If I’m President, we’ll build it [even] if I have [to] build it myself.” This reinforces Romney’s belief in the pipeline and how critical it is for the nation to create it. Although this doesn’t help defend Romney’s stance, it does on the other hand show his unwavering ideals for bettering the nation. This demonstrates how the authors submit strong supporting evidence because they give a full story on the topic by implementing both candidates’ opinions on the Keystone pipeline and the further implications of energy.
In the “Public Agenda Energy” the second approach given for the future of energy is to focus on the country becoming more energy independent. That would be achieved by “Focus(ing) in producing domestically more of the affordable fossil fuels” (Public Agenda Energy p.6). That would support the creation on the Keystone pipeline to further the development of the American petroleum market for a domestic benefit. That Romney would agree with because it will help create more jobs in American as mention in the “Public Agenda Energy” arguments for the development of fossil fuels. That are refuted by Obama's ideas mention the article “Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need to Know about Where the Candidates Stand on Energy Policy” and the argument against Approach two of the “Public Agenda Energy”. Stated on page 6 of “Public Agenda Energy”, “The potential environmental disruption and the dangers of pipeline construction, fracking and offshore drilling are simply too high”. Furthering Obama's point that the Keystone pipeline should not be built because it could possibly create devastating environmental damages to the United States and harm the health and safety of the general public. Conclusively the “Public Agenda Energy” provides an approach to the future of energy supported by Romney and not by Obama based on their stands on an energy policy from “Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need to Know about Where the Candidates Stand on Energy Policy”.
This week my article, “Obama to weigh energy boom, climate change in second term” talks about how President Obama has to face the challenge of creating change in energy policy while at the same time he has to make sure that jobs in oil and gas companies are compensated because they promote job availability and without them the unemployment rate would increase. The article also mentions a carbon tax which if passed could not only help the environment but it would raise revenue for the federal government which is in debt. If it were to pass, “Still, the idea of a tax that could raise $144 billion in revenue by 2020” said Segal from a conference call.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to his weeks topic of energy discussed in the Public Agenda, more specifically approach one which talks about how the United States should move from fossil fuels as quickly as possible while at the same time making sure it’s safe to transition and the new energy resources would be cheap for the consumer. This idea specially relates to the carbon tax part of the article because if government passes the law it would not only bring revenue but it would force the consumer to be hesitant or stop completely in buying the product. This will make the consumers face the new products giving them a push to move on from the old ways of obtaining energy and try something new that is environmental friendly.
My source is credible because it comes from Reuters a news agency that was established in 1851 by Paul Julius Reuter in Britain. Paul Reuter before establishing his organization used to work on publishing firms in Berlin and was involved in distributing radical pamphlets at the beginning of the Revolutions in 1848. Now, its own by Thomson Reuters a Canadian media and financial firm. This company goes international with 100 different countries worldwide and is very well trusted by its readers.
The authors of this Article use statistical exemplification in order to promote urgency and quick action from the consumers and government. An area where they use this is when they talk about the carbon tax “Still, the idea of a tax that could raise $144 billion in revenue by 2020 will receive a lot of discussion.” Here the mention of $144 billion dollars in less than 7 years can really impact the viewer, seeing this as a way out of the debt the federal government has and transition to a new way of energy. The authors also do a good job keeping this source balanced (nonpartisan) by including both sides of the argument involving carbon tax. “That could raise significant revenue for the debt-ridden federal government, but many Republicans would reject supporting anything resembling a tax, said Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell & Guiliani, a law and lobbying firm.” Even though this article focuses a lot more on democrats especially Obama due to the fact that he was reelected, having the word republican in the article creates an image of dispute between both parties on the idea of carbon taxing.
The authors of this article would support the fact that moving away from fossil fuels and gases is the best way to start an approach on renewable energy. With that, approach one from the Public Agenda on energy is the best way to ensure that transitioning from fossil fuels and gases can be quick and safe. Approach one states that we should start to transition because fossil fuels one day not far from now will run out. Not only would we be without energy but we would have also fallen behind to other nations like China which brings me to part two of approach one. Globally countries like China have started working on fields like wind turbines and solar energy as a method and we would stay to prolonged to the past and not be able to move on to the future. That’s why ideas like carbon taxing is effective to start pushing consumers and leave behind fossil fuels and move to something healthier and efficient which can help not only the environment but as well as future generations who have to live here
The source that I have selected is the agenda section of the organization Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE). This source talks about America’s oil consumption is a problem that is threatening the nation’s national security financially while also incorporating how it burdens our military force and weakens our national security. This source connects to “A Citizens Solution Guide Energy” because both sources explain some of America’s problems and consequences in the long run as well as share similar resolutions to this problem. Both sources go into how the nation’s oil dependency would is one of the roots of the problem and how it will put the nation in a situation where national security will be threatened in more ways than one. Although the Public Agenda source has more approaches to resolve the conflicts, they both share one approach. Both sources agree one of the most crucial solutions is to develop a long term vision to move away from fossil fuels so that the nation can be less dependent and more efficient.
ReplyDeleteSAFE is an organization is composed of distinguish military and business leaders that aim America’s energy equation to improve the nation’s energy security, safety, and efficiency. This organization has published multiple reports on oil’s economic significance and how it’s impacted the nation’s trade deficit. Their agenda section has information that is common found in other news/information websites so the information they present can be considered credible. Looking at the home page you can see that this organization is clearly involved in the government and presents in front of the press so they want to make sure that the facts they present are nothing but the truth or else they might feel the wrath of the media which something that can potentially end them. This section has no author since it’s not an article but because of this the whole organization takes responsibility for what is written here this source can be considered credible because the organization is trustworthy.
The creator of this section uses statistics and certain events/facts to strengthen his argument that America’s national is or will be threatened. The author uses a multitude of statistical information; for example the author states “Transportation accounted for almost 70 percent of American oil consumption in 2008,” or “Cars and trucks were 94 percent reliant on oil-based fuel for their energy, with no substitutes immediately available in anything approaching sufficient quantities.” These statistics are both relevant and strong. The author’s argument is that America is struggling with foreign trade and that it is threatening national security. This strengthens the argument because it’s perfectly portraying America’s dependency on oil for every day functioning. This evidence is great for arguing America’s downfall if perchance it was unable to attain sufficient oil to continue operating. At that point America would be in a crisis and in the worst case scenario. The author also uses events that show how America is having difficulties acquiring foreign oil. The author states “Terrorists and rogue producing nations like Iran and Venezuela continue to threaten U.S. safety and prosperity with their ‘oil weapon.’ Too often, our dependence requires us to accommodate hostile governments that share neither our values nor our goals.” This piece of evidence is especially strong because it shows how our national security is threatened and how smaller countries are belittling our nation. Clearly this supports the author’s argument.
Part 2 :)
DeletePublic Agenda’s Energy article focuses on the triple threats that are of main concern in the energy predicament and also focuses on the pros and cons of different possible approaches to these problems unlike the source I selected. Even though my source isn’t as detailed as the Public Agenda’s article they both do focus on similar topics plus SAFE goes more in detail on the consequences that oil causes for our nation. Both sources argue and agree that a long term solution is necessary in other for America to become more independent and self-sufficient. They both see eye to eye when they state that government officials should invest in renewable energy like wind, solar, hydroelectric, and biomass. In Public Agenda’s argument against approach one (moving away from fossil fuels) it states “…we have a ballooning debt. Our government simply cannot afford the huge costs involved.” One could argue that the reason why SAFE doesn’t include a price as to how much it would cost to move away from oil would be because the results are tremendously beneficial. True, moving away from oil based energy could costs an unimaginable amount of money (hopefully not in the trillions), but Niccolo Machiavelli once wrote “The ends justifies the means” (The Prince). If the nation increases their domestic energy to the point where they are no longer dependent of other nations to provide raw materials like oil, then it is worth the investment because in the long run they will be more stable with a significantly lower cost that will increase the revenue available to pay off America’s overall debt. America will also be free from unfair prices imposed by other nations which will in turn help it regain the imposing force that it had during Roosevelt’s presidency.
http://www.secureenergy.org/about/agenda
The text I found this week was “Coal, gas industries await effect of four more years of Obama” the text talks about the worries expressed by the workers of coal and gas industries now that Obama has been re-elected. The workers worry about the way that Obama will treat the coal industries and hopes that they can work with Obama in a way that is not detrimental to the coal industry. In fact Bill Raney believes that the coal industry is a great American industry and thinks that it should be used now to fix the economy. This article relates to this week’s topic of energy from the reading the Public Agenda “Energy” specifically Approach Two. Both support the idea that the economy needs the support of fossil fuels to make the economy thrive and become energy independent. The two texts are easily comparable because they both present similar solutions addressing America’s energy usage.
ReplyDelete“Coal, gas industries await effect of four more years of Obama” comes from http://www.statejournal.com which is West Virginia’s only business journal so they have a reputation for being truthful and honest therefore it should be credible. The state journal quote people like Bill Raney who’s quotes are extremely insightful to the future of power since he has been president of the West Virginia Coal Association he has a great idea on the future for the energy of the united states.
This article uses expert’s opinion on the recent election to give some insights on the future of energy. First person that is quoted is Bill Raney who is the president of the West Virginia Coal Association. Raney said “We certainly hope this next four years (Obama) recognizes the significance of the coal industry as part of the energy picture in this country” showing the method that should be used to provide energy to America should be fossil fuels to support and stimulate the economy. He uses another person in the industry The National Mining Association's CEO Hal Quinn who says the United States can be a valuable partner to the administration and nation to "pursue public policies that provide reliable, affordable energy and a dependable supply of minerals." To show that overall the whole industry of energy through coal has the same idea of what the coal industry can do for America. These expert opinions are strong pieces of evidence because they try to convince people that using fossil fuels is the best fit for our country in the condition it’s in.
The opinions shown in “Coal, gas industries await effect of four more years of Obama” shows similarities to Approach two of the Public Agenda Energy since the people want to use coal and fossil fuels to help America in these tough economic times. Like when the Public Agenda says “When our economy needs all the help it can get recovering, we simply have to make this out first priority” Approach two does not stand alone in this endeavor because the coal industry also believes that the economy can be fixed by the use of fossil fuels. Bill Raney says “everybody in the world wants coal to build their economies on, and we should certainly use coal in this country to help our economy recover” the two want the coal industry to be to be a major player in energy and assist the American economy in recovering to become energy independent. We should not take the coal industry for granted like Bill Raney said “An energy plan that doesn't include West Virginia's coal resource, Raney said, is like Saudi Arabia not acknowledging it has oil”.
http://www.statejournal.com/story/20041290/coal-gas-industries-await-effect-of-four-more-years-of-obama
The article I found this week is called “The Candidates on Energy Policy”, published in the Council on Foreign Relations, updated on October 31, 2012. Throughout the campaign, there have been many issues debated, but this article contains the positions of Governor Mitt Romney and President Obama, on the issue of Energy. Each candidate had their strong viewpoints and arguments in order to influence the voters to make the correct choice in the past election.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to this week’s topic and to the texts I have read for numerous reasons. In the Public Agenda series, A Citizens’ Solutions Guide to Energy, we learn that Americans take energy for granted and rarely notice that energy plays an important, often essential role in our everyday lives. In the United States alone, we hold 4.5% of the world’s population - but use tons more energy than other countries who may have a larger population than us. “On the presidential campaign trail, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has blamed rising gas prices on President Barack Obama's decision to temporarily block construction of the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada to the United States. Obama, meanwhile, has called for investing in alternative energy sources to reduce U.S. dependence on oil and gas.”American voters made the correct decision in voting for President Obama and not Governor Romney. This being because Governor Romney just pointed fingers, meanwhile President Obama actually made a step to move forward. On the other hand, in Chapter 8 of Justice, Sandel informs us about Aristotle’s theory of Justice in order to prove to us (readers) who actually deserves what in life. According to this theory, individuals can only be discriminated according to merit and excellence; anything else is unacceptable. Similarly, politics plays an integral role in one’s life and one who is not involved with politics is not always content. Lastly, not everyone can be treated equal, because some are naturally “better” than others, therefore requiring more merit and goods. This explains why both candidates are not judged based on race or ethnicity but rather on viewpoints. American voters judge their candidates based on the speeches they make which proves the reason why President Obama’s energy policy was favored over Governor Romney’s policy.
The evidence that I found this text is credible is that the Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. Although the specific article I chose did not specify one particular author, my source is still credible. The authors that write these articles have a lot of experience since most are fellows, their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda.
Based on what the author has presented, there is strong evidence to support his or her argument. The author stated, “Obama announced $1 billion in tax credits and grants (Guardian) for alternative-energy cars and trucks.” President Obama is giving rewards to the individuals who really need it. Just as in Justice, with Aristotle’s theory of justice - individuals are given what they deserve. As in this case, the author is proving that individuals who work hard to save the environment, can get rewarded with tax breaks afterall. “Romney reiterated his calls for "North American energy independence," by "taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear, and our renewables.” It is certain that although this is a non partisan source, it can be inferred that Governor Romney’s plan is not the correct path to follow. We should go by Approach two in Public Agenda - make sure we have enough affordable energy now to support our economy and ensure our energy security.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are many things we can do to help be more efficient, our unstable government and corrupt society is too stubborn to cooperate which will thus take years to finally fix the situation. “Romney, who has been criticized by Democrats for not sufficiently backing clean energy technologies, said that he supports government investment in research, not companies.” The issue is not the fact that he is investing in research and not companies, it’s the fact that researchers are not content. The real solution is to use Approach one from Public Agenda - move away from fossil fuels as quickly and safely as we can. It will not only protect the environment, but in the long run, it will give us cheaper and more reliable energy sources.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/candidates-energy-policy/p26796
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found is titled, “Obama’s alternative energy bankruptcies” written by Steve Hargreaves from CNNMoney. This article is about the Energy Department funding renewable energy companies and these companies have then failed/ gone bankrupt. This article mentions various renewable energy companies, how much money the Energy Department funds for these creations, what’s the purpose for this company, how have they failed and what has happened to the company after.
ReplyDeleteThis text connects to this week’s topic because is all about energy companies. In the U.S, energy has been a domestic issue for various reasons such as, the U.S population increasing drastically that the energy consumption has steadily increased too. Also in Public Agenda, it states that the U.S is trying to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources. The United States want to be able to be independent with their energy source. This connects to my text because it exemplifies how the nation is trying to improve their independency from foreign nations and their energy resource that we need in a daily basis.
The text I found is credible because is a source from CNNMoney. CNN is a prestigious news organization in the United States that has broadcast all over the nation for multiple years and if they claim false statements then they will lose the million of followers it has and it may put their reputation at risk. Also this news network consist of more than $4,000 news professional staff. Furthermore, specifically the author of this article Steve Hargreaves, is a senior writer that has a bachelor’s degree in environmental studies and has worked as a municipal beat reporter at a daily newspaper in Brunswick, ME and as a freelancer for Portland’s weekly covering city politics.
Steve Hargreaves does present strong evidence. He uses a variation of statistics from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. An example of a strong evidence he uses is when he states, “The company received a $43 million DOE stimulus loan guarantee to build a facility in upstate New York that uses flywheels to store extra energy from the power grid... The company spent $39 million to build the project... Beacon went bankrupt amid low prices for natural gas, which can be burned to produce electricity”. This exemplifies, that the Department of Energy is lending money and giving grants to certain individuals in order to create companies that will manufacture energy renewable sources for energy could be less of a problematic domestic issue in the US. By these company going bankrupt, it will not only hurt the energy but also it will harm the government’s economy because since their funding for these companies, they won’t be able to get their money back as fast as they expected since these companies couldn’t be as efficiently.
“Obama’s alternative energy bankruptcies” and Public Agenda’s: Energy have several things in common. In Public Agenda, it discusses how the US should take more responsibility and take the initiative in not depending on foreign energy resources. In approach two, it suggest that “we have enough affordable energy to support our economy and ensure our energy security” and that it should be done by “increasing domestic production of coal, natural gas and oil and investing in the development of alternative fuels...”. This is similar to my texts because one of the companies that was trying to be successful was the Beacon Power, which it’s purpose was to use flywheels to store extra energy from the power grid and then release it when needed. But when it went into bankruptcy it “amid low prices for natural gas, which can be burned to produce electricity”. This is important because when the prices for natural gas decrease, more people buy it and then people overuse it and it will lead to overconsumption. Furthermore, these two articles relate because another reason why the energy is such a big domestic issue is because us individuals have one of the highest per person use of energy rates and the more the population grows the more demand we have for it in which results to outspacing the production. My source reveals ways in which the government is trying to fix this “triple threat” by funding to these companies that are failing and going bankrupt.
ReplyDelete