This assignment is for Civics Periods 2 and 3.
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's readings is Public Agenda's Energy reading and gives a strong overview of energy.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the reading. 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:
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's readings is Public Agenda's Energy reading and gives a strong overview of energy.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the reading. 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 New York Times article "Solar Energy" , discuss scientist that are trying to use the power of the sun's rays to help give energy rather then to burn coal which pollutes the air. The goal that this article touches is renewable the use of fossil fuel to protect the air from polluting and decrease the affect of global warming. The article I read connects to " Publish Agenda Energy" because they both talk about how fossil fuels is affecting global warming and is better if we start focusing on making the world more green and create green jobs to help create pipelines and do the drilling. With more jobs available that would be good because America can pa off the deficits in overseas more efficiently that as of right now with just the used of coal. This article is credible because it is from The New York Times which is a high news organization founded in 1851 located in 620 Eighth Avenue , Manhattan , New York. The New York Times has a huge global reputation so they wouldn't dare to post something that would make them look bad. This article is also the root of other links that has a related story about solar energy because it has every specific details of what's going on involving solar energy and their plan on this situation. The author of this article shows strong evidence in the piece he/she writing by adding sources such as EuPD which is an expert on solar energy, US Commerce Department which is a nonpartisan, a nonpartisan writes about what is right based on the struggle of effect America or any other country this person is specifically writing abut and tried to persuade the reader that this is the right path to go if things have to get better. Finally the author uses a resource from House Subcommittee which they are bipartisan, which means that they take both evidence from Republican and Democratic party and compare them to see which political party has a better plan or idea toward the situation. The federal government should invest money on green jobs because it will help planet Earth in future generation. "A one-year extension of the 1603 tax grant program is expected to create and additional 37,000 solar industry jobs in 2012" , according to a report by EuPD research. With this extra extension it would be for America because more jobs would be available from unemployed people. In the Public Agenda it states "we'll need people to build the pipelines & do the drilling. but again, these job creations strategies may contribute significantly to the deficit. According to that quote not only will jobs be available but the deficits would be more efficient to pay especially deficits overseas in countries like China.
ReplyDeleteThe article “On Chicago's Ballot Tuesday: A Clean Energy Future”, written by Jack Darin, discusses the concept of how States are moving towards a future where energy should be more affordable and reliable, such as clean renewable energy. The article addresses key concepts such as reforms to help reduce Chicago’s prices of electricity and replace it with environmentally friendly alternatives. Not only is Illinois’ State Government pushing itself to have another source to get energy while reducing prices, but it is helping balance the economy by providing new jobs from creating new infrastructures across the State, and reducing the negative impact on the environment.
ReplyDeleteBoth the article, “On Chicago's Ballot Tuesday: A Clean Energy Future” and the text “Public Agenda Energy” discuss the idea that the Federal Government should invest time and money in resources that would benefit the population currently and in the future. The text “Public Agenda Energy” suggests reforms such as looking for new methods to get energy, including the investments in renewable energy and excluding the nation in receiving foreign oil as it raises the tax to ship the product. Both connecting to the article due to Illinois following these reforms and trying to replace fossils fuels with a cheaper and cleaner alternative, ultimately leading to cheaper prices for electricity and new jobs from creating the infrastructures.
The publisher of this article is credible because The Huffington Post is an American website that was founded in 2005 which covers politics and has a high reputation, being #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites over the internet for local news. Jack Darin is also a fundamental key to the article’s credibility because he worked very closely with stakeholders to reduce the pollution of Illinois, working with the Sierra Club (an organization to help conserve the ecosystem and the resources that it provides) and Darin is the Vice-President of the Ridgeville Park District in Evanston, Illinois in being an environmental and strategic advisor.
Darin supports his argument towards a greener future as he quotes Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who states, “As part of this competitive bidding process, we will also ask for suppliers to show us how they can deliver cleaner energy to Chicago customers” (Rahm). Having the mayor of a city being referenced to the idea that the nation and states should reform the system on getting energy sources is fundamental to the evidence’s impact as the mayor seems to agree with both “The Public Agenda Energy” and “On Chicago's Ballot Tuesday: A Clean Energy Future”. This shows why the evidence is strong because it addresses the worries that Darin and Mayor Rahm Emanuel both replicate against the use of fossil fuels and raises the concern towards a cheaper economical substitute. This substitute will create jobs by offering opportunities which in turn perfects the economic standpoint of the nation because as a result of more employment, more individuals are taxed to expand the footprint of eco friendly systems. Simply put is more like a constant cycle.
Darin argues that the nation should invest in energy alternatives not only because eventually our fossil fuels will burn and run out, but it will ensure lower prices and costs of energy in the future. In the “The Public Agenda Energy”, many could insure that “we use coal mainly for electricity- nearly all the coal consumed in the U.S is used for generating electricity”, the opposing side would argue, “[if] clean, renewable energy [is] to [replace] dirty coal, Chicagoans can ensure that those lower monthly payments are supporting the jobs of the future and reducing the air pollution that threatens our health” (Darin). Darin surmises if the federal government chooses to move away from fossil fuels, there will be more jobs due to the expansion infrastructures which reduce the federal debt as well as a positive effect towards clean energy.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-darin/on-chicagos-ballot-tuesda_b_2072940.html
“Bigger than Either of Them” is a article by Clifford Krauss , and this text introduce both Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s take about the growing situation in the United States . Fossil Fuels and Renewable resources.
ReplyDeleteArticles “Bigger than Either of Them “and this weeks’ article “Public Agenda: Energy” both express of the biggest growing problem in the United States, how is the United States using the energy? And whether are we going to maintain proficient energy usage for the United States future. The “Public Agenda: Energy “article introduces the different approaches that the united States are going to take in order to take care on the energy problem. For example, the United States is trying to move away as far as possible from fossil fuel. This would benefit us because, this would protect the environment and in the long run we would obtain cheaper and easily assessable energy sources. Another ways that the text implies that the United States would approach the United States energy problem , is that they would make sure that they can have enough affordable energy to support the economy. The way they would do it is that the United States would focus on producing domestically more fossil fuels like coal. The third and last term that the article introduces is to try to reduce individual energy usage, meaning reducing the amount of energy that we use. When looking at these approaches you can tell that the united states is highly focus on energy , and so when you look at the article that I found “ Bigger than Either of Them” , the article states that during the election Obama and Romney’s talked a lot about the issue on fossil fuels and renewable energy.
The article “Bigger than Either of Them” By Clifford Krauss is a highly credible source mainly because of the site that I retrieve the article from. The New York Times is a highly visited website in which if presented with any inaccurate information they would lose viewers. Also Clifford Krauss is a talented publisher who has been publishing for the new York times since 1990. And it shows a nonpartisan side of him because this article shows no bias segments and Clifford presents both sides of Obama and Romney. For example Cliffords introduces the Republican insight about what they think about the decision Obama made on investing $90 billion worth of government largess for Solyndra, the California solar company, and other green enterprises.
“ Bigger than Either of Them” introduces the views of both Obama and Romney’s view on how we should use nuclear power and biofuels, though neither is advocating strongly for either. Both say they want to encourage more oil drilling in places like North Dakota, Texas and Alaska to lower dependence on oil from the Middle East. Even while the current administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has more aggressively regulated mining and drilling. As stated in the article and so this weeks’ article connects to this article because the text introduces how they can try to fix this and enact many ways in order for that in the future we can have more assessable energy.
The article, “Raise the Voltage in the Energy Debate”, written by William S. Becker, informs the readers about Becker explaining how Governor Romney has all these plans and ideas on how he wants to increase the production of domestic natural gas, oil and coal. Even if it means that it will harm the environment causing illnesses.
ReplyDeleteThis article originates from The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is an American news website, content aggregator and blog that was founded in May 2005 by Arianna Huffington. The post covers politics, business, entertainment, environment, technology, popular media, lifestyle, culture, comedy, healthy living, women's interests and local news.William S. Becker a former blogger is Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP) and a Senior Associate at Natural Capitalism Solutions in Colorado. This shows that Becker has extensive knowledge on current issues on energy and knowledge on the nation’s climate and energy security.
Becker shows a side of him that is partisan (biased). Assuming that Becker is mostly democratic because he goes against Mitt Romney’s political views on energy and how he would like to increase the usage of fossil fuels. Romney will most likely agree with approach 2 from “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Energy”, because he wants to increase domestic production of coal, natural gas, and oil. Becker uses a testimony by Skip Laitner, an advisor to the Presidential Climate Action Project (PCAP), an economist and senior fellow at ACEEE, that estimates the continued energy inefficiency that could cost the U.S. economy as many as 15 million jobs in the next couple of decades -- five times the 3 million jobs Romney says his energy policies would create” (Becker). This helps the readers for a better understanding on how Romney’s plan will harm our environment.
“A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Energy” and “Raise the Voltage in the Energy Debate”connect to each other because both discuss the pros and cons about the consumption of energy that we the people use. The Cons on energy is that it worsens CO2 emissions, the deficit would increase, and would have an impact on the ecosystem. In “Raise the Voltage in the Energy Debate”, Becker strongly states how Romney is corrupting our environment with the burning fossil fuels. “He proposes that the United States achieve energy independence by 2020 by producing more oil, coal and natural gas. What we couldn't produce ourselves, we'd import from Canada and Mexico.” (Becker). In contrast the pros
on energy is that in order to have a more sustainable environment the “green” friendly industries want to create more renewable energy like solar panels, wind turbines, green houses and plenty more. “ Our energy policy also has the potential for creating a lot of jobs. People talk about “green jobs” that will come from developing infrastructure for renewable energy...” (Public Agenda)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article “On Our Radar: Obama, Romney and Energy Policy” is about the impact that energy, both renewable and nonrenewable, has on the United States domestically and with foreign nations. Also on how energy is having an impact on climate change and how the State of California got sued for turning a blind eye to fracking operations. The connection between the class article “ A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Energy” by Public Agenda and the New York Times reading “On Our Radar: Obama, Romney and Energy Policy” by the New York Times are both about energy. Also they speak about on how energy can have an impact on the U.S and how valuable oil is becoming thanks to other nations increase usage of nonrenewable energy to increase their economy, for example China and India. This text is not only from the New York Times but also written by it, which is a well known newspaper corporation that will lose numerous support from supporters if they put fails information. The New York Times supports its evidence by putting links to other pages like a court case that happen in California, fact check of Obama and Romney, and to a page of the State Department’s study which energy are entwined with foreign affairs. Domestic energy makes a country less dependent on other countries and also creates more jobs. Public Agenda stated “ Our energy policy also has the potential for creating a lot of jobs.” If it’s either renewable or nonrenewable energy the energy company is going to need people to make the equipment that will get or create the energy source and then the equipment that will transfer the energy the its destinations. As a result this would have a big positive impact on the economy of the U.S. The New York Times said “...especially on how domestic energy production can help the nation’s economy.” If more people have jobs then the government won't have to spend as much money on them, for example food stamps and unemployment, and also their import in oil will decline which will end up in less government spending that then they can use to pay back the debt.
ReplyDeleteThe article I chose, “Will Storm’s Wall Street Impact Influence U.S Carbon Policy” discusses how people are becoming more aware on global warming and the effects that it will have for people in the U.S later on in the future and its becoming a threat. They are also realizing that we need to become more “green” and invest on using more renewable sources before it becomes too late for future generations also.My text relates to this week's text because they both relate on how global warming is becoming a serious problem that we all have to become more aware about before its too late. Both discuss on how the federal government should invest money on making the U.S a “greener” country and because our population is increasing, so is our energy consumption and we need to waste as least energy as we can to reduce global warming. Our energy consumption is exceeding production meaning that we are wasting more energy than what we are supposed to. “Will Storm’s Wall Street Impact Influence U.S Carbon Policy” and “ A Citizens Solution Guide Energy” are both informing the reader on the damage that our energy consumption is doing and that it is also affecting the climate and trying to replace fossils fuels with a cheaper and cleaner alternative, which will lead to a cheaper price for electricity. This source is credible because its from a highly known news organization which is the New York Times that has provided the city with reliable news. Also written by a science and environment writer who knows about these things such as climate and global warming. Who has also written for the New York Times since 1995. The Author from “Will Storm’s Wall Street Impact Influence U.S Carbon Policy” does present strong evidence in the article, “The piece nicely summarizes why this storm, unlike other recent weather disasters with a climate-change component, has prompted so many politicians, including President Obama, to end their self-imposed silence on global warming”. More natural disasters will come to hit stronger because of the temperature getting warmer and so is the ocean and that will cause stronger storms in the future. Both “Will Storm’s Wall Street Impact Influence U.S Carbon Policy” and “ A Citizens Solution Guide Energy” connect to each other because they argue that the US should spend more money on trying to make us more “green” and eventually we are going to run out of fossil fuels because we are consuming much more than we are supposed to. “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”. Both texts would agree on this quote because they want more sources that are not going to affect the climate and will not increase the global warming that we have now.
ReplyDeletehttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/will-storms-wall-street-impact-influence-u-s-carbon-policy/
The article “A Bright Future for Renewable Energy”, written by Phyllis Cuttino explains how renewable clean energy for the United States would be a mix of challenge and opportunities. The author addresses how renewable energy would benefit emerging high-technology industries.Public Agenda Energy provides different approaches which the country should take in order to be able to use renewable energy.This energy issue is bigger than it seems. According to Cuttino “Solar module prices dropped 50 percent in 2011.”This is potentially good for countries who are trying to rely on renewable energy systems. The prices are getting cheaper, since not many countries used renewable energy. Using these renewable energy systems will push forward technology and eventually increase cost due to a increase on demand. This would benefit technology because high technological sources of electricity can be built. According to Public Agendas Energy text “these energy sources are renewable, so we have an unlimited supply assuming we have wind , sun and water and for biomass, plants, trees and garbage.” As a result it would make sense if the United states started to use renewable energy systems. Even though “these measures ... cost, [these renewable energy systems benefit us positively] over the long run. They will end up saving us money.”Cuttino explains that America should position itself to use, produce, and sell them to consumers looking for safe, clean, affordable energy options in the future.The source is from the Huffington Post. The huffington post is an american news website founded by Arianna Huffington. The author Phyllis Cuttino is the Director, of Pew Clean Energy Program. The Pew Clean Energy Program works globally to establish pragmatic, science-based policies that protect our oceans, preserve our wildlands and promote the clean energy economy.Renewable clean energy would be a good source of energy for our country and other foreign countries since it has the potential to be an affordable source of electricity. According to Cottino “developing the world's most advanced, cost-competitive clean energy technologies for Americans to use and export around the world.” America should make a business of renewable clean energy it is on natural clean resources. Similarly, stated in Public Agendas Energy “renewable energy sources only work well when, for example, the sun is shining or the wind is blowing ... we need to back - up energy sources ... which would be either coal , natural gas , or nuclear.” According to Approach two the use of nuclear energy isn't a bad idea because it does not contribute to global warming, and even natural gas being cleaner than other fossil fuels. So until another energy innovation method is created they should create an affordable, sustainable way for people to get their electricity or just keep using nuclear energy and natural gas.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Hydrofracking-will-create-jobs-3835421.php
ReplyDeleteThe article I found,”Hydrofracking will create jobs,” talks about how Governor Andrew Coumo, from New York State, wants to ban hydrofracking, blaming it for air and water pollution in other states.
This text connects to this week’s topic because it talks about the ideas to save energy and creating new jobs. The text I found is credible because the Times Union is a newspaper article from Albany. Taylor Smith, the author, is a policy analyst from the Heartland Institute in Chicago. Taylor Smith is a credible publisher for this type of research because she is an analyst, and in this article, she analyzes Governor Cuomo's ideas on banning hydrofracking, and she tells us the positive and negative impacts of that plan. tayler provides strong evidence because she uses big organization called The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to state that there is nothing wrong with hydrofracking. she says “There also is a strong lack of documented evidence that hydraulic fracturing is dangerous to air quality. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality spent months monitoring air quality near the Barnett Shale, another one of America's large natural gas fields, and found no immediate health concerns in the area.” This benefits her argument because it proves that hydrofracking is harmless and the governors idea on banning hydrofracking is bad. In this weeks article “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy “ talks about how hydrofracking is also good for creating new jobs. Both “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy “ and ”Hydrofracking will create jobs,” agree that hydrofracking is good. In this weeks article it states “ Fracking has its benefits. It has decreased our dependence on foreign energy source. It has increased jobs,both directly and because the fewer dollars we send overseas,the more we can put into investment and job creation.” Hydrofracking is moving America from coal for electricity and also increasing job opportunities.the article i found ”Hydrofracking will create jobs,” agrees hydrofracking i good when it states “From July 2011 to July 2012, 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, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.” Hydrofracking has increased jobs and has moved us America from coal and into a greener and healthier world .
The article I found was “Renewable Sources Could Provide 77% of World’s Energy by 2050, Report Says” by James kanter. Kanter talks about how the energy will be by 2050 if the government dramatically increases financial and political support for technologies like the solar power and wind. If the energy is renewable it would include a better public health from clean air, less greenhouse gas emissions and help increase global temperatures. The program I.P.C.C (intergovernmental panel on climate change) will help the government address these problems.
ReplyDeleteThe article connects to this week’s topic because in the reading “Public’s Agenda: energy” mentions a lot on energy. Both articles talk about changing the way America uses there energy, renewable including wind, solar power and hydroelectric. It also states how much of the energy we use and how much we have of it also.
This article is credible because it comes from a well-known organization of news and gives the best updates of the world called The New York Times. James Kanter is a well know author he was an editor in chief of The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh. He earned his history degree from Columbia University in New York and his master’s degree at Yale law school.
The author does present strong evidence to support his argument of rising financial and political support for technologies. As Kanter stated “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report that the availability of renewable sources like the wind and sun was virtually unlimited, and could provide up to 77 percent of the world’s energy needs by mid-century, but governments needed to adopt policies to take advantage of them”. Here he is stating that the wind and sun will increase the world’s energy up to 70 percent by the mid-century because it’s unlimited unlike some of the other energy we have out there that will run out. For example petroleum which is used for transportation. He also states “nearly 80 percent of the world’s energy from those same sources would require investments by governments and the private sector amounting to $5.1 trillion through 2020, and nearly $7.2 trillion between 2021 and 2030, according to the report”. Here he is showing how much money we will be making if we use energy less and if we increase the finical and political support.
Energy is a huge topic this year for Obama and will focus on improving our energy system. If the energy isn’t changed it will run out one day. just like” publics agenda: energy” stated “fossil fuels – petroleum, natural gas and coal-not only emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, they are also nonrenewable sources of energy meaning they will all run out one day”. James kanter will agree with this because if the nonrenewable sources will run out then we have the renewable ones as backup which include wind, solar and hydroelectric. “But the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades”. Here he’s stating that they will expand the energy or restrict it in the coming decades due to the nonrenewable ones running out.
The article that i found this week is called “ Romney Energy Policy: Global Clean Coal Comment Aside, Global Use of Coal Should Be Limited. This article talks about how despite Romney’s energy policy plan, the use of burning,producing,and exporting of Coal should be restricted by the Government in the United States and around the world. The article especially focus on the fact that the use of Coal has increased since 2000, and it is a problem because Coal is a nonrenewable source which means that it has a limit. This article provides examples of how countries use of Coal is a problem , including the United States.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to this week’s reading called “ Public Agenda:Energy” , because its states why the massive use of Coal has become, not only in the nation but around the world in big countries like China.It also talks about how our energy policy can impact the nation positively and negatively.
This article is credible because it comes from a company that is the first democratic online news platform to engage millennial in debates about real issues. It is also a bipartisan when it comes to debates and politics. it was founded in 2011 in New York City recent Harvard and Stanford grads Chris Altchek and Jake Horowitz. the author is a female Liberal Politic who graduated from Cornell University and has been one of the newest Journalists to work with the organization.
The author of the article of the article gives evidence to her facts , because she provides facts of how the use coal has started and it has risen, and she also provides examples of how nonrenewable source would be less used if Limitations on the use of Coal would be put globally. the author states that “Coal has been used in the United States since colonial times. The use of coal has steadily increased ever since. During the Industrial Revolution, once the country’s major transportation systems and electrical production relied on coal, consumption began to rise exponentially. Today, many American industries depend mostly on petroleum, causing the U.S. consumption of coal to steadily drop in recent years. Despite the stagnant consumption of coal domestically, American exports of coal to foreign countries have steadily increased since 2002.” the author here explains why the use of coal started, and while the US has slowed down their use on them , they are using it because the Coal they have , they are exporting it to Foreign Countries. If they were to limit the amount of Coal they export too, than Countries who they send it will automatically have to minimize their consumption of Coal. the author also includes information from a study that claims that if the number of countries enforcing limits on their coal consumption increases to a certain point, the exports will begin to drop, and the net consumption globally will drop as well.
The use of energy, especially the use of Coal has become a major problem Globally and economically. Coal is nonrenewable source of energy meaning that it will run out one day. According to the “public agenda”, “Fossil Fuels, petroleum, natural gas and coal, not only emit Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This means that they can cause global warming , which is bad for the environment , the planet in general. In general United States and other countries need to limit the amount of nonrenewable sources of energy they use, because if not they will get to the point will they will run out , and the closer to running out they are the more expensive its gonna be to get the nonrenewable source , which will add more debt to the deficit.
The article “Obama Administration Says energy Reform Not Negotiable” , written by Philip Elliott is about Obamas plan on removing fossil fuels and making the country green. Such as putting solar power system and making windmills to produce power for the nation with an estimated $3.6 trillion on his budget proposal. Similarly,in Public Agenda Energy the government is trying to create a proposal for the use of renewable energy and the plan to eliminate coal from the nation so it won't affect the climate change. The text “Obama Administration Says energy Reform Not Negotiable” is from the Huffington Post an american new website. The author Philip Elliott is a columnist for the website. There are also other hyperlinks that relate to the topic energy and talk about the other organizations that are trying to build projects such as windmills. Philip Elliott provide strong evidence by using strong statistics. When he says “The administration's $787 billion stimulus package includes $39 billion for the Department of Energy and $20 billion in tax incentives for clean energy” this provides evidence for the amount of money Obama’s energy plan may cost. Energy plays a huge part of the economy in the United States which will cause controversy between the use of coal, nuclear and renewable energy."We can remain the world's leading importer of foreign oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of renewable energy." So we should start thinking on how to create a sustainable source of renewable energy. On the other hand Public Agendas Energy Approach two says that “Nuclear energy [does not] contribute to global warming and has the potential to be an affordable , reliable source of electricity.” In other words we should create a source of energy and remain as the leading exporter of electricity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/obama-administration-says_n_177938.html
DeleteThe article I chose this week is called "Energy and the impact of immigration in to the US" published by the Colorado Alliance for immigration reform a non profit organization that researches immigration. The article talks about how energy consumption has increased through out the united states for the past decade. They seem to relate it to the high immigration population that keeps increasing everyday. They made blatant statements about the how the united states wont be able to sustain the high immigration levels and the energy consumption. Energy demand has increased because of the amount of people, the article stated that "Residential energy use has increased by 34 percent since 1973. Almost all of that entire increase was due to population growth"The public agenda chapter on energy talks about increase in the use of energy as the population grows , the chapter stated " Energy consumption in the U.S has nearly tripled in the past 60 years. It also talks about the high use of petroleum. petroleum is very limited and it has to end one day. experts form the public agenda predicted that we cold use a trillion th in next 30 years. This relates to the article that I have chosen this weeks because it talks about the disaster we are making in our energy used. Also as stated on my outside source.If the rate of immigrants keep going up we might burn the trillion of petroleum before 30 years. The source where my article comes from is reliable because its a non profit organization. From research I found that this website " has supported immigration sanity and enforcement of immigration laws since the mid 1990s ". This shows how the organization has helped improved immigration laws. Its because it has made a change in immigration laws with the amount of years that it has been established. Also they use reliable statistics from the US census Bureau. Also they cited authors such as Leon Kolankiewicz, the author of The neglected dimension of america's persistent Energy/ Environmental problems and other credible authors.The organization of this article uses a lot of bullet pointed evidence to prove its point. They stated that "The situation is, unfortunately, even more serious. We have extracted approximately half of all petroleum on the planet, and global demand is increasing as a result of industrialization of third-world countries, especially Chin". This Tends to shows how serious the author feels about the topic. He has very strong views towards energy consumption in the united states. He believes that at the rate we going the situation is only going to get worst by the second. It shows that we could only expect the prices of all types of energy to go up if the immigration rates keep flowing the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe article I choose this week is called “Obama to continue efforts to curb greenhouse gases, push energy efficiency” written by Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson. This article is based on Obama getting re-elected and how he is looking to move forward with his “energy vision” by taking action on climate change, oil and gas problems in the country.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Obama to continue efforts to curb greenhouse gases, push energy efficiency” and the reading in class “A citizens’ Solutions Guide: Energy”. Talk about the problems the country has connected with energy. They both clearly state that energy in America is one of the most important factors, to making the country the way it is but it is also one of the factors that is being harmful to the country. Both also give the affects of this domestic issues and express ways of change.
This source is a credible source because it comes from the Washington post, one of most circulated newspapers published in Washington. This daily newspaper was founded in 1877, and has been running since. Both writers that wrote the article “Obama to continue efforts to curb greenhouse gases, push energy efficiency” Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson have writing papers for this newspaper for more than five years which shows experience.
The writer’s in this article do show strong evidence to support their argument. They provide statics from specific companies that contradict the arguments of the other side. Which in this case were coal-mining companies that waged a vigorous advertising battle against Obama’s reelection. They give data on the affects of energy they write, Shares of Peabody Energy fell 9.6 percent Wednesday, Arch Coal plunged 12.5 percent, Consol Energy dropped 6.1 percent, and Alpha Natural Resources sank 12.2 percent. They give this data to make their argument stronger because it provides more information for their argument, and weakens the other side. The writer’s also support their argument, by bringing in outside knowledge. Steven Mufson’s main job for the Washington post is to cover energy and other financial news giving him the advantage to bring more knowledge on this topic to this article specifically, which does make the article stronger.
Even though, the article and the reading both talk about the same domestic issue and address the affects of that issue, there are differences for example, the article I found this week say’s “Gerard would oppose a carbon tax, which he said would inhibit production and raise energy costs.’’ He thinks that passing a carbon tax would just make the cost of energy for the country more expensive. While the reading from class, would argue and say “Setting a federal limit on and taxing carbon emissions. Manufacturers will have a financial incentive to emit less and we could address our federal budget challenges and protect the environment at the same time”(5). It says that that with passing this tax it can only make our economy better.
New York Times “Don't Block the Sun” article by Jeremy Leggett is about how Countries such as US and China are competing in renewable energy market. Although both countries are competing against each other china is “Chinese manufacturers have been exporting their panels — cheaper than U.S.”. This is leading in some European countries to take some anti-action. As a result China is enforcing high tariffs on U.S. raw materials for solar cells.
ReplyDeleteLeggett`s article “Don't Block the Sun” and Publics Agenda`s “Energy” both interpret that nations motives in investing in renewable energy is driven by the growth prices of gas,oil and most importantly the high amounts of carbon emitted by these fossil fuels which cause global temperature to increase. Both text also indicate that the reason that most countries don't fully invest in these renewable sources of energy the technology is costly and the only way to make these new methods of energy to threadable is only if renewable energy technology becomes cheaper than any other energy source out in the market.
Jeremy Leggett a geologist by training,consultant for oil industry and chairman of Solarcentury article “Don't Block the Sun” is credible because it is found in The York Times a major news outlet for New York and most importantly solarcentury is a is a business which designs and installs solar systems for buildings in the UK and continental Europe.
Leggett argues that “the longer we stay dependent on gas and oil the more we become dependent on those who control the pipelines and the tanker routes [and] if you worry about climate change, we need a low-carbon future that involves a retreat from carbon fuels” this is true due to fact that we rely on a source of energy that is limited and also is harming our environment. The reason we sustain this source of energy is because it is the cheapest out there but nations are crippled by manufacturers of these fossil fuel products because they are so reliant of this energy source.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/dont-block-the-sun-encourage-solar-industry.html
DeleteThe article that I chose this week is called”Benny Peiser: Man-Made Energy Crisis.” The article touches on our friends half way around the world: the Germans. Germany is facing record high green energy consumption. So high, in fact, that “…800 000 households in Germany can no longer pay their energy bills.” (Dr.Benny Peiser). This shows how even ‘green’ energy, can be just as harmful as oil and natural gas powered devices. I purposely chose this article, because the week’s reading from Public Agenda touched on ‘green’ energy. “Many advocate for things like developing infrastructure and technology for renewables like wind and solar power,…” (Public Agenda: Energy). The link between each piece shows how the need for ‘green’ energy in the United States, while it is a necessity, will increase the deficit problem we already face.” Renewable energy is the future,…” (Dr. Peiser), and it has the power to create new “…green jobs…” (Public Agenda ). But before our government starts to develop new ideas about how to start using ‘green energy’, we should look at our friends: the Germans, before making a big change that we cannot afford. The article I chose was written by Dr. Benny Peiser, who is the founder and editor (since 1997) of CCNet, the world’s leading climate policy network. Dr.Peser is a social scientist at the University of Buckingham. His research focuses on the effects of environmental change and catastrophic events on contemporary thought and societal evolution.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times article “Romney Unveils Plan For Energy Independence” by Ashley Parker is an article that explains the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s plan on energy independence is he were to the win the 2012 presidential election against the president Barrack Obama. The article I have researched Romney Unveils plan for energy independence” by Ashley Parker and “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy” both talk about the growth of use of energy in American society and its effects, Romney Unveils plan for energy independence” specifically talks about the plan for energy independence that could begin to take place if Republican candidate Mitt Romney were to be elected and how it would be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Romney Unveils plan for energy independence” by Ashley Parker also talks about the steps that would have to take place in order to get to the point that Mitt Romney expresses on energy independence of the United States. In Approach Two from “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy” it specifically states, “Not only will increasing the domestic supply of fossil fuel energy affordable and reliable, it’s an effective way to create jobs – good, well-paying jobs.” and this means that the nation being energy independent will be good for the environment but also it would be a lot more beneficial for the nations economy since there are being a lot more jobs created for the American people. This quote connects to the New York Times article that I researched because in “Romney Unveils plan for energy independence” by Ashley Parker Mitt Romney’s plan for the nation to be energy independent will also help create domestic jobs for the people in The United States. “Mr. Romney has said his policies would lead to independence from oil imports from outside North America by 2021.” This also shows that the United States depends on other nations to conceive our oil and fuel sources but also how Mitt Romney is planning to change the system by the year 2021 and this would drastically change the economy and even environment is a positive way. All this information given in both “Romney Unveils Plan For Energy Independence” and “A Citizens’’ Solution Guide Energy” both use statistics to support the their positions and that is the strong evidence. The New York Times Article is definitely credible because it is produced by a writer that works for The New York Times which is a very famous and reliable source of news that wouldn’t risk its credibility with false information in their articles, the author be credible enough if they were not allowed to write for the New York Times in the first place. Overall both texts that I have talked about identify a problem in the current system of energy and also talk about how I can be changed. In “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy” negative effects on the environment are expressed like pollution and its taking place because of the current energy system. In other words both text express the “pros” and “cons” about the consumption of energy in The United States.
ReplyDelete-Garmandy Candelario
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/romney-unveils-plan-for-energy-independence/
Elmis Rodriguez 3rd pd
ReplyDeleteThe article "Obama's Energy Plan by the Numbers" by Bill Chameides discusses Obama's energy plan which "overall aim is to achieve energy independence for North America"(Chameides). Obama will attempt this by first developing and securing America's energy supplies, Providing consumers with choices to reduce costs and save energy, and Innovating our way to a clean energy future.
Both the article "Obama's Energy Plan by the Numbers" and the class text “Public Agenda Energy” discuss the energy issue and give approaches to solve the energy problem. The class text “Public Agenda Energy” suggest Making federal investments in the research and development of all renewable energy sources, like hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal and other clean-burning fuels. Doing so would prove U.S is staying ahead of the curve and looking to the future whilst serving as an example to the rest of the world.
This article is published by the Huffington post and is credible because the Huffington post was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites. the author, Bill Chameides can be regarded as credible because Dr. Chameides is dean of Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Chameides uses proves his argument of agreeing with president Obama and start using " "clean energy" by using exact statistics to show the importance of "clean energy" and "Efficient energy" on Obama's energy plan. for example, he quotes Obama's energy plan itself: "Blueprints for a secure energy future." he noted that words such as "gas" , "efficiency", "energy" and "clean energy" are used throughout the plan no less than 83 times.
these two pieces connect as Chameides along with president Obama would agree with the text's Approach one. Approach One seeks to 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. Both articles show preference to the idea of forgetting fossil fuels and moving to more "cleaner" sources or energy. the class text shows this through their first approach to the energy crisis. The article shows this preference through the acknowledgment and support of Obama's Blueprints for a secure energy future.
Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/obamas-energy-plan-by-the_b_1862497.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/energy-environment/renewable-energy-advances-in-the-us-despite-obstacles.html
ReplyDeleteThe article “Renewable Sources of Power Survive, but in a Patchwork” by Diane Cardwell describes how the government donated money to companies in order to have a clean and safe energy. This article connects to this week’s topic because they both emphasize the idea that energy plays a big role in each individual’s life and how important it is. This article is credible because it’s from a worldwide organization called NY Times and if authors ever publish false information, their number of viewers will drastically decrease. Diane Cardwell uses statistics and other people’s opinions in order to make her argument in this article stronger. For example, Cardwell states, “... Bank of America Merrill Lynch was lending it up to $350 million to install enough panels to power 120,000 military homes”. This demonstrates how much money is being used in order for everyone to have access to energy. This also shows how important energy is in our lives based on the amount of money organizations spend on energy. Another example is when Cardwell mentions, “One such project, by Clean Line Energy, which develops high-voltage transmission lines, would create enough capacity to take 3,500 megawatts of wind power from Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota to Illinois and states to the east”. With this information, Diane Cardwell makes her argument stronger by explaining how organizations use their time efficiently and actually helping out the community with energy. Overall, this week’s text and the chosen article have a strong relationship towards each other because both use lots of statistics to enlarge the importance of energy in the world. WIthout energy, individuals wouldn’t have easy access to the things they have easy access to at this moment. We would also be in crisis without energy and would be really desperate for the need of energy. Diane Cardwell’s article actually proves the purpose of energy and what’s the importance of energy, for example, it answers the question: Why do we need energy so much in our lives?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/us-energy-policy-caught-in-the-vise-of-economics-and-politics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Bigger than either of them?” it talks about offering new ideas for renewable energy and how to use coal in an “efficient” manner. This relates to a Public Agenda: A citizens` solution guide: Energy because it talks about how the public can other reliable and efficient energy sources. Public Agenda: Energy has three approaches to gaining energy, the first approach to gaining energy is moving away from fossil fuels thus protecting the environment and in the long run giving us a cheaper and more reliable energy sources. The second approach is making sure that our energy is affordable enough now to secure our economy and protect energy security in the future. The third approach is ideally being a more energy efficient in the future. All of these three approaches connect to the article “Bigger than either of them” because in the article it describes the plans that President Obama and Governor Romney are offering on energy. While Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney support biofuels and nuclear power and support the idea that more drilling shown be done in places like North Dakota , Texas and Alaska to lower the dependence on the middle east, Obama is more energy cautious than Romney. Obama believe in domestic share of oil an gas while Romney is “energy independent”.
The article “Bigger than either of them?” is a credible source because it comes from the New York Times which is a very reliable and respectable news paper. If they were to lie , it would reach a major media scandal and will affect them in a very negative way and might even destroy their reputation.
The article that I found named “Kerry-Lieberman Energy-Reform Bill Adds Offshore Drilling Control” written by Annie Snider and it explains how states now have the right to cut greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050, and to reduce American dependence on foreign oil. The author states that this act would not cater politics but that it is the correct way to go in order to keep the earth healthy. The text public Agenda Energy show us different approaches telling us ways that some ideas could benefit the earth and how it can hurt it. Both the text and the article agree that switching to more reliable energy sources can help reduce the amount of money that America uses on using foreign oil since it would have domestic oil this would help the economy and the earth. This article is credible because it’s from politicsdaily.com which is a smaller source from the Huffington post a huge news organization known for having credible nws and also since it is a award winning site. The author is credible since she has a master in journalism from Northwestern university. Annie Snider show strong evidence by telling us the political view of this and how only one republic supported the bill but then backed off because of the concern that Democrats wouldn't give the bill priority this evidence is strong because it allows us to know that republicans didn't like the act at all and wanted nothing to do with it.Both of these sources connect because both of them talk about affordable energy to help the promote reliable energy sources for companies. Using reliable energy would not only help the earth last longer and stop global warming but help the economy since business owners would be wasting less money. Annie Snider states in the article from politics daily that the “bill aims to boost domestic energy production by streamlining the process for new nuclear power plants and providing incentives to develop technology that would capture and permanently store carbon dioxide for widespread commercial use”. This is giving us an idea that using domestic energy can be more reliable and less expensive than using energy from other places like oil.while in public agenda energy the author states “ the serious cost of global warming and pollution as well as the fact that our fossil fuels will one day in the not-too-distant future runs out, there’s no question that a green economy is the best solution” this show that these article relate in more than one point of view.
ReplyDeleteRandy Lopez third Period Civics
ReplyDeleteSource: http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/135851/what-are-final-obama-and-romney-energy-plan-changes
the article I chose is called "What are the Final Obama and Romney Energy Plan Changes?" by John Miller The article talks about the final changes to Obama's and Romney's energy plans for their current campaigns. this connects to the class text because they both discuss energy plans and solutions to these energy problems. This article is credible because it is from theenergycollective.com. A website revolved around the world's best thinkers on energy and climate. The author, John Miller uses strong evidence such as statistics and linking websites to prove that Romney's energy plan is better than Obama's on every level. this article connects to the class text as they both show preference of Romney's approach of energy autonomy rather than using cleaner fuels which cost more.
Based on the article I found " Obama Ground Zero: Why Cheap American Energy Is The Death Of American Power" by Matthew Hulbert. This article is about America can reinvent itself as an energy giant, vastly reduce its deficit, stimulate its economy. This shows that the deficit reduces all of America can renew itself.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to this weeks topic about energy because as the stated from the Public Agenda "Energy" " green jobs will come from developing infrastructure for renewable energy". This would increase the deficit,but give more money for jobs? This also shows that how our energy policy impacts the country negatively and positively.
This article is credible because it comes from Forbes, by the author Matthew Hulbert. He is the contributor of this organization since March 2012. As he says "Old School Energy, New World Order". Matthew is also an analyst for the European Energy Review. Forbes is a well known site to search for any credible sources.
The author of this article does provide evidence about her facts that he reveals. As stated from his article "In a new world of cheap energy abundance, the only real winner is China, hands down". This is important because as stated from Public Agenda: Energy "Significant amounts of our energy sources, especially oil, come from more problematic nations". Therefore the United States rely on other countries for energy. Another example is "If America forges ahead to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, mirroring what’s already happened in natural gas, OPEC will have little option but give up on price, and go for enhanced volume instead". This relates to how that there's " spike in oil prices caused by a confrontation with Iran is the biggest current threat to the U.S. economy". That's why gas prices for cars in the real world now has been raising so much that the deficit increases.
"A Citizens Solutions Guide: Energy" and " Obama Ground Zero: Why Cheap American Energy Is The Death Of American Power" both talk about how America and the real world could renovate itself by using renewable energy and reducing the deficit. Public Agenda states that " developing renewable energy can increase green jobs". This shows that if increasing new jobs it would make them earn more money but increase the deficit. But Matthew states " If America forges ahead to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, mirroring what’s already happened in natural gas, OPEC will have little option but give up on price, and go for enhanced volume instead". This shows that the deficit remains the same because of what they actually want which is enhancing more and more volume of producing more oil and its a harm because it can lead to global warming.
The article which I choose was "Solar Power Plants to Rise on U.S Land" by Felicity Barringer. This article is focused on the proposal of the United States government to build the first solar power plant in the country. Barringer's article connects to the weeks text of Public Agenda "Energy" in numerous ways. Both the article and text touch on the idea that fossil fuels are slowly affecting the way the country gets its energy. In "Solar Power Plants" Barringer writes, "Deploying solar energy technologies across the country will help America lead the global economy for years to come." What Barringer means by this is that by replacing fossil fuels with solar energy the cost for the U.S government to produce fossil fuels would no longer hurt the economy as it gets replaced by solar energy. With solar energy their is endless supply of sunlight from the sun, so their is literally no cost for solar energy. In Public Agendas "Energy" the text adds, "Individuals should buy more energy efficient appliances and vehicles, construct smaller homes to be energy efficient." With things such as homes and vehicles being run on energy saving systems, such as hybrid cars, money can be saved out of people's pockets and pollution wouldn't effect the atmosphere. The article "Solar Power Plants to Rise on U.S Land" is a credicle source becuase it was published by the New York Times. The New York Times is a historic news publisher established in 1851. The author Felicity Barringer is the author of numerous articles published on the New York Times dating back to 1986. Felicity Barringer uses a number of evidence to support her argument that he U.S should in fact approve the idea of the establishment of solar power plants in California. In the article Barringer writes, "Both plants are to rise in the California desert under a fast-track program that dovetails with the state’s own aggressive effort to push development of solar, wind and geothermal power."
ReplyDeleteThe text that I found is call "Lawmakers urge governor to keep ban on hydrofracking", it talks about how over 35 lawmakers from Oneida County have already joined over 425 elected officials across the state in order to sign on to a letter encourager Governor Andrew Cuomo to continue banning hydraulic fracturing in New York, at least until they know more about the process. The littler states that as elected officials they share the responsibility to protect the people of their countries and state against the as extraction process, what they fear could permanently damage drinking water. But some people believe that hydrofracking can bring jobs and a lot of energy to the state.
ReplyDeleteThe article "Lawmakers urge governor to keep ban on hydrofracking" is connected to this week text because they both talk about energy. The two texts about how energy is very important to many people but there is different kind of sources we get out energy form such as coal, solar and oil. This one is fracking, the method of extracting natural gas and oil from shale rock deep under the ground.
This article is credible it comes form WKTV, on December 1, 1949 WKTV went on the air. It was the 93rd television station in the country to sign on. Originally WKTV was affiliated with all four networks in operation; NBC, ABC, CBS and DuMont. In a few years DuMont was out of business and the CBS affilacy was taken by a Syracuse station. WKTV stayed an affiliate of NBC and ABC until 1970. Today, WKTV remains one of the oldest members on the NBC family. WkTV approaches its 60th Anniversary. The author Lexie O'Connor graduated Magna Cum Laude from Boston University with a degree in Broadcast Journalism in 2011.
The author Lexie O'Connor gives good evidence about the text because the she states the number of people who wrote the letter to the Governor Andrew Cuomo to support him. The author also said that hydrofracking can cause permanently damage drinking water. "However some people are for the process coming to New York. Hydrofracking is estimated to bring jobs and very profitable energy to the state." The author also Lexie O'Connor argues both sides because she also gives details about people who believed that hydrofracking can bring jobs.
The text "Lawmakers urge governor to keep ban on hydrofracking" talks about how some people support Governor Andrew Cuomo to not allowed hydrofracking. The article also talks about how some people want hydrofracking to happen because it can created jobs for many people.
http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Lawmakers-urge-Governor-to-keep-ban-on-hydrofracking-170256206.html
The article that I choose was from “The National Association of Manufacturers Energy and Natural Resources “ It talks about why Natural Gas is needed for energy use and way it’s used in the United States . The demand for Natural Gas is increasing in the United States and became a high Domestic Demand of an Energy Resources, This Article connects to this week’s topic because in the Data Table in the Citizens solutions Guide Energy about how Natural Gas is made and needed in the united states and how it’s demanded by almost half of the united states. This article is credible because the it’s from one biggest manufacting in the United States that started in 1895 in Cincinnati, Ohio that help The National Council of Commerce which is now The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and on the site also have hyperlink to other type of Energy sources like coal and Nuclear, and could connect to the CEO and Vice CEO by phone or Email and other important people of The National Association of Manufacturers and could the number and location of the company, the only thing is that the author’s name doesn’t show up. In the article the author gives evidence about how natural gas is continuing to increase and that Canadian oil and Shale Gas is an Important Sources of Energy for American Manufacturer’s. The Natural Gas is on very high Demand in the United States and has positive and negative effects one is that people would still be demanding Natural gas which could lead to high prices and if it’s runs out then there would be a new energy source and would create a cycle of having a new energy source when another runs out which could kill the earth or could lead to war with other country for Natural Gas which could lead to fighting but it could also lead to a good way like help America with financial problems they have with other country’s but well won’t know till later on if the American Economy still demanded the same amount of Natural Gas.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nam.org/Issues/Official-Policy-Positions/Energy-and-Resources-Policy/Energy-and-Natural-Resources.aspx#101
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=all
ReplyDeleteThe article i chosed is called “ Fossil Fuel Industry Ads Dominate Tv Campaign”. I chosed this article because it talks about our week topic which is energy. I found this article interesting because since fossil fuel is playing a big role in our environment it should be seen as one of the things the president should try and change. In this article I read that Obama is trying to do his best to start using renewable sources but the problem is that it is going to cost alot of money , But Obama is really concern about global warming too. I Think the whole world should use renewable sources but mostly our country the United States because we are one of the countries that use up alot of coal , petroleum, natural gas and nuclear power which causes alot of fossil fuel and pollution. I found it interesting when it said “ Back then, global warming was a top public concern, and green ads greatly outnumbered those for fossil fuels, $152 million to $109 million, according to the analysis by The Times, which looked at 184 energy-related ads In 2008”. I found this quote interesting in which in my reading of Energy in the “ Public Agenda” i asked myself how come there making a big deal of it now and not before ? After reading that quote it made me think that global warming was a big trending topic in 2008 and now is not really the topic but Obama is trying to change that and make fossil fuel into renewable source.But if we have to make renewable sources it is going to be alot of money being used.This source is credible because is coming from the New York times and they wont give a false statement and is also coming from authors Eric Lipton and Clifford Krauss. Eric lipton prior to working in the New York times he also worked at the Washington post and at the Hartford courant. Clifford Krauss before joining the new york times he worked at the wall street journal and was author of the book “inside central america : its people, politics and history”. The author is not supporting his argument because they are getting quotes from other resources but i feel like the arthur is being a partisian giving quotes from people who agree and disagree. in this article “ Fossil Fuel Industry Ads Dominate Tv Campaign’’ shows that if Mr Romney was chosen to be president it said that “Mr. Romney, who has promised to open up more land and coastline to oil and gas drilling” shows that it is similar to my energy reading from the “ Public Agenda” because in approach 2 sounds like somthing Mr Romney would said because in this approach it should be done by “opening up federal lands to drilling for oil and gas”. So I feel that this approach would be said by romney.
- jesus guzman
Rubi Perez
ReplyDelete11/8/12
Civics
Mr.Rochowicz
The article I have selected is called " Judge must decide who can withdraw from spill deal" by Emily Pickrell who discusses the issue of weather the judge should give approval to who should claim responsibility for the damages of the oil spill and the economic claims. This article "Judge must decide who can withdraw from spill deal" us connected to the class article "Public Agenda's Energy" in which both speak about what to do for the energy uses of the United States and who should claim the responsibilities. The article I selected, "Judge must decide who can withdraw from spill deal"is credible. The source " is credible because at the bottom of the article their is a hyperlink that leads you to an About Us and Bio section that describes what the author and company is funded for. The author uses evidence such as experts who have talked about the issue and statistics to prove her argument. The argument of how much damage has been caused and how much energy is used in the United States should be changed by using renewable sources such as wind turbines and solar panels although is costs alot of money .In "Public Agenda Energy" it says," Building the technologies we need to support renewable energy- wind turbinees and solar panels, for example - costs alot of money to use renewables, but if we all cut down on our energy sources then we will probably have more money to use renewable instead, for example- wars. In " Judge must decide who can withdraw from spill deal " it is stated, " - They have raised to the settlement negotiated between BP an the Plaintiffs Steering Comittee to resolve economic claims against BP for accident that spilled millions of barrels of oil and killed 11 wokers." This means we have to start using our natural resources to function most of our daily uses so that no one gets hurt or even more addicted to technology that is harming our society.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
ReplyDeleteThis article comes from the presidential candidate, Romney. This article talks about his thoughts of the issue of energy. Also his opinion of what Obama has actually done and what he thinks about Obama’s plan. Mentions as well the plan Romney offers to the American workers. This article is in Romney’s campaign website where it shows his major disagreements with what Obama and other Democrats has done. Romney mentions that his plan would make more jobs and would be the best strategy to make the economy to its regular bases.
This article connects with this week’s topic because Romney has a specific page that only talks about the issue of energy. The issue of energy is a huge topic of this years presidential election and energy would also determine our future has a nation if we can actually maintain to move forward with the energy we have so far. In the Public Agenda mentions few ideas that the country could benefit energy. It mentions a total of three approaches, and Romney has mentioned only one of the approaches.
This article is credible because it comes from Romney’s candidate website where shows all his ideas of what he wants to bring to the American people. Romney paid for this website to exist. Romney is this year’s candidate for the republicans and willing to fight for the presidential position. He was the governor for Massachusetts and has leaded the state to high standings in education, economy, and lowest unemployment percentage. This website was used for anyone who had any concerns of what Romney ideas were. Also to know more about the candidate and where would he be located to make his speeches.
The article uses strong evidences because it comes from the views of candidate Romney. Romney is also stating some facts about Obama’s plan and why was it a failure. Romney mentions some information and predictions that would work for the energy situation. It also mentions the pipeline that Obama refused to build and mentions what the advantages of the pipeline. “ Mitt will approve the Keystone XL pipeline, establish a new regional agreement to facilitate cross-border energy investment, promote and expand regulatory cooperation with Canada and Mexico and institute fast-track regulatory approval processes for cross-border pipelines and other infrastructure”. This is clear evidence because Romney was mentioning this plan over his campaign and really wants to commit with this plan.
Part 2
DeleteThe authors of the Public Agenda and Romney’s campaign website would both argue about each other’s ideas. Romney wants to many things that approach two requires and there’s another approach going against that idea. “Mitt will establish the most robust five-year offshore lease plan in history, that opens new areas for resource development – including off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas – and sets minimum production targets to increase accountability”. This means that now there would be more jobs but jobs for the people to work on drilling. This will include fracking that would infect many natural places. But in the Public Agenda in the second approach goes against and states, “ The potential environmental disruption and the dangers of pipeline construction, fracking and offshore drilling are simply too high to offset the economic benefits, just look at the Deep-water Horizon spill of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico- the worst oil spill in the history of our country. We’re still unsure of the extent of damage that spill did to the ecosystem”. Romney wants to keep on drilling on other states because he knows there’s more fossil fuel but Romney must know having another drilling section can cause more damage to society. Also there isn’t a guaranteed the drilling would be safe, it could have a spill and could cause huge damage and also loses money because there’s money involved to be fixed. Also Romney’s plan would increase the number of jobs but more fossil fuel used then the country will run out of fuel and won’t have any backup. It’s better off making more investments in the research and develops new energy sources so once fossil fuels have a limit than the country would be prepare.
The article "A Brief About the Keystone Pipeline" by Marc Lallanilla talks about the Keystone pipeline and its effects. The article answers frequently asked questions and replies to comments about the pipeline. Both "A Brief Chat About the Keystone Pipeline" and " Public Agenda's Energy both connect to this weeks topic of energy because they both discuss how the pros and cons of oil, coal and energy sources effect the world. "Public Agenda's Energy" states " We have seen significant pushback from environmentalist against the Keystone Pipeline". Public Agenda shares that the environmentalists don't want the Keystone Pipeline to be built because they fear that it will significantly alter the environment. Agreeing with the environmentalists that Public Agenda mentioned, Lallanilla writes " From the mining waste created by strip mines and open-pit lines, to the water quality problems caused by oil leaks and pipeline failures, to the air pollution problems caused by an increase in greenhouse gasses and toxic fumes, the Keystone pipeline network is fraught with real environmental hazards, both immediate and long-term". This source is credible because Marc Lallanilla is a journalist, editor and online producer, he also has 20+ years of doing those types of professional work. Lallanilla writes "...the Keystone pipeline network will do little more than enable America's crippling addiction to oil, and further delay our development of less-polluting renewable sources of energy". While "Public Agenda's Energy" adds on to the idea by saying "Our aging energy grid isn't ready to convert to renewable sources to electricity".
ReplyDeleteKendra Mercer
Period 3
The article I found was "FERC Takes Aim Of Wall Street" written by Ben Protess and MICHAEL J. DE LA MERCED informs that the government overseeing the oil, natural gas and electricity business has lately taken aim at three major banks suspected of manipulating energy prices.This article connects to our weeks topic because they both emphasize the big idea about energy that our energy situation it has had a serious change.In the first article is quoted that "The banks sense that a larger regulatory battle is at stake. Unlike financial regulators, the energy commission can fine firms $1 million a day for every violation". Banks are being attack because of its energy use and the own energy commission are writing firms for the banks. in the second text "A Citizens Solution Guide Energy" by Public Agenda states that America should reduce the amount of energy use and the money that it has been invest on oil and gas in general energy over all. in the text is quoted "Our current energy outlook is far different than what it was just a few years ago,due mainly to a significant surge in domestic oil and natural gas production". Its stating that we have increased the amount of oil and gas everyone is using and its been rapidly increasing and making the economy worst. This source is credible because it was published by the New York Times and its a reliable source and its world highly trust. Both of these sources are trying to reduce the amount of oil and gas that has been used. And working on a plan better than just using oil and gas but better energy materials that are better structured.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found is called "U.S. Inches Toward Goal of Energy Independence" by Clifford Krauss and Eric Lipton. In this article Krauss and Lipton both informs us that “ In 2011, the country [United States] imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005.” Krauss and Lipton tells the story of how America is reaching its goal of becoming an energy independent country.
ReplyDeleteIn the “A Citizens’ Solutions Guide Energy” by Public Agenda and the New York Times article, both Americans need to increase in oil production . “ For decades , consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.” The Times article sounds like Public Agenda Approach Two to make sure America become more energy dependent, and they mention the cons of America producing its own oil by fracking and off-shore drilling and how harmful it could become like the oil spill back in 2010. One thing I like about this article is that they mention the past presidency methods they use to bring back work to areas with oil such as West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. With the advancement of new technology made to dig deeper for the oils and issuing leases to oil companies allowing drilling in federal land with the little damage to the ecosystem . With the increase of domestic fracking that will bring more jobs for our citizens and also helping strengthening our economy.
This article can be proven credible because it is published by the New York Times.The New York Times is a well respected newspaper that have been around since 1851 and has won 108 Pulitzer prizes.Clifford Krauss has been a correspondent for The New York Times since 1990 and before that he worked as a foreign correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.Eric Lipton has been writing a for the Times since 1999 and won Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism.
Krauss and Lipton uses quotes from experts on energy. Like Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and many others. This makes their article much stronger because they quote experts and not some guy random guy.The authors also provide numbers and percentages from the United States Department of Energy. This also help strengthen their argument because they are posting numbers made by Experts .
Clifford Krauss and Eric Lipton also discusses the turn Americans is making to become more economy friendly and saving money by switching to hybrid vehicles. Also with Auto Companies making vehicles that give you more miles per gallon. Its what the Public Agendas approach two is agreeing with but the authors mention nothing about nuclear power plants maybe they are against nuclear power plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/energy-environment/renewable-energy-advances-in-the-us-despite-obstacles.html
ReplyDeleteThe article “Renewable Sources of Power Survive, but in a Patchwork” by Diane Cardwell describes how the government donated money to companies in order to have a clean and safe energy. This article connects to this week’s topic because they both emphasize the idea that energy plays a big role in each individual’s life and how important it is. This article is credible because it’s from a worldwide organization called NY Times and if authors ever publish false information, their number of viewers will drastically decrease. Diane Cardwell uses statistics and other people’s opinions in order to make her argument in this article stronger. For example, Cardwell states, “... Bank of America Merrill Lynch was lending it up to $350 million to install enough panels to power 120,000 military homes”. This demonstrates how much money is being used in order for everyone to have access to energy. This also shows how important energy is in our lives based on the amount of money organizations spend on energy. Another example is when Cardwell mentions, “One such project, by Clean Line Energy, which develops high-voltage transmission lines, would create enough capacity to take 3,500 megawatts of wind power from Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota to Illinois and states to the east”. With this information, Diane Cardwell makes her argument stronger by explaining how organizations use their time efficiently and actually helping out the community with energy. Overall, this week’s text and the chosen article have a strong relationship towards each other because both use lots of statistics to enlarge the importance of energy in the world. Without energy, individuals wouldn’t have easy access to the things they have easy access to at this moment. We would also be in crisis without energy and would be really desperate for the need of energy. Diane Cardwell’s article actually proves the purpose of energy and what’s the importance of energy, for example, it answers the question: Why do we need energy so much in our lives? Cardwell states the following, “The low price of natural gas has made renewable power less appealing to utilities and energy companies”. This originally connects to the class text because it also states that natural gas “generates almost a quarter of the country’s electricity and is the main source of heat in more than half of U.S. homes”. In other words, these two texts emphasize the idea of the importance of energy throughout our lives. It may be used a lot less now, but individuals will recognize sooner or later that energy is greatly impacted in our lives.
Based on the article I found " Obama Ground Zero: Why Cheap American Energy Is The Death Of American Power" by Matthew Hulbert. This article is about America can reinvent itself as an energy giant, vastly reduce its deficit, stimulate its economy. This shows that the deficit reduces all of America can renew itself.
ReplyDeleteThis connects to this weeks topic about energy because as the stated from the Public Agenda "Energy" " green jobs will come from developing infrastructure for renewable energy". This would increase the deficit,but give more money for jobs? This also shows that how our energy policy impacts the country negatively and positively.
This article is credible because it comes from Forbes, by the author Matthew Hulbert. He is the contributor of this organization since March 2012. As he says "Old School Energy, New World Order". Matthew is also an analyst for the European Energy Review. Forbes is a well known site to search for any credible sources.
The author of this article does provide evidence about her facts that he reveals. As stated from his article "In a new world of cheap energy abundance, the only real winner is China, hands down". This is important because as stated from Public Agenda: Energy "Significant amounts of our energy sources, especially oil, come from more problematic nations". Therefore the United States rely on other countries for energy and other reliable sources. Another example is "If America forges ahead to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, mirroring what’s already happened in natural gas, OPEC will have little option but give up on price, and go for enhanced volume instead". This relates to how that there's " spike in oil prices caused by a confrontation with Iran is the biggest current threat to the U.S. economy". That's why gas prices for cars in the real world now has been raising so much that the deficit increases. Indeed this makes the cost of the oil itself more expensive.
"A Citizens Solutions Guide: Energy" and " Obama Ground Zero: Why Cheap American Energy Is The Death Of American Power" both talk about how America and the real world could renovate itself by using renewable energy and reducing the deficit. Public Agenda states that " developing renewable energy can increase green jobs". This shows that if increasing new jobs it would make them earn more money but increase the deficit. But Matthew states " If America forges ahead to become the world’s largest oil producer in the next five years, mirroring what’s already happened in natural gas, OPEC will have little option but give up on price, and go for enhanced volume instead". This shows that the deficit remains the same because of what they actually want which is enhancing more and more volume of producing more oil which is a harmful cause leading to global warming and spreading of diseases.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/us-energy-policy-caught-in-the-vise-of-economics-and-politics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Bigger than either of them?” it talks about offering new ideas for renewable energy and how to use coal in an “efficient” manner. This relates to “Public Agenda: A citizens` solution guide: Energy” because it talks about how the public can use other reliable and efficient energy sources. “ Public Agenda: Energy” has three approaches to gaining energy, the first approach to gaining energy is moving away from fossil fuels thus protecting the environment and in the long run giving us a cheaper and more reliable energy sources. The second approach is making sure that our energy is affordable enough now to secure our economy and protect energy security in the future. The third approach is ideally being a more energy efficient country in the future. All of these three approaches connect to the article “Bigger than either of them” because in the article it describes the plans that President Obama and Governor Romney are offering on energy. While Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney support bio-fuels and nuclear power and support the idea that more drilling should be done in places like North Dakota , Texas and Alaska to lower the dependence on the middle east, Obama is more energy cautious than Romney. Obama believes in domestic share of oil and gas while Romney is “energy independent.” Having a domestic share of oil is better because it would in return be cheaper for the public, this means that the people are being taken care while still taking care of the environment getting two things done in one. Plus if the people see that being “green” is saving money in their pocket , they might be more open minded to invest in the “going green “ movement and while investing they become involve and start to make it a constant thing in their daily life making it better for the world. To sum it up it would become a cycle, a cycle that could only produce good productivity in “going green” and living in a more conscious world.
The article “Bigger than either of them?” is a credible source because it comes from the New York Times which is a very reliable and respectable news paper. If they were to lie, it would reach a major media scandal and will affect them in a very negative way and might even destroy their reputation. Also the author of the article is Clifford Krauss , a well respected correspondent of The New York Times since 1990. He is also currently is a national business correspondent based in Houston, covering energy.
Michael Hill’s article “NY Renewable Energy Study Finds New York Could Soon Be Powered By Wind,Water,And Sunlight” describes how New York city may get there power from wind,water and sunlight by 2030. Using renewable source may be controversial because it may be more expensive than getting their power from fossil fuels. Fossil fuel will one day waste. New York is aware of that therefore there plan will soon be be taking place by 2015,since New York has already stated to reduce and reuse their energy. Hill’s article connects to this weeks article “A Citizens’ Solution Guide Energy” because this article is also concentrated in making different way for the United States to move away from fossil fuels and start using more renewable energy sources like wind.Although the Public Agenda also beliefs it is expensive they also want to conserve more the fossil fuels. This source is credible because it was taking out of the Huffington post, a very important cite that writes about everything that is going on around the world.Many people depend on this site in order to get credible information.Since this is such a dependable source publishing none credible information would cause them to lose views and credibility. New York changing from fossil fuels to renewable energy may cause a lot more money than staying with fossil fuels.Hill stated that “Industry watchers say wind development slowed down when the economy soured and natural gas prices dropped” demonstrating that the use of renewable resources thats a lot of money and in the recession that we are in it would affect us extremly because the government would be forced to tax new yorkers in order to get the money to for wind installation.”The New York Power Authority in 2011 nixed a plan to put up to 150 turbines offshore between Buffalo and Chautauqua County, citing costs”.Due to this researchers have found that wind farms have been expensive. Now The authority is now working with downstate power providers to explore the feasibility of wind turbines off the shore of Long Island”. Therefore they are looking to extent there there goal to 2015 in order for the United States to get out of the recession and the economy not effecting the wind power source and the government wouldn’t have to charge new yorkers for wind installation. Michael Hill’s article is a great example of how New yorkers demand change for the better when it come to energy but they do not look at the effects in the long run. starting to have renewable energy source such as air may cause us more money than just using fossil fuel. Hill quotes ,Katherine Kennedy one of the individuals that work for the Natural Resources Defense Council and she says "It depends on the political will we can muster and our ability to invest in these resources,”.Therefore change in energy may come but it have to be in the future in order for it to work and New Yorkers do not have to get taxed for installation of renewable energy.
ReplyDeleteThe article that i found this week is called “ Romney Energy Policy: Global Clean Coal Comment Aside, Global Use of Coal Should Be Limited. This article talks about how despite Romney’s energy policy plan, the use of burning,producing,and exporting of Coal should be restricted by the Government in the United States and around the world. The article especially focus on the fact that the use of Coal has increased since 2000, and it is a problem because Coal is a nonrenewable source which means that it has a limit.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because it comes from a company that is the first democratic online news platform to engage millennial in debates about real issues. It is also a bipartisan when it comes to debates and politics. it was founded in 2011 in New York City recent Harvard and Stanford grads Chris Altchek and Jake Horowitz. the author is a female Liberal Politic who graduated from Cornell University and has been one of the newest Journalists to work with the organization.
The author of the article of the article gives evidence to her facts , because she provides facts of how the use coal has started and it has risen, and she also provides examples of how nonrenewable source would be less used if Limitations on the use of Coal would be put globally. the author states that “Coal has been used in the United States since colonial times. The use of coal has steadily increased ever since. During the Industrial Revolution, once the country’s major transportation systems and electrical production relied on coal, consumption began to rise exponentially. Today, many American industries depend mostly on petroleum, causing the U.S. consumption of coal to steadily drop in recent years. Despite the stagnant consumption of coal domestically, American exports of coal to foreign countries have steadily increased since 2002.” the author here explains why the use of coal started, and while the US has slowed down their use on them , they are using it because the Coal they have , they are exporting it to Foreign Countries. If they were to limit the amount of Coal they export too, than Countries who they send it will automatically have to minimize their consumption of Coal. the author also includes information from a study that claims that if the number of countries enforcing limits on their coal consumption increases to a certain point, the exports will begin to drop, and the net consumption globally will drop as well.
The use of energy, especially the use of Coal has become a major problem Globally and economically. Coal is nonrenewable source of energy meaning that it will run out one day. According to the “public agenda”, “Fossil Fuels, petroleum, natural gas and coal, not only emit Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This means that they can cause global warming , which is bad for the environment , the planet in general. In general United States and other countries need to limit the amount of nonrenewable sources of energy they use, because if not they will get to the point will they will run out , and the closer to running out they are the more expensive its gonna be to get the nonrenewable source , which will add more debt to the deficit.