mhuie19ahsgov-blog - Tumblr blog

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Civic Action Assessment of Issue

1. As a citizen, I believe that, to meet the needs of our community, we must educate ourselves on important civic action issues, and use the information we learn to analyze how to best react to them. I believe, for example, that for the issue of clean energy, contacting government officials to change things on a larger scale is the most efficient way to solve the problem, whereas an issue like LGBTQ+ rights might be solved more easily on a person-to-person basis. I also believe that we need to mobilize and help out with societal problems whenever we can, and not be too selfish with our individual resources.

2. In Government, I have learned more about how the various branches of government can affect a single civic action issue. Because President Trump is against developing sources of clean energy, I thought that any progress in that department was basically impossible. Researching how Supreme Court cases can change public policy (if the cases generally follow activist principles) and looking through our Senate representatives’ pages showed me that the executive branch is not the only, and perhaps not even the most effective, way to change the law. Additionally, for my issue, which sparks a lot of partisan debate, I think that learning how to determine whether or not an article is factually accurate benefited me a lot in my studies.

3. I believe that we all have a duty to take care of the environment, as we all live on the Earth and use its resources, such as air to breathe. However, I don’t think that the burden of stopping climate change or the rapid use of fossil fuels lies solely among the citizens. If governments and big businesses stopped using so much coal and oil, a bigger impact could be made faster. These large institutions also have the kind of money needed for innovative new methods of harvesting energy need to research. In modern day, I think that our civic obligation should focus on addressing the problem through alerting governments and big businesses about the problem, and making enough noise that they can’t ignore it. Americans in particular should also learn about scientific issues like climate change, so that we can stop arguing about whether or not global warming is real and start diminishing it.

4. I have not recently volunteered my time to respond directly to this issue, other than small things like walking to school instead of driving. I did, however, go on the Government class’ trip to the food bank on November 15. There, we repackaged bags of beans to export to shelters that needed them, and moved bread products so that they could be stored within the food bank. This does not directly relate to the issue of green energy, I know, but it does keep in the spirit of taking action to combat civic action problems.

5. For issues of green energy specifically, I would contact my state representatives about climate change, especially if I move to a state that’s not as energy-conscious for college. Because my grandfather once worked for the Sierra Club, I could also ask him what some good methods of combating climate change in meaningful ways would be.

#blog post #Blog Post 8

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Executive Action Assessment of Issue

White House

1. President Donald Trump favors the economy over the environment, and crafts policies representing that preference. He aims to promote American industry by becoming independent in the energy market, using American coal and oil to fuel American growth. He wants to keep the cost of energy low, even at the environment’s expense, and likes coal because of its low budget. Previously, Trump has stated that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, but he later rescinded that statement. When he does pass legislature relating to clean energy, it usually focuses on improving the economy.

2. I disagree with his position. According to scientific reports, the Earth is nearing its limit of pollution and greenhouse gases. If we continue at our current rate, food will run scarce due to a lack of sun, and we will no longer be able to power our machines. I think it’s worth it to raise the price of electricity, if need be, to avoid this grim fate, and to step back from simply improving the economy and instead think of the bigger picture. The US should extend its hand to foreign powers instead of renouncing them for American economic growth, so that we have the most power and minds behind discovering clean energy solutions.

Executive Cabinet

1. The US Department of Energy manages my issue.

2. The US Department of Energy works to protect the US and help it thrive by confronting American energy, environmental, and nuclear problems with scientific and technological innovation.

3. Rick Perry heads the Department of Energy. Prior to leading this department, Perry was the 47th governor of Texas, a US Air Force veteran, and a farmer/rancher. He does not appear to have a background in environmental science, although he was a farmer, so he does have a connection to the environment. The Department of Energy website also cites that, when he was the governor, Texas’ air quality improved. Rick Perry previously forgot that the Department of Energy existed when naming Departments he wanted to abolish (although he says he has changed his mind), so he seems to be a political appointment. For this Department, having an uninformed Secretary could make a big difference. If the Secretary isn’t informed on the scientific opinion of the Earth’s state, they could craft bad and harmful policies.

4. The Department of Energy lists their “following resources and services as “Key Topics: States and Local Communities; Jobs, Education, and Training; Energy Analysis; Technical Assistance; Publications; and Funding.” States and Local communities provides local information about fuels and vehicles. Jobs, Education, and Training helps promotes American energy economy. Energy Analysis analyzes the Department of Energy’s technology. Technical Assistance provides technical assistance to those struggling with clean energy machinery. Publications hosts published documents and statements from the Department of Energy. Funding distributes and manages funding. Because all of these services are listed under the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, all of them apply to my civic action issue.

5. I am not satisfied with the Trump administration’s executive action on clean energy. Trump’s policy applies to most of the government’s decisions surrounding clean energy, and I don’t think that we should be supporting the economy over the environment. I don’t like that the Department of Energy is headed by someone who wanted to abolish the Department, and that the President once said that climate change was fake news. Trump has wanted to cut the Department of Energy’s funding, which could be disastrous for the environment. Without money, the Department of Energy cannot invest in developing new methods of finding energy, such as ocean power or technology that transforms carbon dioxide in the air into gas. America’s national move towards clean energy would certainly slow with less funding, and it has already slowed under the Trump administration.

#blog post #Blog Post 7

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Legislative Action

"Certainly, in light of the recent climate reports, we don't have the option of simply avoiding carbon emissions any more. We now are at a point where we need to start removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere," says Jennifer Wilcox, chemical engineering professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Congressman Desaulnier:

Mark Desaulnier believes in climate change, and actively combats against it. He believes that providing jobs in clean energy will not only aid the planet, but boost the economy.

Mark Desaulnier has sponsored bills relating to clean energy, such as H.Con.Res.130. H.Con.Res.130 supports the reduction of greenhouse gases and oil usage. He has also sponsored and supported bills aiding other environmental issues.

Senator Harris:

Kamala Harris is a strong supporter of the environment, and believes in climate change. She supports legislation that sets clean energy goals for the future.

Kamala Harris sponsored S.3133, which grants more money to solar electric power generation projects. She has also sponsored and supported bills that have to do with air quality and water availability, which are not directly clean energy related, but have similar environmental themes.

Senator Feinstein:

Dianne Feinstein thinks that combating climate change will benefit the planet’s health and Americans’ bank accounts by saving consumers money. She believes the United States needs to set clean energy goals for the future to point the country in the right direction.

Dianne Feinstein sponsored S.274, a bill for the accelerated retirement of fuel inefficient vehicles. It encourages dealers to sell fuel inefficient vehicles for parts, and allows them to offer vouchers to their customers that allow the customers to exchange those cars for newer, more efficient ones. She has sponsored many bills relating to energy during her time in the Senate.

I couldn’t find anywhere on the website that listed the exact number of bills in the “Energy” subsection of the issues, but there were at least nine bills introduced in the House and the Senate within the last year pertaining to energy.

The bill I chose was Senate Bill 2886.

This bill would reintroduce the ban on exporting crude oil and natural gases from the US. It would give the president power to ban coal, petroleum products, and natural gases, alongside exports of materials that would aid in accessing oil and other such fossil fuels. The president would also have the power to exempt important fossil fuels from the ban following a set of guidelines for being considered important. The Secretary of Commerce would be in charge of developing the rules.

This bill aims to protect Americans from rising gas prices. It would critically hurt oil salespeople, and give additional power to the President and the Secretary of Commerce.

Although I generally believe that using less oil is a good thing, I would vote “nay” on this bill. I think that stopping oil exports so suddenly would be bad for the US economy, and that countries would still get and use oil from other sources. Unless, that is, they need American oil specifically, in which case they are suddenly stranded. The actual effects depend a lot on what the Secretary of Commerce writes, which is not specific. Additionally, under President Trump, I think that either nothing would happen, making passing the bill now pointless, or he would use the new power to make potentially ill-advised trade decisions.

In May 2018, the bill was introduced in the Senate. On the same day it was introduced, it was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, where it currently waits.

On the issue of whether or not the US should continue to export oil specifically, I’m happy with the amount of federal legislation. As I don’t want this Bill to pass, I’m happy with what we already have. On the issue of alternative energy specifically, I’m unhappy with the amount of federal legislation. Trump is notorious for his changing (and mostly negative) opinions on whether climate change is real, and for not passing laws to combat greenhouse gases. The planet continues to lose resources every day, and I think that we need to take action quickly before it’s too late.

How One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air, Aiming To Avert A Climate Catastrophe, NPR

Subject: The article discusses new technology that pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and turns it into fuel. It puts the technology in the context of the planet’s environmental health, and provides opinions from those who support it and those who don’t think it’s enough/worthwhile.

Author: Jeff Brady is an NPR journalist based in Philadelphia. He focuses on energy and mid-Atlantic issues. He helped to form NPR’s environment and energy collaborative, which brings journalists together to discuss energy and the climate. Based on his opinions about climate change and issues like sexual assault, I would assume that he’s a Democrat, although his articles and Facebook page are mostly non-partisan.

Context: This article was published on December 10, 2018, so as of the time this post was written, it is a very current article. The environmental problems and discussions are current, and decisions on what and what not the government should support/fund have not yet been made. The article was first heard on NPR’s radio show Morning Edition, and was then adapted to text for the online edition. None of the text was changed from the audio clip to the article (or, at least, I assume-- I didn’t listen to the clip), so the article itself was not meant to pander to a certain demographic. The title, which references pulling carbon from the air, is eye-catching, but other than pulling in readers who appreciate new science and potentially could be worried about a “Climate Catastrophe,” the title doesn’t use sensationalist clickbait.

Audience: As previously stated, the article doesn’t seem to clearly cater toward a specific audience based on age, race, gender, sexuality, background, etc. It appeals to NPR readers/listeners, especially those who are interested in science and the environment. Through the phrase “Climate Catastrophe,” it might attract more people who believe in climate change and air pollution. Because of how the article presents both sides of the argument, it could appeal to those on both sides of the issue.

Perspective: This article is objective. The opposing opinion discussed in the article argues that because the carbon is turned into fuel that will produce more greenhouse gases, the process doesn’t accomplish much, and that it would be cheaper to just keep carbon out of the air. The supporting opinion counters, stating that the recycling of carbon emissions keeps new carbon emissions out of the air, and that keeping new carbon out of the air won’t do enough to get rid of the current levels of pollution. I agree with the supporting opinion. At this point, I think that we need to develop as much technology as we can to stop/reduce pollution, and that this could be very helpful in the future. If this research got government funding, as Noah Deich suggests, they could further the technology and make it more efficient, cost effective, and powerful.

Significance: “...a recent U.N. report found that may not be enough to avoid dangerous impacts from the warming climate. In fact, the world is falling so far short of what's needed, it said, that it might be necessary to pull massive amounts of carbon dioxide out of the air." “[The process] combines the CO2 gas with hydrogen extracted from water and makes a clear, synthetic fuel that McCahill says is similar to crude oil.” “[B]urning those emits carbon dioxide, so essentially carbon would just be moved around instead of reduced in the atmosphere.” “ ‘If we were to sell our fuel directly at the pump today, we're about 20 percent more expensive than regular gasoline,’ Oldham says.” “’Certainly, in light of the recent climate reports, we don't have the option of simply avoiding carbon emissions any more. We now are at a point where we need to start removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere,�� says Jennifer Wilcox, chemical engineering professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute.” “Deich says direct air capture needs the kind of private and government investment that helped wind and solar grow.”

#blog post #Blog Post 6

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

State Action

Assembly Member Catharine Baker’s Stance:

Catherine Baker wants to protect the environment for future generations, and votes to protect the climate and the oceans.

I agree with her stance. She voted for many beneficial bills, and seems to place keeping the environment safe as a top priority-- it’s one of the first issues brought up on her website (bakerforassembly.com). She has multiple examples of her voting to promote alternative energy specifically, and as I support that, I support her stance too.

Baker has authored and co-authored many bills relating to the environment and green energy, one example being SB-502. This Senate Bill allowed BART to increase the amount of alternative energy it was using, reducing the carbon footprint of the trains and their daily passengers.

State Senator Steve Glazer’s Stance:

Steve Glazer strongly supports the environment, voting yes on the bill to reduce California’s carbon emissions in the future.

I agree with Glazer’s stance as well. While he doesn’t have too much information about specific ways he’s helped promote green energy on his website (sd07.senate.ca.gov), he appears to believe in climate change and want to fight against it, which is an admirable stance to me.

He does not list any bills that he authored on his website, although he does say that he “led efforts that raised hundreds of millions of dollars to permanently protect open space in California and 25 other states,” which possibly could be tied to some kind of authored legislation.

Current California Bills:

This bill’s number is SB-1380.

The bill was introduced February 16, 2018.

SB-1380′s last major action was amending Section 71360 of the Public Resources Code, which was also amended when the bill was amended itself. SB-1380 was last amended on April 23, 2018.

I would encourage my representatives to support this bill. In taking actual actions, it doesn’t seem to accomplish much, but changing the public policy in this way may have great positive impacts in the future. The bill, and the amendments to the bill, make the Public Resources Code more specific and easier to read, which could help lawmakers decide what kind of policies they should write and vote in.

#blog post #Blog Post 5

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The 3 Ps Assessment: Parties, Political Interest Groups, and PACs

Republican Stance:

The Republicans believe that America should use all available forms of energy, whether it be coal, oil, nuclear power, or another source. They are very pro-coal, calling it an abundant and reliable resource that America should depend on for energy and the job market.

I do not agree with the Republican position. While I think that, in concept, letting America harness its full energetic potential would bring America great immediate success, I believe that we cannot mine all the coal and frack all the oil without doing serious future damage to the planet. While relying on coal and oil seems to be our only option at the moment, we at least need to work on finding alternative energy solutions and reducing carbon emissions.

Democratic Stance:

The Democrats wholly support alternative energy sources and strongly oppose the use of coal and oil. They want America to become the leading clean energy country in the world, and for 50% of America’s energy to come from alternative sources within a decade, no matter the economic cost.

I mostly agree with the Democratic position. I certainly agree with their stance on creating more alternative energy sources, and think that having 50% of America’s energy come from alternative sources in a decade is a noble goal to strive towards. However, I also think that we still must take into consideration the current population, and cannot throw too much money at environmental problems, especially if we do not know to where exactly the money is going.

Libertarian Stance:

In their Platform, the Libertarians do not directly address the issue of green energy. Instead, they focus on establishing their stance against the government controlling any source of energy. I would infer that, overall, the libertarians would prefer sources of alternative energy such as individually-owned solar panels to government-controlled oil, they might not see much of a difference between oil and government-controlled windmills.

I disagree with the Libertarian stance. To make a change large enough to save the environment, we must operate on a grand scale. Individuals alone cannot change their ways enough to stop the glaciers from melting. We need to use the government’s influence and money to create green energy sources and tell individuals to stop global warming as best they can on a person-to-person basis.

Green Party Stance:

One of the Green Party’s main concerns is establishing new forms of energy. They want to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050, and at least 80% by 2030. Solar, wind, small scale hydro, ocean, and geothermal are the kinds of energy they want to use, as opposed to oil and coal, and they particularly stand against nuclear power.

While there’s a lot that I do like about the Green Party’s stance on alternative energy, they seem like a more extreme version of the Democrats, and I already had problems with how far the Democrats wanted to go. As I stated earlier, I think that the goal of 50% of energy being alternative in 2030 is great to strive for, but 80% seems unrealistic. Having 100% alternative energy by 2050 seems almost impossible to me. Additionally, I don’t think that nuclear energy is a horrible strategy that we must boycott-- sure, it’s expensive, and there have been some catastrophes, but all sources of alternative energy are expensive to establish, and compared to the overall number of nuclear power plants the percent of malfunctions isn’t that high. The number of birds killed by windmills over a long period of time or the potential damage to ocean ecosystems may be comparable to occasional nuclear damage.

Peace and Freedom Party Stance:

The Peace and Freedom party calls for the end of fossil fuel usage. They want to establish new energy sources, such as solar power, that will not pollute the environment, and also want to stop using nuclear energy.

The ideas that the Peace and Freedom party presents seem very good for the Earth’s climate. I support with their desire to establish nonpolluting sources of energy, and think that solar power could be a big part of reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuels. Language such as “eliminate nuclear power plants” and “end fossil fuel dependence,” however, scare me, because of its strength. While the ideas presented appear beneficial, strong verbs create a malice lurking below the surface appeal. Additionally, although they set up many goals, they are very vague on how they mean to go about accomplishing them. I criticized other parties for the exact numerical statistics for where they hope America’s alternative energy will be decades in the future, but the specificity of their goals at least assured me that they had a plan.

Overall, I agree with the Democratic Party’s stance the most. This opinion does not surprise me, because my family is almost entirely composed of Democrats, and it resembles my score on the political alignment quiz. Because I support implementing alternative energy sources, I certainly oppose the Republican Party’s stance on maintaining oil and coal use, and the Liberal Party’s lack of information on their stance on climate change worries me. However, I also understand that change cannot-- and perhaps should not-- be immediate, as we want to ensure that those who currently work with fossil fuels stay working and that we don’t further destroy America’s already debt-ridden economy. Therefore, I prefer the Democrats over the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party, because the latter were a little too forceful and unrealistic with their beliefs. Because it is not a year in which a President can be elected, the Democratic Party does not yet have a candidate nominated, but I assume that I would vote for whoever the candidate turns out to be.

National Interest Group

Name: ConservAmerica

Position: ConservAmerica aims to use its non-partisan status to solve environmental issues in Congress, and inform the public about problems involving the Earth’s climate.

Beliefs: ConservAmerica believes that the United States should stop relying on Chinese energy sources, as they are harmful to the environment and America’s own energy development. They think that the best plan is to develop cleaner and safer methods of using nuclear and natural gas power, as well as supporting solar, wind, and other kinds of alternative energy on a smaller scale. They see climate change as a very dangerous and very real threat to the planet. They want the government to stop taxing alternative energy sources instead of taxing the sources and then giving them money in support. They oppose most current strategies of developing green energy, as they claim that they are harmful to America’s economy.

Legislation: This group supported the School Energy Efficiency Program of 2016, which identified how to help schools retroactively become more energy efficient. The Program was implemented alongside Pacific Gas & Electric, and the ConservAmerica website states that the program was intended to specifically help schools in low-income areas.

Location: The Group’s mailing address is in Sturgis, MI. The most recent meeting location, as stated on their Facebook page, is in Montana, and based on the mailing address, I assume that there are no meetups that I could reasonably attend any time soon.

Volunteer: I could not find any mention of volunteer opportunities on their website or their Facebook page.

Developments: ConservAmerica is very active to this day, holding meetings and supporting the Clean Capitalist Coalition. Their Facebook shows them supporting Republican candidates who were openly against climate change, which I found interesting, considering that their website said that they were non-partisan. They are conservative, however, and while they may not technically be affiliated with the Republicans, it would make sense that they would support those candidates.

State Interest Group

Name: Sierra Club

Position: The Sierra Club aims to preserve and restore California’s environment and its nature’s health, which includes developing new sources of alternative energy.

Beliefs: The Sierra Club wants to stop America’s dependence on “dirty” energy sources which require mining or drilling. They hope to stabilize America’s economy by relying on green energy sources, disconnecting the job market from the value of oil. They support reducing air pollution and lowering the cost of installing rooftop solar panels. They aim to create affordable methods of using alternative energy for all people, regardless of income. They oppose fracking for oil in California, where this state branch of the Sierra Club is located.

Legislation: The Sierra Club supported Senate Bill 350, which mandated that by 2030, California must have reduced their greenhouse gases 40% below where they were in 1990, and by 2050, 80% below. This plan, inspired by Governor Brown, will cause California to rely more on alternative energy sources in the future.

Location: The group is located in Sacramento, CA. I could not where exactly they hold their regular meetings, but as they are a California-based interest group whose headquarters is in Sacramento, I imagine I could attend one of their meetings with minimal difficulty, provided I were a member of the club. They have a meeting on November 9-11 in San Luis Obispo, which I could possibly attend.

Volunteer: The Sierra Club provides many opportunities for volunteer work, which range from speaking at a public meeting about environmental issues, writing fact sheets about those issues, helping to elect environmentally conscious political candidates, and much more.

Developments: I think it’s interesting how big and old the Sierra Club is, and how much power they seem to have as a state interest group. For example, ConservAmerica, a national interest group, mentioned them on Twitter. They also cover a wide variety of environmental issues. Also, as opposed to ConservAmerica, they seem more partisan. Their twitter and website is full of notices telling people to vote, occasionally outwardly opposing Republlicans.

Both interest groups seem very well organized, having pleasing-looking and easily navigable websites with well thought-out statements. While both have successes in passing bills and laws, the Sierra Club certainly seems more powerful, and definitely more popular-- The Sierra Club’s twitter has well over twice ConservAmerica’s. ConservAmerica, following their name, targets conservatives, while the Sierra Club appears to target Democrats. ConservAmerica is supported by Nan Hayworth, a voting member of the House of Representatives, and Jimmy Glotfletly, the Executive Vice President of Clean Line Energy, to name a few supporters. The Sierra Club as a whole-- not just the California branch-- is supported by Fontana Sports, Epic Systems, and REI.

PAC

Name: Koch Industries, Inc. Political Action Committee (KOCHPAC).

Position: KOCHPAC represents Koch Industries, a petroleum refining and distributing company. As such, they endorse political candidates-- mostly Republicans-- who want to keep the oil industry alive and thriving.

Money: Their total receipt is $3,767,334. They have spent $3,754,267 of that, and currently have $1,602,378 on hand.

Budget: 98% of their money is spent on Republican candidates, and 2% on Democrats.

Donors: Some of KOCHPAC’s donations come from individuals who work at John Zink Company LLC, Georgia Pacific LLC, and Flint Hills Resources, LC, all of which are large manufacturing companies. Interestingly, John Zink and Flint Hills are both manufacturing-based companies who mention trying to be environmentally friendly. This means that, despite being an oil refining company, there are still individuals who remain somewhat environmentally conscious while donating to them. Many of the donors, additionally, are from the original Koch Industries, indicating that a large portion of the PAC’s success is strongly correlated to the success and motivation of those who work at Koch Industries.

#blog post #Blog Post 4

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Constitutional Issues

The Case: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association, 2016 [x]

What is the name of the case? The case’s name is “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association.”

The term it was decided? October Term 2015.

Briefly summarize the facts of the case. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is given the power through the Federal Power Act (FPA) to regulate the interstate transmission and sale of electricity. In 2011, they wanted to establish a rule that all suppliers would receive uniform compensation levels, and that the suppliers would have to check their products for certain qualities, such as cost effectiveness. Suppliers argued that this rule was beyond FERC’s power, and that trying to stimulate the electricity market AND lower the rate of payment was capricious (evident of a sudden change of mood). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit ruled against FERC, saying that FERC did not have the authority to do this, and that they hadn’t fully considered the suppliers’ arguments before making their decision.

What were the constitutional question the justices were deciding? The questions asked whether the FPA gave FERC the ability to regulate such things to try to lower energy consumption, and whether FERC’s decision was arbitrary (random) and capricious, as the District court said it was.

Which Constitutional Provisions or Amendments are in question? This case doesn’t really challenge the interpretation of any of the amendments, other than potentially the tenth, because it deals with federal (FERC) power and power belonging to the people. It deals with the principle of limited government, because it asks whether FERC has or doesn’t have the power to change incomes in this fashion.

What was the decision? The Supreme Court decided 6-2 in favor of FERC, stating that the choice was within FERC’s power, and that the decision was nor arbitrary nor capricious.

What precedent does this decision establish? FERC, and other such government organizations, can take drastic measures to limit the amount of damage we do to the environment. This case is also one of giving the federal government more power, which could be cited in other cases questioning how much authority federal agencies have.

Do you agree or disagree with the court’s decision? Explain. Overall, I agree with the court’s decision, because I believe that taking steps to diminish energy consumption is important. I don’t know if FERC’s method of establishing uniform salaries was the best way to go about that, but I do think that regulating the salaries in that way was within their power. They have the authority to regulate the trade of electricity, which seems like it would include how much money the suppliers themselves make, if they are agents of the government.

The Article: ‘I Don’t Know That It’s Man-Made,’ Trump Says of Climate Change. It Is. by Lisa Friedman of the New York Times [x]

Subject: The article opposes the comments that Trump has recently made on climate change, him seemingly switching his stance from believing that climate change is a hoax to believing that the change in temperature is not certainly man-made. The article presents a quote from the president, then provides scientific evidence to contradict it.

Author: Lisa Friedman is a New York Times journalist in Washington who specifically covers climate change issues. She has led many teams of journalists investigating this issue throughout her years of work. She appears to be a credible source, and I infer that she is a democrat, or at least strongly opposes Trump-- I would guess that she has written many articles that argue against Trump’s beliefs.

Context: This article was published on October 16, 2018, meaning that at the time this post was written, the article is only two days old. The date is close to the 2018 election dates, so this article may have been written with partisan politics in mind: by referencing Trump directly, if a reader disagrees with Trump’s stances, they may be more likely to vote democratic in the election. It was published online and in print, so the article is likely not that fanatical. The online title, however, is “‘I Don’t Know That It’s Man-Made,’ Trump Says of Climate Change. It Is.”, whereas in print, it was “Is Climate Change Man-Made? Yes.”. This indicates that the online version of the article may be trying to lure liberal readers in by including Trump in the contradiction by name. As the actual content of the article didn’t change from print to online, however, the article is not completely dedicated to manipulating the reader’s emotions.

Audience: The article is aimed at the readers of the New York Times, which mainly consists of (young) adults who may lean more towards the democratic side. With its online title, the article also appeals to those who oppose Trump, and was likely intended to spread from liberals to other liberals through social media. The overall opinions on climate change and bold claims against Trump definitely indicate that the article appeals to democrats.

Perspective: This article is subjective, because, although both sides of the argument are presented in this article, the title shows that the article strongly opposes Trump, and only the democratic side of the argument is given a full explanation and time to shine. I agree with the author’s claims because I generally believe in climate change and she provides much scientific evidence to support her stance.

Significance: “Long-term average global temperatures have moved in one direction in the past 115 years: upward. The rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the Industrial Revolution has already led to more intense wildfire seasons and the melting of Arctic sea ice.” “NASA embraces the widely cited statistic that “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree” that warming trends are the result of human activity, while also listing 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold to the same findings.” “... Stanford University researchers this year found that meeting the goals of the Paris deal would save the world tens of trillions of dollars in avoided climate damages, far outweighing most estimated costs.”

#blog post #Blog Post 3

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Media Assessment of Issue

Article 1: Proposed Energy Dept. Budget Would Take a Hatchet to Clean Energy Program: Report (Huffington Post, [x])

Subject: The author’s point is that Trump is ignoring/opposing America’s journey towards green energy, and that a 72% budget cut for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would be very detrimental to the country’s future.

Author: Nick Visser is a journalist working with the Huffington Post to cover climate change, the environment, and endangered species. He lives in Sydney, Australia after moving there from New York, and appears to be a young white man who is a democrat (or at least opposes Trump). I can infer his argument is biased against the Trump administration, and that he would prefer that more money went to the EERE.

Context: This article was published online, and likely not in papers, because of the link to the Washington Post article that inspired it. Its publication date is 31 January 2018. This means that, while Trump’s views likely remain the same, the budget cut is not a current issue, as his proposed but was rejected in March. The title of the article, with the dramatic visual of “hatchet” and lack of numbers, may have been intended to lure in readers to learn more about the subject.

Audience: The intended audience was readers of the Huffington Post, especially those interested in the environment. Its other audience would likely be similar-minded democrats/supporters of clean energy who clicked on it to see what “outrageous” new plan Trump was proposing. Because of this audience, Visser may have felt free to use more intense language against Trump.

Perspective: This article is subjective. The author’s claim is that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the future of clean energy in America, starting with his plan to cut the EERE’s budget in 2019. His other main claim is that alternative energy is beneficial to America because of the money it makes and the jobs it produces. I agree with this article to a less extreme degree-- I do believe that the Trump administration doesn’t value green energy, and that the EERE definitely should not have its budget cut, but I don’t think that Trump is specifically trying to sabotage the country. I also agree with his points about the monetary benefits of alternative energy.

Significance: “The draft includes recommendations to cut the budget for the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE, from $2.04 billion this fiscal year to $575.5 million in 2019, a reduction of 72 percent.” “The [EERE] says the $12 billion it’s invested in such programs have yielded more than $230 billion in economic benefit to the U.S. economy.” “Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, called investment in solar energy ‘one of the biggest job-creators over the past decade’ and denounced the proposal.”

Article 2: Yet Another Leftist Anti-Energy Misdirection: Hiding Behind the Animals (Red State, [x])

Subject: The author’s main point is that the “leftist” movement for green energy is entirely false, and that they’re trying to wipe out jobs and economies, hiding behind the false goal of saving cute animals.

Author: The author is Seton Motley, a male journalist from Maryland at Red State. According to his twitter, he despises Obama, and likely wrote this article based on his far right-leaning political views.

Context: This article was published on September 6 2018 to an online audience. The message, then, is in response to recent events, although most of the statements are generic. The issue of the Alaskan “Stand for Salmon” movement is, however, one that has yet to be resolved. The title was created to lure in readers to the online article, and words were chosen to spark drama without the limitations of being a print newspaper.

Audience: The audience is readers of Red State, who are very conservative and likely don’t believe in climate change. The article’s strong opinions agree with those who already thought of climate change as a hoax.

Perspective: This article is subjective. Personally, I completely disagree with its stance. There’s scientific evidence that global warming is real, and the use of cute animals only helps to spread the cause’s reach, not hide a conspiratorial attack on the economy. Statements such as Earth Day being fake because its date is the same as Vladimir Lenin’s birthday made me laugh at their ridiculousness. To be fair, I don’t know about the situation in Alaska, but I can guess that Motley blew things out of proportion.

Significance: “The fish habitat measure ensures that our economy will continue to shrink, joblessness will grow and our state will continue to see an outmigration of people” (this quote has no source), “Stupid: Because their ideas for alleged energy – are awful, and awfully dumb. Solar, wind, ethanol and the like – are terrible sources of energy…and are worse for the environment than the real energy sources they purport to replace. “Green energy” – is neither green nor energy,” “When the president of the proposed Alaska LNG project says that passage of this ballot measure would make the gas line project ‘darn near impossible’ to build, that should convince us to take action now.”

Article 3: Oceans May Host Next Wave of Renewable Energy (NPR, [x])

Subject: The author’s main point is highlighting a potential new source of alternative energy, the ocean. It covers the benefits and detriments of developing ocean power.

Author: The author’s name is Jeff Brady, who has established NPR’s environment and energy collaborative. According to his profile, he “approaches energy stories from the consumer side of the light switch and the gas pump in an effort to demystify an industry that can seem complicated and opaque.” He appears to be a white man, and he lives in Philadelphia.

Context: This article was published online and heard on NPR’s podcast Morning Edition on 15 November 2017. Although the date is from a little less than a year ago, the project has likely continued from that point, only changing the dates (such as “in 18 months”) that the article presents. The ocean’s potential as a source of green energy has not changed. Because the article was also heard on Morning Edition, the language had to be simple to follow in an audio format.

Audience: The audience is readers of NPR, as well as anyone who is interested in the topic of alternative energy. Although the article is not explicitly liberal, it does support the concept of green energy, so it amy be more likely to draw in liberal readers rather than climate-change-denying conservatives. Republicans who do want alternative energy, however, would be equally drawn to this article as a democrat who wants alternative energy.

Perspective: This article is objective. The competing opinions in the article discuss whether setting up ocean energy as an alternative energy source is a good idea. One side argues that the ocean could generate a lot of power with little downsides to the environment, the other that it would be very expensive to set up and hasn’t been fully developed. I agree with the former opinion-- although the price tag isn’t great, I think it’s a good idea to plan ahead so that when coal runs out, we aren’t left without power. The new energy source might also earn America money back in the future, but I’m not sure about that.

Significance: “But this testing can only go so far. ‘You need the full-scale wave energy converter out there for some time to prove that it's going to survive [and] to prove what its cost of energy is,’ says Batten,” “’Marine renewables is a vast opportunity. The amount of energy that's in the ocean available for us to utilitize is massive. And it's right there — it's right off our shores,' says Busch,” “Wave energy has a long way to go before it's ready to power the lights in your house. At this point, engineers aren't even quite sure how best to capture the power of the water.”

These three articles are not very similar, one talking about American legislation and funding, the next the environmentalist movement (and how green energy is a hoax) as a whole, and the last a promising new source of energy. Two of the articles are from reliable sources, the first and the third, and two have been modified for clickbait to certain degrees, the first and the second. All three of them discussed America in some form.

Personally, I agree with the first article the most, although it is close between that and the third. The first article is, granted, more dramatic, and I don’t agree entirely with its opinions of Trump, but I can understand the opposing argument in the third article more easily. I definitely stand against Trump’s plan to cut the EERE’s funding, and think that the argument that solar energy creates a lot of jobs is valid. I completely oppose the second article.

#the x is the link to the article if anything is at all confusing #blog post #Blog Post 2

1 note · View note

mhuie19ahsgov-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Conceptualizing the Issue and Assessing Types of Action

1. What civic action issue did you choose, and why?

I chose to cover green energy/alternative energy because I think it’s very important to society’s survival. Although I never took AP Environmental Science, I think that the Earth is due to run out of coal/oil soon, and that if we continue to use it, global warning may kill us all before we use it. Additionally, I’d like to learn more simple ways to cut down energy use at my house, and I figured that researching this could give me some ideas.

2. Why is it an issue?

As I previously mentioned, the use/opposition to the use of green energy could determine humanity’s future. The destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and air pollution (among other things) all pose big problems to health. The topic is also very divisive, due to some who believe that climate change is not a (man-made) issue, and others who want to continue profiting off of fossil fuels.

3. What action do you think should be taken to address this issue?

I think that we need reformation on the small and large levels. Banning plastic straws and driving electric cars is a good start, but we need to instigate government reform if we truly want to undo the damage the Earth has suffered. The government agencies researching nuclear and fusion energy are headed in the right direction.

4. Five People I’m following on Twitter are:

Department of Energy and Environment (@DOEE_DC): The official twitter account for America’s Department of Energy and Environment. Covering this issue, it’s a good idea to see where this department stands, because it will give a sense of where how the government feels about certain issues. None of their tweets, thus far, are particularly noteworthy, but they seem to support the environment, so I will support them for now.

Green Energy News (@GreenEnergyNews): This twitter reports on green energy news and natural disasters all over America. Their post about how Kroger, a retail store, plans to get rid of plastic bags interested me, because I hadn’t seen anybody talk about getting rid of plastic bags when discussing plastic straws.

OPEC (@OPECSecretariat): An alliance of oil companies. Because they want to boost their business, they, naturally, would oppose phasing oil out. I find it interesting that their top few posts only discuss the opening of new oil plants, and how prices for barrels of oil are looking good for 2019.

Solar Industry (@SolarIndustry): A news source about current projects involving solar energy. They report a lot about new technological developments, and retweet key supportive tweets from government officials. Their tweet about the first “pollinator-friendly” solar plant interested me, because I didn’t even know that solar plants had been bad for bees!

GOP (@GOP): The Grand Old Party, AKA the Republican Party. The Republican Party currently opposes green energy, potentially siding with the President in saying that climate change is a “Chinese hoax.” A good source of news, and for an opposing stance against alternative energy whenever they may choose to tweet about it.

#blog post 1 #blog post

1 note · View note