Synthesis Paper
723085
synthesis_paper.zip4 resources/new Aims of Argument.pdf
4 resources/Some Convenient Truths.docx
Some Convenient Truths
Runaway global warming looks all but unstoppable. Maybe that’s because we haven’t really tried to stop it
GREGG EASTERBROOKSEP 1 2006, 12:00 PM ET
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/09/some-convenient-truths/305090/?single_page=true
If there is now a scientific consensus that global warming must be taken seriously, there is also a related political consensus: that the issue is Gloom City. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warns of sea levels rising to engulf New York and San Francisco and implies that only wrenching lifestyle sacrifice can save us. The opposing view is just as glum. Even mild restrictions on greenhouse gases could “cripple our economy,” Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said in 2003. Other conservatives suggest that greenhouse-gas rules for Americans would be pointless anyway, owing to increased fossil-fuel use in China and India. When commentators hash this issue out, it’s often a contest to see which side can sound more pessimistic.
Here’s a different way of thinking about the greenhouse effect: that action to prevent runaway global warming may prove cheap, practical, effective, and totally consistent with economic growth. Which makes a body wonder: Why is such environmental optimism absent from American political debate?
Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem—and all previous air-pollution problems have been reduced faster and more cheaply than predicted, without economic harm. Some of these problems once seemed scary and intractable, just as greenhouse gases seem today. About forty years ago urban smog was increasing so fast that President Lyndon Johnson warned, “Either we stop poisoning our air or we become a nation [in] gas masks groping our way through dying cities.” During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, emissions of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, threatened to deplete the stratospheric ozone layer. As recently as George H. W. Bush’s administration, acid rain was said to threaten a “new silent spring” of dead Appalachian forests.
But in each case, strong regulations were enacted, and what happened? Since 1970, smog-forming air pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated, and studies suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since 1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply.
Most progress against air pollution has been cheaper than expected. Smog controls on automobiles, for example, were predicted to cost thousands of dollars for each vehicle. Today’s new cars emit less than 2 percent as much smog-forming pollution as the cars of 1970, and the cars are still as affordable today as they were then. Acid-rain control has cost about 10 percent of what was predicted in 1990, when Congress enacted new rules. At that time, opponents said the regulations would cause a “clean-air recession”; instead, the economy boomed.
Greenhouse gases, being global, are the biggest air-pollution problem ever faced. And because widespread fossil-fuel use is inevitable for some time to come, the best-case scenario for the next few decades may be a slowing of the rate of greenhouse-gas buildup, to prevent runaway climate change. Still, the basic pattern observed in all other forms of air-pollution control—rapid progress at low cost—should repeat for greenhouse-gas controls.
Yet a paralyzing negativism dominates global-warming politics. Environmentalists depict climate change as nearly unstoppable; skeptics speak of the problem as either imaginary (the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” in the words of Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s environment committee) or ruinously expensive to address.
Even conscientious politicians may struggle for views that aren’t dismal. Mandy Grunwald, a Democratic political consultant, says, “When political candidates talk about new energy sources, they use a positive, can-do vocabulary. Voters have personal experience with energy use, so they can relate to discussion of solutions. If you say a car can use a new kind of fuel, this makes intuitive sense to people. But global warming is of such scale and magnitude; people don’t have any commonsense way to grasp what the solutions would be. So political candidates tend to talk about the greenhouse effect in a depressing way.”
One reason the global-warming problem seems so daunting is that the success of previous antipollution efforts remains something of a secret. Polls show that Americans think the air is getting dirtier, not cleaner, perhaps because media coverage of the environment rarely if ever mentions improvements. For instance, did you know that smog and acid rain have continued to diminish throughout George W. Bush’s presidency?
One might expect Democrats to trumpet the decline of air pollution, which stands as one of government’s leading postwar achievements. But just as Republicans have found they can bash Democrats by falsely accusing them of being soft on defense, Democrats have found they can bash Republicans by falsely accusing them of destroying the environment. If that’s your argument, you might skip over the evidence that many environmental trends are positive. One might also expect Republicans to trumpet the reduction of air pollution, since it signifies responsible behavior by industry. But to acknowledge that air pollution has declined would require Republicans to say the words, “The regulations worked.”
Does it matter that so many in politics seem so pessimistic about the prospect of addressing global warming? Absolutely. Making the problem appear unsolvable encourages a sort of listless fatalism, blunting the drive to take first steps toward a solution. Historically, first steps against air pollution have often led to pleasant surprises. When Congress, in 1970, mandated major reductions in smog caused by automobiles, even many supporters of the rule feared it would be hugely expensive. But the catalytic converter was not practical then; soon it was perfected, and suddenly, major reductions in smog became affordable. Even a small step by the United States against greenhouse gases could lead to a similar breakthrough.
And to those who worry that any greenhouse-gas reductions in the United States will be swamped by new emissions from China and India, here’s a final reason to be optimistic: technology can move across borders with considerable speed. Today it’s not clear that American inventors or entrepreneurs can make money by reducing greenhouse gases, so relatively few are trying. But suppose the United States regulated greenhouse gases, using its own domestic program, not the cumbersome Kyoto Protocol; then America’s formidable entrepreneurial and engineering communities would fully engage the problem. Innovations pioneered here could spread throughout the world, and suddenly rapid global warming would not seem inevitable.
The two big technical advances against smog—the catalytic converter and the chemical engineering that removes pollutants from gasoline at the refinery stage—were invented in the United States. The big economic advance against acid rains—a credit-trading system that gives power-plant managers a profit incentive to reduce pollution—was pioneered here as well. These advances are now spreading globally. Smog and acid rain are still increasing in some parts of the world, but the trend lines suggest that both will decline fairly soon, even in developing nations. For instance, two decades ago urban smog was rising at a dangerous rate in Mexico; today it is diminishing there, though the country’s population continues to grow. A short time ago declining smog and acid rain in developing nations seemed an impossibility; today declining greenhouse gases seem an impossibility. The history of air-pollution control says otherwise.
Americans love challenges, and preventing artificial climate change is just the sort of technological and economic challenge at which this nation excels. It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones. Gore seldom has, and Bush seems to have no interest in trying. But cheap and fast improvement is not a pipe dream; it is the pattern of previous efforts against air pollution. The only reason runaway global warming seems unstoppable is that we have not yet tried to stop it.
Gregg Easterbrook is a contributing editor of The Atlantic, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the author of The Progress Paradox.
4 resources/Text of the American College & University Presidents¡¯ Climate Commitment.docx
Text of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment
We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.
While we understand that there might be short-term challenges associated with this effort, we believe that there will be great short-, medium-, and long-term economic, health, social and environmental benefits, including achieving energy independence for the U.S. as quickly as possible.
We believe colleges and universities must exercise leadership in their communities and throughout society by modeling ways to minimize global warming emissions, and by providing the knowledge and the educated graduates to achieve climate neutrality. Campuses that address the climate challenge by reducing global warming emissions and by integrating sustainability into their curriculum will better serve their students and meet their social mandate to help create a thriving, ethical and civil society. These colleges and universities will be providing students with the knowledge and skills needed to address the critical, systemic challenges faced by the world in this new century and enable them to benefit from the economic opportunities that will arise as a result of solutions they develop.
We further believe that colleges and universities that exert leadership in addressing climate change will stabilize and reduce their long-term energy costs, attract excellent students and faculty, attract new sources of funding, and increase the support of alumni and local communities. Accordingly, we commit our institutions to taking the following steps in pursuit of climate neutrality.
our institutions to taking the following steps in pursuit of climate neutrality.
1. Initiate the development of a comprehensive plan to achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible.
Within two months of signing this document, create institutional structures to guide the development and implementation of the plan.
Within one year of signing this document, complete a comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions (including emissions from electricity, heating, commuting, and air travel) and update the inventory every other year thereafter.
Within two years of signing this document, develop an institutional action plan for becoming climate neutral, which will include:
A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible.
Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to climate neutrality.
Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.
Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to achieve climate neutrality.
Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions.
2. Initiate two or more of the following tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is being developed.
Establish a policy that all new campus construction will be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Silver standard or equivalent.
Adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist.
Establish a policy of offsetting all greenhouse gas emissions generated by air travel paid for by our institution.
Encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution.
Within one year of signing this document, begin purchasing or producing at least 15% of our institution’s electricity consumption from renewable sources.
Establish a policy or a committee that supports climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution’s endowment is invested.
Participate in the Waste Minimization component of the national RecycleMania competition, and adopt 3 or more associated measures to reduce waste.
In recognition of the need to build support for this effort among college and university administrations across America, we will encourage other presidents to join this effort and become signatories to this commitment.
Signed,
The Signatories of the American College & University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment
Paper 3 grading criteria .docx
RWS 281 Project 3 Prompt .docx
RWS 281 Project 3 - Synthesis Paper Prompt
For your third project in this class, you will write a synthesis paper responding to the following prompt:
SDSU joined the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment in March of this year. Use the assigned readings to explain why it is important for SDSU to be a part of this organization. Evaluate/analyze whether SDSU seems to be fulfilling its commitment. Describe how SDSU is honoring its commitment. Make recommendations of how SDSU could be doing even more to make our campus “climate neutral.”
The audience for your paper is professors/students in a four-year university. Assume that your readers have not read any of the assigned class readings.
This paper will be 4-5 pages in length. It will be double spaced in 12 pt. Times New Roman font. Margins will be one inch. Use MLA or APA style conventions according to the format required by your major.
Successful papers will:
· Include an effective introduction that gives the general context for your topic and a statement of your project.
· Provide a claim that states your own perspective on SDSU’s progress in fulfilling its Presidents Climate Commitment.
· Support all aspects of your claim with reasons and evidence.
· Use the Green Report Card and Princeton Review’s Guide to 322 Green Colleges to help you evaluate/analyze SDSU’s present attempts to become a “climate neutral” campus.
· Organize body paragraphs by topic, not by author.
· Use coherence and cohesion techniques to help the reader move from one idea to the next.
· Include effective body paragraphs to explain, describe, evaluate/analyze, and recommend, as required in the prompt. These paragraphs should use examples from the assigned class texts. Do not use sources other than those assigned.
· Use argument appeals--emotion, logic, and character--to make your writing more persuasive.
· Include a conclusion that restates the main points and indicates the significance or the consequence of your claim/reason/evidence. For example, what would be the consequence or the significance if SDSU does not abide by the Presidents Climate Commitment?
Peer edit in class: May 6 (Bring at least two copies with you to class)
Final paper due: on the final exam day, Tuesday May 13. (Use turnitin.com)
