The article I will write about is that do people cause the distinction of the animals or not.
There are a lot of controversy about the animal distinction because not all the people think that the animal distinction is because of human and the global warming. https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/29/books/our-animals-our-selves.html?searchResultPosition=2.
In the controversy, I think the most possible reason why animals distinct too fast is because of the human. There are directly or indirectly reasons why human accelerated the extinction of animals.
I think my position is correct because this could help human to live with animals better in the future.
Foreign Policy Magazine
Audience: International relations enthusiasts, students, journalists, foreign policy and political professionals.
The Washington Post
Audience: General public. A wide range of topic sections make it palatable for all sorts of adults.
Audience: Business professionals and individuals who are invested in the stock market.
New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com)
Audience: educated male, liberal-thinker, into business and politics
Mother Jones (https://www.motherjones.com)
Audience: feminist, liberal-thinker, from the working-class
The Economist (https://www.economist.com)
Audience: educated male, into world news, economics, business and finance
The debate or controversy in which I am writing about is if the United States should burn or bury its trash.
The debate in this topic is on whether or not it is more environmentally friendly to burn or bury or trash. Both methods come with some serious drawbacks, so by comparing the two, we will be able to discover which one will benefit us and the environment the most. The big drawback to burying our trash is what happens underneath the surface when these toxins sit for hundreds of years. When trash is buried it can pollute groundwater and could be harmful to people who may be drinking or using the water in some fashion. Burning trash is harmful because burning garbage is a primary source of cancer causing dioxins which poses a huge public health problem.
Articles that will help me in my research:
Kitto, John B., and Larry A. Hiner. “Clean Power from Burning Trash.” Mechanical Engineering 139.02 (2017): 32–37. Web.
Faden, Mike. “Burning Trash Has Major Pollution Impact.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12.8 (2014): 431–431. Print.
Warshall, Peter, and Michael Stone. “To Burn or Not to Burn.” Whole Earth 99 (1999): 69–70. Web.
I feel like I have not gathered enough information on this topic for me to formulate a valid opinion on this argument.
Though I haven’t made a position regarding this topic yet, I hope to give the reader a similar experience to how I made my grounded opinion within my Op-Ed, so that they can see how and why I chose that side.
The debate or controversy that I am writing about is privileged nations must combat racist policies in order to stop climate change. In summary, I want to write about the importance of combatting environmental racism, as it is so common.
The Debate in this Topic consists mostly understanding how language and policies persist to continuously hurt communities of color as well as developing nations. There has been an increase in the American right using racist language to treat climate change as a threat from other nations. I will argue that this is dangerous and is hurting the process of environmental justice and reform.________________________________. (Summarize some of the major positions in the debate in a couple of sentences. Give links to 3-4 articles that take these positions.)
“White Supremacy Goes Green”– https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/opinion/sunday/far-right-climate-change.html
“What do racism and poverty have to do with pollution and climate change?”– https://grist.org/cities/what-do-racism-and-poverty-have-to-do-with-pollution-and-climate-change/
“Are there two different versions of environmentalism, one “white,” one “black”?”– https://grist.org/climate-energy/are-there-two-different-versions-of-environmentalism-one-white-one-black/
In this debate, I think/believe/argue that race and privilege must be at the forefront climate reform discussion.
My position is important because it helps us understand/know the importance of creating comprehensive climate policy through understanding how discrimination functions in the justice system.
The controversy that I am writing about is whether or not veganim is an effective way to combat climate change.
The debate in this topic is on how some people think that everyone should be vegan to save the planet, and some people think this would not be helpful. www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/06/28/532880755/is-a-no-meat-world-really-better www.huffpost.com/entry/vegan-vegetarian-climate-change-diets_n_5d7fa569e4b03b5fc8873dc7 www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/opinion/vegan-food.html.
In this debate, I believe that veganism is not an effective way to completely combat climate change.
My position is important because it helps us understand that there are better ways to save the planet than going vegan.
The debate or controversy I am writing about is how the COVID-19 pandemic has effected climate change and further improvements that can be done to reduce damage to the environment. Due to the current virus outbreak, people are staying inside and the environment has been improving, but there needs to be a long term solution to overcome climate change by the time we return to our daily routines.
The debate in this topic is whether or not COVID-19 has opened more peoples’ eyes to the effect we as humans had on climate change, and their plan to tackle it now seeing the direct results. Will there be a long term solution to stopping climate change, or was it a temporary fix?
In this article, the author discusses that due to the slowdown of humans, there has been a decrease in air pollution. ahttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/coronavirus-pandemic-earth-pollution-noise/609316/
In this article, the European Union states that they have seen current decreases in greenhouse gases and air quality has gone up. Seeing these drastic changes, the EU environment chief states that they have to come up with a future plan that is sustainable and works well with a sustainable economy that is in the best interest of both earth and the people. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061082
In this article, the author addresses the economy that has possibly impacted carbon dioxide emissions, and what we can do from here to make sure that it remains low. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/5-ways-the-economic-upheaval-of-coronavirus-may-impact-co2-emissions/
In this debate I think/believe/argue that people will start to see and acknowledge that it is time to address the issue of climate change. It has been put on the back burner for too long, and now is the best time to think of new ways and practices to keep carbon emissions low as well as reducing pollution to end climate change.
My position is important because it helps us understand/know that climate change is as serious of an issue as the newest virus pandemic and society has to come together to take charge and create longterm sustainable solutions to overcome climate change.
The debate or controversy that I am writing about is the issue that climate change has continuously been getting worse overtime and no action has been made to drastically help it. With the coronavirus going on, the effects will only worsen and get worse. How come action was taken so fast to COVID-19 but can’t be taken to help slow the effects of climate change and the earth.
The Debate in this Topic is on what does COVID-19 have to do with Climate Change. Articles that support this claim includes:
In this debate, I think/believe/argue that although COVID-19 may seem that it is helping the climate and climate change currently, in the long-term there are going to be even more negative effects that come out once all the chaos with COVID-19 settles.
My position is important because it helps us understand/know that people need to take action and help that the effects of climate change sooner rather than later. If people took action to climate change and put the same time, money, and effort that they did into the coronavirus, things would be very different and we would have never reached this point with climate change.
- The debate or controversy that I am writing about is that environmental destruction as a result of human interference is quite common and can have permanent effects on the coral reefs around the world. The impact that humans have on these ecosystems affects not only the reefs themselves but the organisms that depend on them as well.
- The Debate in this Topic is on whether or not humans have been the main cause of coral reef deterioration in recent years. The rise in carbon dioxide levels, as well as overfishing and harmful fishing methods, have killed many coral reefs, which in turn has reduced the biodiversity of many bodies of water. These are all due to human interference.
What’s Killing Coral Reefs? And How Can We Stop It?
- In this debate, I think/believe/argue that human interference has been the primary cause of coral reef deterioration and loss of biodiversity of many bodies of water around the world.
- My position is important because it helps us understand/know that as humans, we are the main cause of reefs and many fish populations dying and this has impacted many organisms worldwide.