Category: UNIT 2 RESEARCH PROJECT FINAL DRAFT (Page 3 of 3)

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

Bates, Sofie. “Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth’s Energy Budget Off Balance.” NASA. Https://Climate.Nasa.Gov/News/3072/Direct-Observations-Confirm-That-Humans-Are-Throwing-Earths-Energy-Budget-off-Balance/, 18 Oct. 2021, climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance.

Summary- This article talks about earth was pretty much designed to keep the flow of energy going in and out equally, but now earth only has a certain amount of energy and we are running out. Data shows we have an energy imbalance/energy depletion and human activities are the main cause of running out of energy and climate change. More energy is being trapped inside earth’s atmosphere rather than being let out. They have techniques, people, programs and machines reading every possible reading they could get accounting to things involving the Earth.

Most of our energy on earth comes from the sun. They have a satellite that shows how much energy is being let in and out of Earth’s atmosphere, CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System).  On the other hand, human activities tend to be causing the most heat on Earth.

Analysis- This is a well credited source, the website is NASA and the author is working with NASA’s Earth science team. the author Sofie Bates, is addressing this article to the public. The article showed a graph showing the movement of the Sun and pollution. They also showed a picture of the earth and where the most greenhouse gasses are being released (most in the northern part of the world) and the highest are shown in red.

Response- I was actually surprised to find out some of these facts. I took an environmental science class in my senior year of high school and really enjoyed it. The graphs shown in the article made me feel like they know what they are doing. NASA talked about how the energy and radiation is moved around in our atmosphere. But I did like knowing at the end of the article, that they can see where climate change is going to go. I really enjoyed this article because I learned some new facts and am a little more content.

Einhorn, Catrin. “Climate Change Is Devastating Coral Reefs Worldwide, Major Report Says.” New York Times Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/2021/10/04/Climate/Coral-Reefs-Climate-Change.Html?SearchResultPosition=7, 4 Oct. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/climate/coral-reefs-climate-change.html?searchResultPosition=7.

Summary- This article talks about coral reefs as the main source of knowing how quickly everything is going wrong with the Earth. They are a big part of our goods and services, the decline of them would cause big changes. If global warming takes a positive change soon, the coral reefs have a chance of being back to being healthy. A lot of human activities contribute to the negative attributes of the coral reefs such as heavy fishing and ocean pollution.

In the 2010’s, the world lost about 14% of coral reefs due to climate change. Because the coral reefs actions affect the rest of the world, they compared it to worrying about half percent changes with economic changes. The first negative signs of the coral reefs began in 1998, but after a little while they got back on their feet. Now, it is not the same case. Coral reefs are a big contribution to the population’s needs.

Analysis- The author Catrin Einhorn got information and data from scientists, doctors and researchers. The author covers wildlife and extinction for the New York Times, she has helped report and produce two Emmy winning projects. This is a well credited article. They have records back from 1998 showing data on the coral reefs.

Response- I didn’t know that the coral reefs were such a big deal, and i was surprised. Fish are really important for our planet and can cause such an impact. In the article they used words like, “catastrophic”, “deep concern” and “alarming”, which honestly alarms me. I did like this article. It’s reassuring to know that people care about these things and keep an eye on it.

Christopher Flavelle, Julien E. Barnes, Eileen Sullivan, and Jennifer Steinhauser. “Climate Change Poses a Widening Threat to National Security.” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/climate/climate-change-national-security.html?searchResultPosition=9

Summary- This article talks about current and future conflict and situations that will arise due to climate change. Reports say that by 2050, there is a likely hood that millions of people are going to be forced to move in affect to climate change. Right now we can see the result in that. Hurricanes happening in Central America have caused people to come to the US border. The threat of climate change to national security will only grow within the years. Most nations involved with the 2015 Paris Agreement will not likely meet their end of the agreement.

Scientists say that if the Earth exceeds 2 degrees celsius of warming in a year, than Earth will increase in deadly natural disasters per year. As of October 8th of this year, there have been a total of 18 natural disasters costing over $1 billion dollars in the US alone. Some natural disasters include, fires, droughts, flooding, hurricanes, storms ect…

Analysis- This article was written by multiple authors. Author Christopher Flavelle reports about industries, people and governments try to deal with climate change. The next author Juien E. Barnes has 17 years worth of writing experience writing about US national security matters. Eileen Sullivan covers the Department of Homeland Security. Her and three of her colleagues won a Pulitzer Prize. The final author, Jennifer Steinhauser has been with The New York Times since 1994 and has written two novels.  The authors in this article got quotes and information from two scientists talking about climate change.  This is a well credited source.

Response- This article made me worry a little bit. I was actually very disappointed to learn that the countries involved with the 2015 Paris Agreement haven’t met their end of the bargain. At this point it seems like no one cares and just wants to do the easiest way to go about things.

Summary- In this video, Greta Thunberg talks about climate change. She says “There is no grey area in survival.” She goes on to speak about how it seems like no one cares. You would think that something this big and dangerous to our well being would be all over the news, all the time. But it is not. There are over 200 species going extinct every single day, and the rate is between 1,000 and 100,000 times than normal.

Making richer countries lower their emission rate, will increase the quality of life or just have basic needs for poor living countries. But the richer countries are taking no action, making their living worse and overall effecting everyone. We have been aware of climate change for about 30 years now and have done very little. The weird thing is is we have all the answers to beat climate change yet we are doing nothing about it. The future lies in our hands.

Analysis- This Ted Talk is spoken by Greta Thunberg. A well known environmental activist since 2018. This video is targeted towards the general public. She is speaking to everyone when she says we have to act on it. This video is a well credited source.

Response- I really enjoyed this video. I learned some new things and felt like i was personally being talked to. Its scary to think that we are doing nothing about this, yet have all the solutions. Knowing that people like her are sticking up for what is right for everyone is reassuring. For example, she walked out of school and sat outside of the Swedish parliament striking for climate change.

How Green Are Electric Vehicles?

Tabuchi, H., & Plumer, B. (2021, March 2). How Green Are Electric Vehicles. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html.

SUMMARY:

The article targets the question, whether electric vehicles are really cleaner for the environment, as they claim to be. Even though electric cars have very little to no carbon emissions, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it doesn’t contribute to harmful emissions. Majority of the US still depend on burning coals and fossil fuels to generate electricity. If the entire country was to switch to electric vehicles, there would be a dramatic increase in electric usage, which means more coals and fossil fuels need to be burnt. The carbon emissions from doing so, is more harmful to the environment compared to engine car emissions.

Moreover, the lithium-ion batteries that are used to power electric cars are mainly produced from cobalt, lithium and other rare elements. Smelting of these rare Earth elements, give off sulfur oxide, and other harmful fumes to its surroundings. This is also a human right concern because about 70% of the world’s cobalt supply is extracted from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where workers including children dig the metal from the ground and therefore is exposed to harmful gases. This is why its crucial that lithium batteries be recycled.

ANALYSIS:

The main goal of this article was to shed light on facts about electric cars that people are not aware of, or don’t pay much attention to. The target audience for this article is very broad. It may include, car enthusiasts, environmentalists, and even people who are just looking to buy, or switch to an electric vehicle, etc. The authors structured the article in three different sections where they explain how electric cars harm the environment. Each section is related to the other, for example, the first two sections explain how the production of electricity, and raw materials give off harmful gases that are very bad for the environment. The authors, however, mentioned opposing views such as: electric vehicles having cleaner emissions but it was countered by the critical damage caused by the burning of coals to generate electricity that powers electric vehicles. The article contained solid reasoning to convince the audience to look underneath the surface when it comes to switching to electric cars.

RESPONSE:

I chose this article because it represents my views on electric vehicles. I agree with the authors that the electric car industry have lingering environmental consequences. I was convinced that the electric car industry still have a lot of room to improve. Only then can we see the true potential of electric vehicles in regards of maintaining a greener environment.

ANALYSIS:

I think the main focus of the article was to represent data which shows how electricity is generated throughout the United States. Each state had its own section that contained official data on how electricity is being produced in that particular area. The article is very informative since it gives the audience a good idea of one of the leading reasons behind why we are in a climate change crisis. The author used well credited sources to support the claims. The article was very convincing because it is widely believed that burning coals to generate electricity is very harmful for the environment. Therefore, it is certain that renewable sources for power production  is the answer to a greener environment.

RESPONSE:

The article is pretty self-explanatory. We have a back-dated method of generating power, and this issue needs to be solved through the use of renewable sources. I was surprised when I looked at the data, because for a developed, and one of the world’s leading countries, United States should have already utilized clean energy technology.

Study Compares Electric Vehicle Charge Costs vs. Gas – and Results were Surprising.

SUMMARY:

The article focuses mainly on the costs of electric vehicles compared to gas engine vehicles. Patrick Anderson who is the CEO of a consulting firm, also worked with the automobile industry for 20 years. In this article he shares his personal experience with an electric car. He shares his insights on the costs and efficiency of an electric car compared to an average gas engine car.

The study mentioned in the article found four major points to be discussed. The types of costs when it comes to electric vehicles: home charger, commercial charger, electric vehicle tax, and cost of charging per miles. As of now it costs more to charge an electric car per miles than a gas engine car per miles. Moreover, charging costs vary more than gasoline prices. Finally, the time it takes to fully charge an electric cars can be very high depending on the type of charger used.

Most people who owns an electric cars tend to be dependent on commercial chargers. It can be time consuming to find a good commercial charging station. However, there is an option for home chargers, but they can be a bit pricey. Level 1 home chargers cost about $600 plus installation fees, but it can take up to 20 hours or more to fully charge. There is also a Level 2 charger which costs $1600 plus installation fees and could charge the cars in a few hours.

Moving on to the range each type of cars provide. An average gas engine car that gets 33 mpg would cost about $8.58 to drive a 100 miles with a gas price of $2.81 per gallon. On the other hand, an electric vehicle would cost about $12.95 to drive the same 100 miles using a commercial charger to recharge. Therefore, it can be concluded that given how the automotive industry isn’t fully developed yet, owning electric vehicles could be more expensive than owning a gas engine vehicle.

ANALYSIS:

The author of the article wanted to show the audience the cost efficiency of electric vehicles. Real data was used to compare the costs of owning an electric vehicle vs gas engine cars. Even though both the type of cars have its pros and cons, statistics show that owning an electric vehicle can be more expensive than owning a gas engine vehicle.

On average it costs more to charge an electric car to run a specific distance, than to fill up on gas on an engine car to go the same distance. Moreover, electric car chargers are still not heavily available for consumers, therefore some people may have to drive further to a commercial charging station to charge their cars. The expensive home charging station, isn’t suitable for majority of the population as well because not everybody owns a house and can afford a personal charging station.

RESPONSE:

I think the article was very well put and persuasive. The author used real life data and expertise of a person who has been involved with the automobile industry for quiet some time. I think people should definitely consider the cost efficiency of owning an electric vehicle. I chose those article even though its focus is not on the environmental aspect, because it will bring more depth into my research. It will give the audience a more balanced and broader perspective when they think about electric car being completely environmental friendly or even cost efficient.

The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles

Conway, Graham. “The Contradictions of Battery Operated Vehicles.” TED, November, 2019,

SUMMARY:

The Ted Talk video opposes the common and popular idea that electric cars are good because they are not harmful for the environment. While its true that electric cars have very little to no carbon emissions, the statement “they are not harmful for the environment” is not completely true. The speaker explains it really well when he describes the “carbon emissions” from each vehicle by drawing a rectangular box around it. Yes, it is easy to spot that gas engine cars have harmful emissions, however, when it comes to electric vehicles, to our naked eyes it may seem its not harmful due it its zero carbon emissions. But, if we zoom out and look at it from a broader perspective, we can understand that manufacturing and powering these electric cars prove to be more harmful to the environment than an average gas engine vehicle.

In order to generate electricity, we still depend on traditional techniques such as burning coals and fossil fuels. Therefore, powering the electric vehicles which uses electricity, is contributing to the harmful emissions from burning coals and fossil fuels. So, it can be said that electric vehicles are after all not completely harmless like the automotive industry claims them to be. According  to the speaker, its a way the automotive industries put a bandage on the problem rather than solving it.

ANALYSIS:

The ted talk video tied together the main points that this research is all about. It targeted the idea the hidden truth behind the electric car industry. The speaker stated that even though from the outside, electric vehicles may seem like it has no harmful effects to the environment, if we look at the bigger picture we may find that the claim isn’t completely true. The speech was very well-organized and the examples really highlighted the main goal of this Ted Talk.

The elaborate discussion about how electricity is generated in the United States, and its connection to the electric car industry was the key point that the speaker was trying to make. The rise in demand of electricity that will result from entirely switching to electric cars isn’t a great idea because it will mean that more coals and fossil fuels need to be burnt to generate power. Hence, there will be a significant increase in carbon levels in the atmosphere.

RESPONSE:

I think the Ted Talk was very persuasive because the speaker did a great job in stating the common belief which that the majority of the people share on electric vehicles. Then he stated an opposing claim, to show people what goes behind manufacturing these vehicles that the automobile industry tries to cover up from the public. This Ted Talk was perfect for my research because it discussed exactly what I wanted to accomplish through this research project. I believe that the electric car industry still have a lot of room for improvement. They should be honest about it and truly come up with a solution for a greener environment because it is true that carbon emissions from cars is a huge problem but with proper strategy it is definitely something that can be overcome. Putting on a bandage won’t solve the issue. I think this video was the best source I was able to find.