ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY CAPSTONE PROJECT

IMPORTANT NOTE: PLEASE USE THE REFERENCE FROM THE AUTHOR ELIZABETH KOLBERT BOOK CALLED, “The Sixth Extinction” An Unnatural Story. You must use pages from this book to reference when answering the questions below.

In this post, list two pieces of information in the book that were presented as fact or firmly held opinion, and challenged your thinking. It is preferred that you find things that challenge the thoughts, at least to some degree, that you described in your Journal entry from Lesson 7, but you are welcome to address other beliefs you have as well. The goal is for you to discuss ideas that are deeply and vigorously held, if at all possible.

  • Describe the book content that challenged your thinking. Indicate where you found it in the book (page number(s) at least).
  • Describe how it challenged your thinking. State with specificity what your previously held belief was.
  • Perform some research to see if the author’s assertions are true or not. State the findings of your research and how it confirms or contradicts the statements. Use at least one source of reliable information for each.
  • Briefly analyse the source of information that you used in terms of how reliable they are and why.
  • Your entry must be organized and easy to follow for full credit.

Just copy and paste a direct link to your journal page below.

Don’t forget that you need to analyse two items! See the attached rubric for grading.

 Lessons 8-10 focus on the book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Before you start reading the book, please explain your current beliefs about/understanding of biodiversity. Please note that there is no “wrong” or “right” opinion to have - it is merely an opinion. But I want you to take a moment to reflect on how you feel, and where that opinion comes from. Post the following three things for full credit. You will use these assertions after reading the book as well, so please think carefully about them. Please do not perform any additional research prior to posting: the purpose is for you to clearly indicate your thoughts right now:

  1. Briefly describe your understanding of the relationship between anthropogenic climate change and biodiversity.
  2. Briefly describe your understanding of the severity of the impact of human society on biodiversity.
  3. Briefly describe how urgent you believe it is that we address biodiversity loss on a global scale.

For each of these beliefs, briefly post the following:

  1. Identify why you think the way you do. How did you come to believe it?
  2. How thoroughly have you investigated your beliefs? E.g., is it something you learned or heard a while ago, and have not investigated it since?
  3. For each belief, indicate how strong your belief is (how confident you are in your position): very weak, weak, somewhat weak, neither weak nor strong, somewhat strong, strong, very strong.

Please make sure that your post is organized. I strongly suggest using numbers to identify each of your three beliefs.

After you post this in your journal, submit a direct link to your post here. Please make this a hyperlink so I can just click on it to open up your entry. On your journal post itself, make sure you put the lesson number and a descriptive title in the post’s title.

This journal entry has two parts:
Part I
First, you will critically analyse one energy/sustainability-related media selection. Refer to the Lesson 6 online content to view the article. You are welcome and encouraged to read through this prior to reading/viewing the media selection. There are 76 total points for this entry.

  1. (32 points total) Identify two assertions that were made in the interview that you either did not know, are skeptical of, or think that many people in the general public would be skeptical of.
    1. (2 pts each) Provide the statement
    1. Research and find one reliable corroborating or contradictory outside source (not the interview itself). (2 pts each) Provide a link to the source and (2 pts each) briefly summarize its findings.
    1. (5 pts each) Provide your assessment of whether or not the assertion is true and why you think so.
    1. (5 pts each) Briefly describe why the outside source is a reliable source (or not). Be clear about why you think it is reliable or not.
  2. (16 points total) Bakke mentions that battery storage will be a very important aspect of making the grid reliable and mentions a few possible methods -vehicle to grid, molten salt, Sisyphus train, Tesla’s power wall, pumped storage hydro, salt domes. Pick one of these sources and briefly:
    1. (2 pts) Describe how it works
    1. (2 pts each) Identify two possible sustainability-related problems with this method. (5 pts each) Clearly describe why/how this could impact sustainability.
  3. (18 points total) Toward the end of the interview, Bakke mentions that “there’s not a shortage problem” when it comes to renewables. In other words, there is more than enough renewable energy available, but the storage and other issues are preventing 100% renewables from becoming a reality.
    1. Find one reliable source of information that states that the U.S. OR worldbound run on 100% renewable energy.
      1. (2 pts) Provide a link to the source, and (2 pts) briefly summarize the argument(s) made.
      1. (5 pts) Is the source reliable? Why or why not?
    1. Find one reliable source of information that states that the U.S. or world cannot be run on 100% renewable energy.
      1. (2 pts) Provide a link to the source, and (2 pts) briefly summarize the argument(s) made
      1. (5 pts) Is the source reliable? Why or why not?

10 points for organization and clarity of writing.
After you complete your journal entry, submit a link below.
It is very important that this post is very organized and easy to follow! I strongly suggest using the same numbering system I use in the question above. This will be part of your grade.
Part 2
For each of the following information sources, indicate whether or not they should be considered an unbiased source of information based on these aspects of each organization:

  • First, “who they are” (there should be a “Who are we?” or “Who we are” or “About Us” link somewhere), and
  • second, take a look at the overall perspective/slant/opinion of the articles on their website.
  • You can include other analyses as well, as you see fit.

Feel free to google ” bias,” or other search terms to help support your assertion.
4 points each. Each explanation should be no more than a few sentences.

  1. The New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
  2. The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com)
  3. The Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org)
  4. The Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu)
  5. Economic Policy Institute (www.epi.org)

Please note that even biased organizations can have good information, and also that the fact that an organization is a non-profit (a “.org”) does not mean anything regarding bias.

Identify something from this week’s lesson that contradicts something you knew or thought you knew. This could be a simple fact or complex process/line of reasoning. I want you to really think about this, and pick the one that you had the strongest reaction to, seemed to challenge your thinking/worldview the most, and/or you find most controversial in regards to your own thinking. It is okay if your previous belief was an assumption, instead of what you thought was “fact.” Please write your answer using bullet points or a numbered list that matches the items below. Refer to the rubric to see how I will score your answer.
Please do all you can to address something in this lesson, but if you did not encounter anything in this lesson that challenged your thinking, then please address something in the lesson that you remember learning at some point in your life prior to this class, and it challenged your thinking at that time. For example, if this week’s lesson detailed ecological footprint, and you learned about ecological footprint last year and it really challenged the way you thought, then address that by answering the questions below.
For full credit, submit all of the following:
1. Describe the item that challenged your thinking and how it contradicts what you had previously thought or known. 2. Identify why you thought the way you did before. Was it something you learned in school, a friend, the internet, etc.? 3. Do you think that your previously held position was influenced by bias in any way? Was the position based on un-I investigated assumptions? 4. Are you rethinking your previously held position or not, and why? What evidence changed your mind, or reinforced your previously held position?

For each of the following information sources, indicate whether or not they should be considered an unbiased source of information based on these aspects of each organization:

  • First, “who they are” (there should be a “Who are we?” or “Who we are” or “About Us” link somewhere), and
  • second, take a look at the overall perspective/slant/opinion of the articles on their website.
  • Don’t forget to indicate whether they are biased or unbiased, or some point in-between!

Feel free to google ” bias,” or other search terms to help support your assertion.

3 points each. Each explanation should be no more than a few sentences.

  1. SEIA (www.seia.org (Links to an external site.))
  2. The Institute for Energy Research (http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/ (Links to an external site.))
  3. The World Energy Council (https://www.worldenergy.org/ (Links to an external site.))
  4. The American Petroleum Institute (http://www.api.org/ (Links to an external site.))
  5. The CATO Institute (www.cato.org (Links to an external site.))

Please note that even biased organizations can have useful information, and also that the fact that an organization is a non-profit (a “.org”) does not mean anything regarding bias.

Order Similar Paper