Today in class, my classmates and I participated in a peer review. What we did was reviewed each others' papers and received as well as provided feedback for our rough drafts. Some of the feedback that I received from my peers was that I had a good thesis, and that I should add more topics or main ideas to my introduction. Andrew also suggests that I add more of my opinion to give it "flare."
My biggest concerns with this essay assignment is trying to choose and organize my idea. I believe I am having a hard time trying to choose the ideas that I feel are most important and that I want to include in my essay. I am also having a hard time transition from one idea to the next. I would like for us to discuss in class exactly how the essay is expected to be structured in regards to how many main ideas should be included and how much supporting information should be used to back up the main ideas. I will be looking at sample letters/essays online as well as having my peers reread my draft during the next class.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Preparing New York City for global warming and climate change will be difficult and expensive. One article that talks about this is "New York is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics Warn" written by Mireya Navarro in September 2012. She writes about how New York City is preparing to face climate change and severe weather. She states "adapting a city of eight million people to climate change is infinitely more complicated and the costs must be weighed" (Navarro). New York City is a huge city. Convincing eight million people that climate change is expected to come and to raise awareness to all to the people of this city is beyond perplex and may be more expensive than we think. I believe that we need to focus on this idea because many people are extremely skeptical about global warming and climate change. Raising awareness to this subject and informing eight million people will not be easy, however, it will be very beneficial. Aside from the skepticism from the people of our city, it would cost us so much money to produce commercials and advertisements in the subways, around the city, as well as on TV. It would raise awareness to those who already believe in global warming and it would also ensure them that our city is doing something to let people know that we are working towards preparation.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Hello, my name is Maryem Shalaby. I am a student in English 101 studying climate change through writing. We are currently using the book "The Climate Casino" by William Nordhaus, a Professor of Economics at Yale University. In this blog, I will be comparing two of the many graphs illustrated in the text to explain the importance of the information it withholds.
The first graph, Figure 2 is located on page 21. It illustrates the increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions on a global level from the years 1900-2010. The x-axis (bottom, horizontal axis of the graph), displays the years, while the y-axis (left, vertical axis of the graph), displays the amount of emissions in billions of tons of CO2. Some of the periods were slower than others, however, generally speaking the growth has been an upward trend, increasing by about 2.6% each year. Starting in 1900, the amount of CO2 emissions was roughly 2 billion tons and increasing each year till the end of the graph which illustrates the emissions reaching up to roughly about 35 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
This graph is important because it shows us how much the emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing rapidly over the years and that this IS a serious issue. It is also important because it shows the reader that the emissions are measured in BILLIONS of tons rather than thousands or millions. This is an extremely large amount. One might ask, "Why are the CO2 emissions growing so rapidly and so much...?" The reason for this growth is simple...the economy is growing.
This graph is supports the idea that William Nordhaus suggests about how we would be shocked at the amount of energy we use, which causes all this carbon dioxide to be produced in the environment. We use so much fossil fuels that create the negative affect of the CO2 in the air. "We use it to drive, to fly, to heat our houses and schools, to run our computers, and for everything we do", states Nordhaus. Its an expensive necessity and its costing us a great change in our environment and climate.
The first graph, Figure 2 is located on page 21. It illustrates the increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions on a global level from the years 1900-2010. The x-axis (bottom, horizontal axis of the graph), displays the years, while the y-axis (left, vertical axis of the graph), displays the amount of emissions in billions of tons of CO2. Some of the periods were slower than others, however, generally speaking the growth has been an upward trend, increasing by about 2.6% each year. Starting in 1900, the amount of CO2 emissions was roughly 2 billion tons and increasing each year till the end of the graph which illustrates the emissions reaching up to roughly about 35 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year.
This graph is important because it shows us how much the emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing rapidly over the years and that this IS a serious issue. It is also important because it shows the reader that the emissions are measured in BILLIONS of tons rather than thousands or millions. This is an extremely large amount. One might ask, "Why are the CO2 emissions growing so rapidly and so much...?" The reason for this growth is simple...the economy is growing.
This graph is supports the idea that William Nordhaus suggests about how we would be shocked at the amount of energy we use, which causes all this carbon dioxide to be produced in the environment. We use so much fossil fuels that create the negative affect of the CO2 in the air. "We use it to drive, to fly, to heat our houses and schools, to run our computers, and for everything we do", states Nordhaus. Its an expensive necessity and its costing us a great change in our environment and climate.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Hello!! Thanks for stopping by!! My name is Maryem Shalaby and I am a student at LaGuardia Community College taking an awesome English 101 course revolving around climate change.
The New York Times article "New York Is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics Warn," by Mireya Navarro reflects on how New York City is preparing for major and drastic climate change. This article was written back in September of 2012, which is when former Mayor Bloomberg was still in office. Some of the steps that his administration took include expanding saturated land to serve the need of rising tides, installing water proof roofs for rainwater, and urging home owners to move their boilers if they are located in a basement that is prone to flooding.
Many critics believe that New York is not addressing or preparing for an event of major flooding fast enough. If another storm like Hurricane Sandy hits New York City in the near future, it will impact the MTA, (which many people like myself depend on), wash out Wall Street, and possibly cause a great number of residents to evacuate. Douglas Hill who is an engineer with the Storm Surge Research Group at Stony Brook University suggests that NYC should be more concerned with protecting our city instead of trying to prepare for a flood. He advises that we build sea gates to block the high waters from coming into the city in the case of another serious storm like Sandy. However, many people are upset that government officials are more concerned with Lower Manhattan and neglecting the need for protection elsewhere like South Bronx and parts of Brooklyn, which are exposed to the waterfronts as well. Not only are these areas are exposed to flooding, but they are also exposed to chemical producing plants, sites that store oil, and garbage transfer stations. If these areas are not protected, they will produce a toxic, dangerous, and extremely harmful environment for its residents.
There are a little over 8 million people living in the city of New York. A very few number of them are aware of the climate change that is affected by the serious issue of global warming. There has been a significant rise in sea levels over the past few years and it is expected that these levels will be rising even more. This means that over time, a simple rain shower can present a huge threat to the city just as a hurricane can be today. Scary, huh?
"Apartmentzero", a reader from Buffalo, New York believes that if Mitt Romney would have been elected as President, he would have not taken steps to continue preparing the city for the high risk of serious flooding due to a storm. He suggests that Mitt Romney has agendas other than providing awareness to the serious global climate change that New York City is clearly unprepared for. Apartmentzero says that the money collected for studies and the building of sea gates for the city would "dry up".
Apartmentzero also suggests that some of the media is condoning the ignorance of climate change. These sources of media include the Fox News channel and the Wall Street Journal. He states that these sources "work against a rational understanding and approach to global warming." I think he bought this point up to try to prove that the government takes benefit in ensuring that the people of this country, (not just New York City), remain clueless and blind to the issue of global warming. Money can be spent elsewhere, (maybe a tea party, ((literally)) or something that they wouldn't have to spend so much money on).
He also applauds The New York Times for raising awareness to this issue. He is impressed by the knowledge and usage of science in the article as well as the positive steps being taken to prepare the Big Apple for the big worm that is yet to come. I think its awesome that there are people and sources out there that are trying to raise awareness of New Yorkers to the issue of global warming. Over the years, I have heard of global warming, but never really understood it. I understood some of the basic science behind it, but never actually thought about its consequences or how it could affect MY life. I'm glad that this is something I will be learning about in depth in my English class. I would definitely appreciate it if I came across more campaigns, newspapers, and media sources that raise awareness to the issue of global warming and helping people understand that this IS a major issue and it IS serious. We definitely should not underestimate the intensity of how serious this is. Many people will not be able to prepare for something so big on short notice, especially if its something they have no background knowledge of. This as Apartmentzero suggests, will result in "catastrophe."
The New York Times article "New York Is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics Warn," by Mireya Navarro reflects on how New York City is preparing for major and drastic climate change. This article was written back in September of 2012, which is when former Mayor Bloomberg was still in office. Some of the steps that his administration took include expanding saturated land to serve the need of rising tides, installing water proof roofs for rainwater, and urging home owners to move their boilers if they are located in a basement that is prone to flooding.
Many critics believe that New York is not addressing or preparing for an event of major flooding fast enough. If another storm like Hurricane Sandy hits New York City in the near future, it will impact the MTA, (which many people like myself depend on), wash out Wall Street, and possibly cause a great number of residents to evacuate. Douglas Hill who is an engineer with the Storm Surge Research Group at Stony Brook University suggests that NYC should be more concerned with protecting our city instead of trying to prepare for a flood. He advises that we build sea gates to block the high waters from coming into the city in the case of another serious storm like Sandy. However, many people are upset that government officials are more concerned with Lower Manhattan and neglecting the need for protection elsewhere like South Bronx and parts of Brooklyn, which are exposed to the waterfronts as well. Not only are these areas are exposed to flooding, but they are also exposed to chemical producing plants, sites that store oil, and garbage transfer stations. If these areas are not protected, they will produce a toxic, dangerous, and extremely harmful environment for its residents.
There are a little over 8 million people living in the city of New York. A very few number of them are aware of the climate change that is affected by the serious issue of global warming. There has been a significant rise in sea levels over the past few years and it is expected that these levels will be rising even more. This means that over time, a simple rain shower can present a huge threat to the city just as a hurricane can be today. Scary, huh?
"Apartmentzero", a reader from Buffalo, New York believes that if Mitt Romney would have been elected as President, he would have not taken steps to continue preparing the city for the high risk of serious flooding due to a storm. He suggests that Mitt Romney has agendas other than providing awareness to the serious global climate change that New York City is clearly unprepared for. Apartmentzero says that the money collected for studies and the building of sea gates for the city would "dry up".
Apartmentzero also suggests that some of the media is condoning the ignorance of climate change. These sources of media include the Fox News channel and the Wall Street Journal. He states that these sources "work against a rational understanding and approach to global warming." I think he bought this point up to try to prove that the government takes benefit in ensuring that the people of this country, (not just New York City), remain clueless and blind to the issue of global warming. Money can be spent elsewhere, (maybe a tea party, ((literally)) or something that they wouldn't have to spend so much money on).
He also applauds The New York Times for raising awareness to this issue. He is impressed by the knowledge and usage of science in the article as well as the positive steps being taken to prepare the Big Apple for the big worm that is yet to come. I think its awesome that there are people and sources out there that are trying to raise awareness of New Yorkers to the issue of global warming. Over the years, I have heard of global warming, but never really understood it. I understood some of the basic science behind it, but never actually thought about its consequences or how it could affect MY life. I'm glad that this is something I will be learning about in depth in my English class. I would definitely appreciate it if I came across more campaigns, newspapers, and media sources that raise awareness to the issue of global warming and helping people understand that this IS a major issue and it IS serious. We definitely should not underestimate the intensity of how serious this is. Many people will not be able to prepare for something so big on short notice, especially if its something they have no background knowledge of. This as Apartmentzero suggests, will result in "catastrophe."
Monday, March 10, 2014
The Climate Casino--
William Nordhaus in his book, "The Climate Casino", suggests that raising the prices of Carbon Dioxide will solve the issue of global warming. What does it mean to raise the price of Carbon Dioxide? How do you charge people for Carbon Dioxide? It pretty much means to raise prices on things that produce Carbon Dioxide. Cars and gasoline as well as toxin producing services we use everyday such as buses, (MTA) are just a few examples of things that would increase in price in order to control the CO2 in the environment according to Nordhaus. He argues that this is an issue on a global level rather than just local. I understand his point of view but I would definitely have to disagree with Nordhaus. People are overwhelmed with so many expenses nowadays that it just makes no sense to charge people or raise the price of these services that we rely on to complete basic tasks throughout the day. People produce CO2 just by breathing, does that mean we should be charged for that as well? A large population does not even believe in global warming, let alone know that it even exists, and others are suggesting that we charge for Carbon Dioxide? I can see why one may think that charging people for something may cause them to limit their usage. Therefore, I think this idea is unrealistic, unreasonable and doesn't solve the issue at hand.
William Nordhaus in his book, "The Climate Casino", suggests that raising the prices of Carbon Dioxide will solve the issue of global warming. What does it mean to raise the price of Carbon Dioxide? How do you charge people for Carbon Dioxide? It pretty much means to raise prices on things that produce Carbon Dioxide. Cars and gasoline as well as toxin producing services we use everyday such as buses, (MTA) are just a few examples of things that would increase in price in order to control the CO2 in the environment according to Nordhaus. He argues that this is an issue on a global level rather than just local. I understand his point of view but I would definitely have to disagree with Nordhaus. People are overwhelmed with so many expenses nowadays that it just makes no sense to charge people or raise the price of these services that we rely on to complete basic tasks throughout the day. People produce CO2 just by breathing, does that mean we should be charged for that as well? A large population does not even believe in global warming, let alone know that it even exists, and others are suggesting that we charge for Carbon Dioxide? I can see why one may think that charging people for something may cause them to limit their usage. Therefore, I think this idea is unrealistic, unreasonable and doesn't solve the issue at hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)