Stop the Argument on Climate Change

There is something beautiful in the simplest things in life. How often do we find ourselves stopping to appreciate a cluster of aspen trees silhouetted against the river, or even a single daffodil peeking out between the cracks in the sidewalk? Most of us do not take enough time to stop and admire these things, but imagine if they were gone. Imagine if there was no physical beauty of the natural world left to admire. Unless we can end the argument over climate change and focus more energy on stopping it, there will come a day when we have to say goodbye to the beauty that surrounds us.

The past decade has been heated in discussions over global climate change. The issue has clearly become bi-partisan. People either believe climate change is human-caused and happening, or they think it is earth’s natural weather patterns and it is completely unrelated to man’s activities on this planet. Even with the amount of scientific evidence which proves that human beings are causing the destruction of our planet, not enough people are ready to start making major changes. It is unfortunate that such an important issue has become solely political. Many conservative Americans hold the opinion that we can either help the economy, or the environment, but that the two are mutually exclusive. To make matters even worse, the general population of conservatives believes that the economy must take priority over the environment. It holds to logic that without a planet to live on, there would be no economy, therefore, to make their argument valid, many conservatives in Washington try to convince themselves and the population that climate change has been made up by liberals and scientists. It is possible to save the environment without destroying the economy, we just have to keep learning how.

There are several stakeholders to look at before any issues can be solved. There are the two obvious ones, the liberal citizens of the USA and the conservative citizens. Among these citizens are public officials who have been given the power to make decisions for all of us, both democrats and republicans. The last key stake-holder I have studied is the National Parks of our country. National Parks have an enormous amount of power in the issue. They uphold both economy and environment simultaneously. National Parks are a huge portion of the tourism industry and are run through conservation of the natural world. They not only help the environment by conserving land, water, and resources, but they encourage visitors from all over the world to be passionate about the natural world and its conservation, and they are one model that shows how it is possible to help the economy and environment at the same time. National Parks are a ground for all stakeholders to stand on and possibly reach an agreement.

Former Republican Congressman from Virginia, Bob Inglis is not in denial about climate change. It is believed that Inglis was voted out of his position in Congress in 2010 because he admitted to a radio host that he believes climate change has been caused by humans. (Fewell, 2016) Inglis calls himself both a conservative and an energy optimist, he has new ideas about what it means to be a republican and he believes this includes finding new and clean sources of energy. (Fewell, 2016) He has even established a new organization called, RepuclicEN which is a group of Republican Climate Optimists. (Fewell, 2016).

“We’re looking for more energy, more mobility, more freedom through cleaner, better, cheaper sources. That’s why we are climate optimists. The key to that new energy is free enterprise,” said Inglis.

There is a section here which I think is key to the future of climate change resolution, “…more freedom through cleaner, better, cheaper sources.” Republicans tend to hold a very nationalistic view about what it means to be an American. Perhaps the value of America I hear Republicans defend the most is, freedom. Inglis points out here that cleaner energy, and a healthy planet yields more freedom for Americans. When we are forced to rely on Petroleum for our energy, we have ties to other countries that pull the reins on our freedom, we are held back by the high cost of Petroleum, and we are left with fewer options in the way we live our lives. Tighter laws on emissions and stricter regulations may actually be the key to more freedom. What if we no longer were obligated to rely on the Middle East for our energy?

When it comes to the wedge climate change has driven between the left and right, Inglis said, “Those of us on the right sometimes feel that the environmental left sees humans as an invasive species. At RepublicEN.org we are part of the EcoRight. We believe in human flourishing. We believe in stewardship and conservation.”

Again, Inglis is really onto something here. It is not useful to frame humans as an invasive species because we are all human, and there really is no way to avoid our invasive nature. We are lucky to live in an age of heat, air conditioning, grocery stores, and automobiles. It would be extremely rare to find a human who has lived their entire life with these perks, willing to simply live in a cave, hunt their own food, and enjoy no luxuries. Man has the ability to make new inventions, and the desire to improve our quality of life. So the answer is not to stop the way man lives his life, but to keep innovating. Innovation creates industries and new industries are key to improving the economy and saving the environment.

Inglis believes the solution is to impose a tax that would work as “fee” for dumping waste into the sky. Just like you must pay to dump your trash into the landfill. (Fewell, 2016)

“If conservatives fail to enter the competition of ideas on climate change, the only solutions proffered will be the big-government solutions. The country will take something over nothing when it decides it has a need. By being absent from the debate over solutions to climate change, conservatives are taking an enormous risk,” said Inglis.

And that is my major point, we cannot solve anything when half the population remains absent from the discussion. By not blaming man as an invasive species, and instead using a positive outlook to explore innovation. We could get everyone on the same page and talking about what steps we need to take.

National Parks are so important in the issue because they are one of the few industries that help economy through conservation. Continuing to teach youth and adults why we should love our national parks is an enormous stride forwards towards increasing the national appreciation for the environment, and reminding the world that there is peace to be found when you allow yourself to wander away from the pavement of Wall Street.

Jim Thompson is a retired superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, and he is passionate about continuing to fund and preserve national parks. As Superintendent, he handled day-to-day issues along with over-seeing the overall success and preservation of the national park. He held his position as Park Superintendent from 1984 to 1993. Although this is now more than ten years ago, he still saw and dealt with many of the issues and conflicts which national parks face centering around climate change. According to Thompson, national parks allow us to learn the true meaning of stability where we cannot easily see it in our urban societies. “It is a place where we can measure, study, learn and educate ourselves about what stability actually means in the natural world that is constantly changing,” said Thompson.

Thompson said that parks have always, and still continue to suffer from a lack of federal support. He said that only when there are clearly extreme issues in supporting the public interest do politicians slowly try to help national parks. According to Thompson, economics and environmental conservation do not get along. “Climate change initiatives are long term commitments, and the American economy is short term based,” said Thompson. During his nine years as Park Superintendent, Thompson said that there was no “flexibility” to adjust to changing conditions which called for federal action. “Politicians and bureaucrats at the highest level always see the funding of national parks in the context of national fiscal policy,” he said. It is clear that on a national level, economic well-being is far more important than the well-being of the earth which supports every speck of life in existence.

Thompson’s wish for the future of national parks is that they will take us away from our focus on our “gadgets” and remind us of our real-world.

“My advice is to discover the real world, the world that sustains us, not just the virtual world. This means looking outward rather than inward,” said Thompson. National parks are a feature of our world that are so much more than an economic tool for recreation and tourism, and I hope that hearing perspectives from those passionate about parks such as Jim Thompson will help us all to see their importance.

Nick Molle is a Cinematographer and environmental activist. His two-man company, Nick Molle Productions travels the world making films about national parks on every continent in hopes to get more people excited about nature.

“There are rewards in cutting pollution, both chemical and mental. Don’t let special interests determine your opinion. Listen to the research, and then your conscience. We who so need our urban creations, also long for stepping into a forest to take a breath, and stare into a landscape which we had no part in creating,” said Molle.

Increasing the funding for National Parks is crucial to keeping them open, and will also give them the ability to bring more people to their gates. Although helping the tourism industry through National Parks is only a small step, it is a step. The most important thing here is that we cannot let our national parks close; they are the last remaining bits of an untouched world, they are living proof that environment and economy are not mutually exclusive, and they remind man why he should want to keep at least a small part of earth untouched.

In the article, “Did California figure out how to fix global warming?” Gabriel Kahn explains how California managed to hugely reduce its carbon footprint while also increasing the success of its economy. The article tells the story of Oildale, California. A town whose entire economy was based on oil that was able to switch over to relying on the industry of solar power. (Kahn, 2016) Oildale had the perfect landscape for wind and solar energy, and its success inspired the entire state. The new energy created more than thirteen-hundred jobs, and drew in more than fifty-million dollars in property taxes. (Kahn, 2016)

“Today, California can claim first place in just about every renewable-energy category: It is home to the nation’s largest wind farm and the world’s largest solar thermal plant. It has the largest operating photovoltaic solar installation on Earth and more rooftop solar than any other state,” wrote Kahn. Through the legislation of Governor Jerry Brown and Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, California managed to cut its carbon footprint by two-thirds, while creating jobs and taking more money into the economy. (Kahn, 2016)

But even with their enormous success, California only contributes to one percent of all carbon emitted by the entire world. The point is, if California could do it, so can everyone else.

There is no valid reasoning to support the argument that climate change is not a result of man’s over-exploitation of the environment. Solving the problem is perhaps one of the greatest challenges humanity will face. It will effect literally every single being on earth no matter what walk of life you come from. No other world issue has threatened to affect every single person on earth directly. My goal is to put an end to the argument over climate change, so that we can spend our time instead on saving the world. It is far past time to argue over whether or not climate change is real; we should be spending every bit of that energy on solving the problem.

So how do we get people to stop arguing and start doing something? I have three ways. The first is to do just as Inglis suggested, stop blaming it on the invasiveness of man, as this is both inevitable and does not sit well with many republicans. Instead we should argue that man is brilliant. Man must accept that oil isn’t working any longer, it doesn’t mean we have to stop enjoying our lives, but it means we must continue innovating. Next, we must support National Parks by helping fund and promote them. This will show that it is both important and economically viable to keep these sacred lands natural. Finally, we must show that enormous reductions in carbon emissions are possible. Climate Change can be such an overwhelming problem that one’s individual effort to reduce their carbon footprint can feel like trying to build the entire city of Rome just one tiny grain of sand at a time. When people hear stories about Oildale, California though, it makes goals of saving the environment seem tangible. By spreading stories like this, and finding our own small successes which we can tell as stories, we can spread hope and the idea that saving the world from climate change is, in fact, possible.

Annotated Bibliography

1) Rosen, M. (2016, February 09). The Idaho legislature still isn’t cool with schools talking about climate change. Fusion. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from fusion.net

a. This author of this article is Michael Rosen. My only concern here is that I do not know what his qualifications are.

b. This is an online newspaper article. Relevance: 5

c. This article is extremely relevant because it directly explores what the political issues are around climate change when it comes to legislature. The article gives a perfect example of why not enough is being done.

2) McDonald, M. (2016, February 08). Climate change has not been answered for farmers: We need more information, not less. The Guardian. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from theguardian.com

a. The author of this article is Marian McDonald who is personally a dairy farmer and experiencing what he is writing about first-hand.

b. This is an online newspaper article. Relevance: 4

c. This article is relevant because it shows how even farmers are seeing the effects of climate change and are concerned. It is interesting because many farmers are against the notion of climate change, but this article tells the stories of farmers who do believe in it.

3) Alfred Wegner Institute. (2016, February 09). How Stable is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Phys. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from Phys.org

a. The author of this article is the Alfred Wegner Institute. This is an institute which does a lot of articles on scientific research which makes this source very reliable.

b. Online newspaper article. Relevance: 4

c. This is a good source for my paper because it gives a lot of scientific evidence of what climate change is doing to our planet and backs up my argument very well.

4) Valentine, K. (2016, February 08). GOP Candidates Agree To Discuss Climate Change With Florida Mayors. Think Progress. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from thinkprogress.org

a. Katie Valentine is a reporter for The Progress, an online newspaper which discusses current political issues. I assume she has done a lot of work reporting on politics lately.

b. Online newspaper article: Relevance: 5

c. This article is extremely relevant because once again, it talks exactly about the political issue of climate change, where many republicans will not do anything about the issue. This article discusses two Republican figures finally standing up and admitting they will talk about climate change.

5) Urry, A. (2016, February 8). 7 Smarter Ways to Talk About Climate Change. Grist. Retrieved February 9, 2016, from grist.org

a. Amelia Urry is the author of this article. She has reported on several political issues and issues on climate change.

b. Newspaper article. Relevance: 5

c. This article gives insight into why some politicians are against the theory of climate change. It also offers a possible solution which is both peaceful and effective.

6) Vandeweert, C., Kerremans, B., & Cohn, A. (2016). Climate Voting in the US Congress: The power of public concern. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 268–302. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/cv_648906/docview/1758415463/7773C6374B424ACCPQ/16?accountid=10223

a. These three authors are all scholars on the subject: Clara Vandeweert, Bart Kerremans, and Avery Cohn.

b. Academic Journal: Long-form article- Relevance: 5

c. This long article explores my topic. It explains in depth why politics are keeping legislation from helping end climate change. This will be the long form article that I use.

7) Kahn, G. (2016, March 24). Did California Figure Out How to Fix Global Warming? Mother Jones. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from www.motherjones.org

a. Gabriel Kahn is a renowned journalist who spent ten years at the Wall Street Journal as the Los Angeles Bureau Chief. He also is a professor of economics and journalism and Annenberg University.

b. Online Newspaper Article- Relevance 5+

c. This article explains how California has managed to increase the success of their economy while hugely reducing their carbon footprint at the same time. This information is extremely valuable to my topic because much of the argument over climate change is due to the belief that either the economy or the environment must suffer.

8) Fewell, B. (2016, March 23). A Conservative Discussion on Climate Change- My Interview with Bob Inglis. Conserve Fewell. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from www.conservefewell.org

a. Fewell has been involved in several businesses and organization focusing on environment and natural resources. He was the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.

b. Article on journalism and blog website- Relevance 5

c. This article shows a conservative’s view on the issue of climate change, but it is very positive and leads to several opportunities for agreement between democrats and republicans.

displ!����Journalism Peace and War

Final Paper

Claire Molle

April 5, 2016

Stop the Argument over Climate Change

There is something beautiful in the simplest things in life. How often do we find ourselves stopping to appreciate a cluster of aspen trees silhouetted against the river, or even a single daffodil peeking out between the cracks in the sidewalk? Most of us do not take enough time to stop and admire these things, but imagine if they were gone. Imagine if there was no physical beauty of the natural world left to admire. Unless we can end the argument over climate change and focus more energy on stopping it, there will come a day when we have to say goodbye to the beauty that surrounds us.

The past decade has been heated in discussions over global climate change. The issue has clearly become bi-partisan. People either believe climate change is human-caused and happening, or they think it is earth’s natural weather patterns and it is completely unrelated to man’s activities on this planet. Even with the amount of scientific evidence which proves that human beings are causing the destruction of our planet, not enough people are ready to start making major changes. It is unfortunate that such an important issue has become solely political. Many conservative Americans hold the opinion that we can either help the economy, or the environment, but that the two are mutually exclusive. To make matters even worse, the general population of conservatives believes that the economy must take priority over the environment. It holds to logic that without a planet to live on, there would be no economy, therefore, to make their argument valid, many conservatives in Washington try to convince themselves and the population that climate change has been made up by liberals and scientists. It is possible to save the environment without destroying the economy, we just have to keep learning how.

There are several stakeholders to look at before any issues can be solved. There are the two obvious ones, the liberal citizens of the USA and the conservative citizens. Among these citizens are public officials who have been given the power to make decisions for all of us, both democrats and republicans. The last key stake-holder I have studied is the National Parks of our country. National Parks have an enormous amount of power in the issue. They uphold both economy and environment simultaneously. National Parks are a huge portion of the tourism industry and are run through conservation of the natural world. They not only help the environment by conserving land, water, and resources, but they encourage visitors from all over the world to be passionate about the natural world and its conservation, and they are one model that shows how it is possible to help the economy and environment at the same time. National Parks are a ground for all stakeholders to stand on and possibly reach an agreement.

Former Republican Congressman from Virginia, Bob Inglis is not in denial about climate change. It is believed that Inglis was voted out of his position in Congress in 2010 because he admitted to a radio host that he believes climate change has been caused by humans. (Fewell, 2016) Inglis calls himself both a conservative and an energy optimist, he has new ideas about what it means to be a republican and he believes this includes finding new and clean sources of energy. (Fewell, 2016) He has even established a new organization called, RepuclicEN which is a group of Republican Climate Optimists. (Fewell, 2016).

“We’re looking for more energy, more mobility, more freedom through cleaner, better, cheaper sources. That’s why we are climate optimists. The key to that new energy is free enterprise,” said Inglis.

There is a section here which I think is key to the future of climate change resolution, “…more freedom through cleaner, better, cheaper sources.” Republicans tend to hold a very nationalistic view about what it means to be an American. Perhaps the value of America I hear Republicans defend the most is, freedom. Inglis points out here that cleaner energy, and a healthy planet yields more freedom for Americans. When we are forced to rely on Petroleum for our energy, we have ties to other countries that pull the reins on our freedom, we are held back by the high cost of Petroleum, and we are left with fewer options in the way we live our lives. Tighter laws on emissions and stricter regulations may actually be the key to more freedom. What if we no longer were obligated to rely on the Middle East for our energy?

When it comes to the wedge climate change has driven between the left and right, Inglis said, “Those of us on the right sometimes feel that the environmental left sees humans as an invasive species. At RepublicEN.org we are part of the EcoRight. We believe in human flourishing. We believe in stewardship and conservation.”

Again, Inglis is really onto something here. It is not useful to frame humans as an invasive species because we are all human, and there really is no way to avoid our invasive nature. We are lucky to live in an age of heat, air conditioning, grocery stores, and automobiles. It would be extremely rare to find a human who has lived their entire life with these perks, willing to simply live in a cave, hunt their own food, and enjoy no luxuries. Man has the ability to make new inventions, and the desire to improve our quality of life. So the answer is not to stop the way man lives his life, but to keep innovating. Innovation creates industries and new industries are key to improving the economy and saving the environment.

Inglis believes the solution is to impose a tax that would work as “fee” for dumping waste into the sky. Just like you must pay to dump your trash into the landfill. (Fewell, 2016)

“If conservatives fail to enter the competition of ideas on climate change, the only solutions proffered will be the big-government solutions. The country will take something over nothing when it decides it has a need. By being absent from the debate over solutions to climate change, conservatives are taking an enormous risk,” said Inglis.

And that is my major point, we cannot solve anything when half the population remains absent from the discussion. By not blaming man as an invasive species, and instead using a positive outlook to explore innovation. We could get everyone on the same page and talking about what steps we need to take.

National Parks are so important in the issue because they are one of the few industries that help economy through conservation. Continuing to teach youth and adults why we should love our national parks is an enormous stride forwards towards increasing the national appreciation for the environment, and reminding the world that there is peace to be found when you allow yourself to wander away from the pavement of Wall Street.

Jim Thompson is a retired superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, and he is passionate about continuing to fund and preserve national parks. As Superintendent, he handled day-to-day issues along with over-seeing the overall success and preservation of the national park. He held his position as Park Superintendent from 1984 to 1993. Although this is now more than ten years ago, he still saw and dealt with many of the issues and conflicts which national parks face centering around climate change. According to Thompson, national parks allow us to learn the true meaning of stability where we cannot easily see it in our urban societies. “It is a place where we can measure, study, learn and educate ourselves about what stability actually means in the natural world that is constantly changing,” said Thompson.

Thompson said that parks have always, and still continue to suffer from a lack of federal support. He said that only when there are clearly extreme issues in supporting the public interest do politicians slowly try to help national parks. According to Thompson, economics and environmental conservation do not get along. “Climate change initiatives are long term commitments, and the American economy is short term based,” said Thompson. During his nine years as Park Superintendent, Thompson said that there was no “flexibility” to adjust to changing conditions which called for federal action. “Politicians and bureaucrats at the highest level always see the funding of national parks in the context of national fiscal policy,” he said. It is clear that on a national level, economic well-being is far more important than the well-being of the earth which supports every speck of life in existence.

Thompson’s wish for the future of national parks is that they will take us away from our focus on our “gadgets” and remind us of our real-world.

“My advice is to discover the real world, the world that sustains us, not just the virtual world. This means looking outward rather than inward,” said Thompson. National parks are a feature of our world that are so much more than an economic tool for recreation and tourism, and I hope that hearing perspectives from those passionate about parks such as Jim Thompson will help us all to see their importance.

Nick Molle is a Cinematographer and environmental activist. His two-man company, Nick Molle Productions travels the world making films about national parks on every continent in hopes to get more people excited about nature.

“There are rewards in cutting pollution, both chemical and mental. Don’t let special interests determine your opinion. Listen to the research, and then your conscience. We who so need our urban creations, also long for stepping into a forest to take a breath, and stare into a landscape which we had no part in creating,” said Molle.

Increasing the funding for National Parks is crucial to keeping them open, and will also give them the ability to bring more people to their gates. Although helping the tourism industry through National Parks is only a small step, it is a step. The most important thing here is that we cannot let our national parks close; they are the last remaining bits of an untouched world, they are living proof that environment and economy are not mutually exclusive, and they remind man why he should want to keep at least a small part of earth untouched.

In the article, “Did California figure out how to fix global warming?” Gabriel Kahn explains how California managed to hugely reduce its carbon footprint while also increasing the success of its economy. The article tells the story of Oildale, California. A town whose entire economy was based on oil that was able to switch over to relying on the industry of solar power. (Kahn, 2016) Oildale had the perfect landscape for wind and solar energy, and its success inspired the entire state. The new energy created more than thirteen-hundred jobs, and drew in more than fifty-million dollars in property taxes. (Kahn, 2016)

“Today, California can claim first place in just about every renewable-energy category: It is home to the nation’s largest wind farm and the world’s largest solar thermal plant. It has the largest operating photovoltaic solar installation on Earth and more rooftop solar than any other state,” wrote Kahn. Through the legislation of Governor Jerry Brown and Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board, California managed to cut its carbon footprint by two-thirds, while creating jobs and taking more money into the economy. (Kahn, 2016)

But even with their enormous success, California only contributes to one percent of all carbon emitted by the entire world. The point is, if California could do it, so can everyone else.

There is no valid reasoning to support the argument that climate change is not a result of man’s over-exploitation of the environment. Solving the problem is perhaps one of the greatest challenges humanity will face. It will effect literally every single being on earth no matter what walk of life you come from. No other world issue has threatened to affect every single person on earth directly. My goal is to put an end to the argument over climate change, so that we can spend our time instead on saving the world. It is far past time to argue over whether or not climate change is real; we should be spending every bit of that energy on solving the problem.

So how do we get people to stop arguing and start doing something? I have three ways. The first is to do just as Inglis suggested, stop blaming it on the invasiveness of man, as this is both inevitable and does not sit well with many republicans. Instead we should argue that man is brilliant. Man must accept that oil isn’t working any longer, it doesn’t mean we have to stop enjoying our lives, but it means we must continue innovating. Next, we must support National Parks by helping fund and promote them. This will show that it is both important and economically viable to keep these sacred lands natural. Finally, we must show that enormous reductions in carbon emissions are possible. Climate Change can be such an overwhelming problem that one’s individual effort to reduce their carbon footprint can feel like trying to build the entire city of Rome just one tiny grain of sand at a time. When people hear stories about Oildale, California though, it makes goals of saving the environment seem tangible. By spreading stories like this, and finding our own small successes which we can tell as stories, we can spread hope and the idea that saving the world from climate change is, in fact, possible.

Annotated Bibliography

1) Rosen, M. (2016, February 09). The Idaho legislature still isn’t cool with schools talking about climate change. Fusion. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from fusion.net

a. This author of this article is Michael Rosen. My only concern here is that I do not know what his qualifications are.

b. This is an online newspaper article. Relevance: 5

c. This article is extremely relevant because it directly explores what the political issues are around climate change when it comes to legislature. The article gives a perfect example of why not enough is being done.

2) McDonald, M. (2016, February 08). Climate change has not been answered for farmers: We need more information, not less. The Guardian. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from theguardian.com

a. The author of this article is Marian McDonald who is personally a dairy farmer and experiencing what he is writing about first-hand.

b. This is an online newspaper article. Relevance: 4

c. This article is relevant because it shows how even farmers are seeing the effects of climate change and are concerned. It is interesting because many farmers are against the notion of climate change, but this article tells the stories of farmers who do believe in it.

3) Alfred Wegner Institute. (2016, February 09). How Stable is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Phys. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from Phys.org

a. The author of this article is the Alfred Wegner Institute. This is an institute which does a lot of articles on scientific research which makes this source very reliable.

b. Online newspaper article. Relevance: 4

c. This is a good source for my paper because it gives a lot of scientific evidence of what climate change is doing to our planet and backs up my argument very well.

4) Valentine, K. (2016, February 08). GOP Candidates Agree To Discuss Climate Change With Florida Mayors. Think Progress. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from thinkprogress.org

a. Katie Valentine is a reporter for The Progress, an online newspaper which discusses current political issues. I assume she has done a lot of work reporting on politics lately.

b. Online newspaper article: Relevance: 5

c. This article is extremely relevant because once again, it talks exactly about the political issue of climate change, where many republicans will not do anything about the issue. This article discusses two Republican figures finally standing up and admitting they will talk about climate change.

5) Urry, A. (2016, February 8). 7 Smarter Ways to Talk About Climate Change. Grist. Retrieved February 9, 2016, from grist.org

a. Amelia Urry is the author of this article. She has reported on several political issues and issues on climate change.

b. Newspaper article. Relevance: 5

c. This article gives insight into why some politicians are against the theory of climate change. It also offers a possible solution which is both peaceful and effective.

6) Vandeweert, C., Kerremans, B., & Cohn, A. (2016). Climate Voting in the US Congress: The power of public concern. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 268–302. Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/cv_648906/docview/1758415463/7773C6374B424ACCPQ/16?accountid=10223

a. These three authors are all scholars on the subject: Clara Vandeweert, Bart Kerremans, and Avery Cohn.

b. Academic Journal: Long-form article- Relevance: 5

c. This long article explores my topic. It explains in depth why politics are keeping legislation from helping end climate change. This will be the long form article that I use.

7) Kahn, G. (2016, March 24). Did California Figure Out How to Fix Global Warming? Mother Jones. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from www.motherjones.org

a. Gabriel Kahn is a renowned journalist who spent ten years at the Wall Street Journal as the Los Angeles Bureau Chief. He also is a professor of economics and journalism and Annenberg University.

b. Online Newspaper Article- Relevance 5+

c. This article explains how California has managed to increase the success of their economy while hugely reducing their carbon footprint at the same time. This information is extremely valuable to my topic because much of the argument over climate change is due to the belief that either the economy or the environment must suffer.

8) Fewell, B. (2016, March 23). A Conservative Discussion on Climate Change- My Interview with Bob Inglis. Conserve Fewell. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from www.conservefewell.org

a. Fewell has been involved in several businesses and organization focusing on environment and natural resources. He was the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.

b. Article on journalism and blog website- Relevance 5

c. This article shows a conservative’s view on the issue of climate change, but it is very positive and leads to several opportunities for agreement between democrats and republicans.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Claire Molle’s story.