Coggins, Jay. "Obama Stands Down On Ozone. A Betrayal? No". startribune.com. Updated 19 Sept 2011. 2011 Star Tribune. Web. 29 Sept 2011. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/130159943.html.
Summary
Coggins adresses the Clean Air Act in this article. President Obama postponed a final decision on a proposed law that would require less ground-level ozone. Environmentalists were apalled. However, upon further review, the costs outweigh the benefits of this new ozone-level budget. Coggins suggests that instead of spending 10s of billions on this and losing, we should invest that money for green energy and gain.
Author's Intent and Intended Audience
Coggins was upset at how people reacted to President Obama's postmonment so Coggins researched this topic. Coggins found that what President Obama did was, in fact, very practical. President Obama did not feel that the benifits were worth the loss of interest, but perhaps in a few years it could be. Thus, the postponment.
Evidence/Supports
Coggins states the exact costs next to specific benefits, "limiting ozone concentrations to 60 parts per billion would cost between $52 and $90 billion annually. The benefits, due to improved human health and avoided deaths, fall between $35 and $100 billion annually." This shows how easy it is to see the debt this would, more than likely, cause.
Fallacies/Biasies
Coggins is entirely biased towards President Obama's decision and states multiple facts to prove his rightness.
Response
This article was thoroughly researched and well structured. Coggins made sure to inclue a refute, problem, and solution.
Good Topic For Me?
This article was interesting, especially since I just learned that my sister's professor wrote this, as well as factual. However, I am not an advocate environmentalist nor am I at all informed enough to write more on this subject.
Good Topic For Others?
For an environmentalist, this could prove to be very interesting. One could show the other side of this argument and present different points. That would be an article I would love to read and see what side of this controversial issue I'm truly on.
This was a very good summary, along with great answers to all of the questions. You summarized the whole thing perfectly. I think if someone were to write about this they could find many other places to do research about it. Good Job!
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting article summary! In my opinion, I would difinitely side with Coggins. I am all for "saving the world," moreover, helping the environment. You explained everything really well. This would be a very easy subject to further your research on if you did choose to. Good job!
ReplyDelete