http://time.com/5400199/trump-ends-methane-restriction/
This is a secondary source of the effects of the Trump administration’s new policy to end the environmental restrictions put in place by Obama’s administration. Although it does have quotes from government officials for the most part, the article is still a secondary source.
The article is reputable since it comes from TIME magazine, a reliable news source that reports on a variety of topics. TIME magazine is known to be a liberal source, but in this particular article, there isn’t any significant bias since it provides the republican and democratic sides to the argument.
The main idea of the source is that there are drawbacks and advantages to the Trump administration’s decision to roll back the environmental restrictions already in place. The restrictions could reduce business by billions of dollars, but they also heavily restricted the amount of methane, a potent chemical primarily responsible for global warming, in the atmosphere.
The article has statistics about the cost for business that they had to pay in order to limit their emissions which could be used for a potential counterargument. It mentions how companies can save up to “$2 billion in compliance costs” with the policies the Trump administration have put into effect. This could be used to argue that the U.S. can’t afford to make restrictions if it means reducing business by billions of dollars. The article also has other statistics about the amount of methane that will be released into the atmosphere to show this new policy is hurtful to the environment. The article also claims that with the previous regulation methane emission would have been reduced by “180,000 tons a year,” but now all that is back into the atmosphere. This could be used to argue that the previous restrictions were very effective in reducing potent gases in the atmosphere.
*https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html
This is a primary source of the effects of the lack of environment restrictions under the Trump Administration. Even though some of the information is a report of Trump’s recent policy to get rid of lots of environmental restrictions, there are lots of statistics provided of the types of restriction that were thrown out in this recent policy. The article has lots of information about the specifics of all restrictions being disregarded by this new policy.
The article is reputable since it comes from the New York Times, which is a very well known news source. It is biased since it is from the New York Times is liberal source, but the article provides lot of objective facts and projections.
The article discusses the environmental policies that have been thrown out by the Trump’s administration, and what types of environmental restrictions were targeted by the administration. It also discusses the health concerns that this new policy brings up, and how many people will be affected by all the potent chemicals in the atmosphere.
The article provides some statistics about how many more people will die and have respiratory problems as a result of the lack of environmental restrictions. The article makes reference to a recent study that suggest that in the next decade there could be one million more cause of respiratory problems from the extra gas in the air. This could be used to argue the health concerns with all the extra gas in the atmosphere. The article also provides a table of all the types of environmental restrictions that will no longer exist. For example, in terms of water pollution, there are already 3 restriction overturned and 3 in the process of being overturned, and the article says that there was a total of 76 restrictions that were overturned through this new policy. This could show how even if the policy was to be justified it was too extreme and cut back the restrictions be too much.
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts
This is a secondary source since it is just a list with some of the possible consequences of global warming and implications of each of these consequence.
The article is reputable since it is from a the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non profit science advocacy organization. It is a liberal source, but it also provides the science behind global warming which can’t be denied.
The article discusses the many implications global warming could have on society and even the natural disasters that could arise from global warming. It discusses the possible dangers that arise from the increase in the temperature and the effects that will have on society.
The article provides a long list of the consequences of global warming along with some explanations for each. One of the biggest effects that the article makes reference to is wildfires and how the increased temperature can facilitate wildfires even more. This could be used for the introduction to establish why this is a very important issue, especially right now. This could be used to establish some precedent for why this issue is being discussed at all.