Write an Argument

User Generated

qbhoyrznk0927

Writing

English

English

Description

THE TOPIC:

You must write an argument in response to Klein's book THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

I have posted two examples of essays written by previous students. These essays were written directly in response to Klein's book.

Your final essay must meet all of these standards to pass:

1. 1,800 to 2,000 words;

2. the introduction must state a clear thesis—which is a conclusion of your argument in that it states your position on your issue/topic—in the introduction

3. must use a variety of types of reasons for supporting your conclusion/thesis, including statistics, research findings, case examples, and authoritative sources; you may also use personal experience and testimony, but those cannot be your only evidence;

4. contain an MLA formatted bibliography at the end of the essay, which contains at least ten sources, none of them wikipedia entries;

5. all quotes and paraphrasing and the bibliography must be in strictly MLA format;

6. must quote from a minimum of four different research sources; these quotes must be relevant and used as evidence to support your argument;

7. must quote from the book AND the documentary This Changes Everything, including that you MUST quote at least two times from PART 3 of the book; and

8. must conclude with a prescriptive assumption—that is, a closing statement about how the world MUST be in the future.

Follow the instruction.

Attached sample and steps for argument

Unformatted Attachment Preview

UN 1 --Alex Giardino EWRT 2 DL 21 Mar 2016 Our Relationship with Nature and the Battle against Climate Change Climate change is one among the most daunting threat to the environment today. It threatens not only the degradation of our health and environment, but it also impends to destroy the global economy and political security. In the United States, there are many steps taken to combat the threat caused by climate change. However, in the book entitled This Changes Everything, the author, Naomi Klein proposed that the attempt to work against climate change will surely fail, unless people will unite into a common understanding that it is a “part of a much broader battle of world views” (Klein 397). Further, while some people believe that there is no way to solve the current problem of climate change, the author suggested otherwise. As Klein argues, changing our views in terms of our relationship with nature will lead us to act collectively towards the attainment of better economic and political system that can completely address the problem on climate change. The signing into law of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970 reflected the will of the government in initiating legislative acts that welcomes regulatory measures for the modern day environment. The noteworthy transformation of the U.S environmental law after the signing of the NEPA was a result of a “remarkable burst of federal legislation adopted in response to the perceived inadequacies of the common law” (Percival 160). The emergence of many legislations is considered as a response to the shortfalls of the existing laws and the disappointment over the decentralized manner of securing the environment. There was an UN 2 overwhelming support towards these environmental rulings that engaged the federal agencies to institute regulatory programs on a national level. These regulatory programs that were implemented resulted in the reduction of many pollutants that for the most part, come from the emissions of big industries. Saving the environment was considered by many political leaders of the time to be more pressing than any other issues; however, Klein thought that these leaders were wrong. Klein argued that a sufficient and broad conception of the environmental crisis “neither trumps nor distracts from our most pressing political and economic causes: it supercharges each one of them with existential urgency” (Klein 134). For instance, almost all the environmental policies were comprised of either an explicit or implicit mechanism, that is, of defining a certain goal and the manner by which to attain that goal. Accordingly, these mechanisms “often are linked within the political process, because both the choice of a goal and the mechanism for achieving that goal have important political ramifications”(Stavins 31). Klein also noted that the example of industrialized countries in protecting the environment, such as cutting on in the amount of industrial emissions, determine how other countries will follow through in the future. This supports the argument that the fight for climate change should not be considered as a politically unconnected movement. Changing our perception of free trade and market fundamentalism will likewise result in a changed perception of our relationship with nature. Free trade has always been viewed in a positive light, that is, of being a source of economic growth. On the other, the concept of free market fundamentalism promotes the idea that societal well-being is upheld when businesses work mainly towards their self-interest, thus, generally directing their efforts to maximize profits (Stiglitz 346). However, a closer examination of free trade leads one to conclude that it can be destructive to the environment. Further, a closer look towards market fundamentalism exposes UN 3 one to the idea that it reinforces “the aggressive export of US ‘free market’ principles, the continuous tax cuts of the current administration, the deepening economic inequalities in the USA ..” (Block 327). In contrast to the general belief that market fundamentalism can help in the promotion of societal well-being, Klein argued it has in fact “become the greatest enemy to planetary health (Klein 23). The author noted that in the past several decades, people held the better part of the relationship as the physical requirements of the environment are carved to suit the people’s need for continuous growth, development and profit. This exemplified how market fundamentalism has implemented “policies that so successfully freed multinational corporations from virtually all constraints” (Klein 18). That is, the lack of stricter regulations on large industrial players resulted in the rise of gas emissions that cause global warming. When the Reagan administration suggested that “technology will ultimately be the answer to the problems of providing energy and protecting the environment” (Oreskes & Conway 182), the focus of the administration was more on the positive impact of technology and industrialization, and there was a clear disregard for how progress would impact climate change. Many environmentalists suggest that when mismanaged, “climate change will reverse development progress and compromise the well being of current and future generation” (World 37). However, Klein suggested that it was not yet too late to act and there is still a chance “to transform our economy so that it is less-resource intensive” (Klein 19). There is a need for people to change the perception towards the environment, that is, the natural resources are not ours to exploit just to suit the needs of the free trade and market fundamentalism. The reality that free trading or the absence of restrictive measures on commercial activity leads to climate change and environmental damage was being denied. For instance, there is a claim that the expansion of trade was known to have a scale effect because the higher level of UN 4 economic activities. These activities will “require greater energy use and since most countries rely on fossil fuels as their primary energy source, the scale effect will lead to higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions” (Tamiotti et al 50), however, this claim was vehemently denied by industrial capitalist who refute the concept that climate change is a major societal problem (Dunlap & Mccright 155). For example, fossil fuel industries have their own reason why they promote the idea that global warming is not caused by human activity, and that the threat is inflated and can be easily resolved (Davis & Rosen 2015). Consequently, it was difficult for many industrial players to attack legislations that support the environment because it could adversely impact their standing with the public. Their recourse shifted on the promotion of environmental skepticism, where the scientific evidence about environmental damage and the factors that cause it are challenged, most often citing that the evidence gathered by the scientific community was not sufficient to warrant restrictive regulations (Dunlap & Jacques 700). Klein suggested that we have to take a closer examination on market fundamentalism and its cultural implications “still block critical life-saving climate action on virtually every front” (Klein 55). People have to identify the political and cultural paradigms that deter them to work towards the prevention of climate change and the protection of the environment. A result of environmental assessment suggested that in order to avoid further deterioration of the environment and the occurrence of hazards brought by climate change, the global population and industries has to live within the limits imposed by the government. For example, a study in Latin American recommended that for the region to avoid 2 degrees increase in temperature, “about 40% of Latin American oil, about 55% of its gas, and 75% of its coal reserves, (…) would have to stay in the ground” (Edwards et al 6). Consequently, the challenge on the sustainable management of natural resources is not restricted to the Latin American region, but UN 5 to almost all countries around the world as well. For one, there are the perils of extractivism where a country relies on the extraction of its natural resources for a sound economy, to the impairment of the environment, and the deterrence of collective efforts towards climate change (Edwards et al 6). Klein pointed out that because of the point of view of extractivism, there is the wrongful perception that “there would be more earth for us to consume” (Klein 162). Further, the author of This Changes Everything stated that only when people are able to “leave extractivism behind and build the societies we need within the boundaries we have” (Klein 163), can we bel able to resolve to the existing environmental problems and climate change. The message of Naomi Klein in her book This Changes Everything is clear. There is a need for people to change their views towards nature, if we have to achieve sustainability. The transformation lies in the ability of us to change their point of view in areas such as the use of natural resources, progress, the link between the environment, climate change and political movements, as well as the idea of extractivism. There is fear that the inability of people to adapt towards changes that leads to the true form of sustainability may get them and the world into trouble in the near future. Nevertheless, while the looming climate change crisis threatens the survival of life on this planet, Klein offered that hope still exists. In a positive light, climate change can be viewed as an opportunity for people to unite and work as one towards a common goal. UN 6 Work Cited Block, Fred. "Confronting Market Fundamentalism: Doing ‘Public Economic Sociology’."Economic Sociology as Public Sociology (n.d.): 326-334. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Rosen, Bob, and James Davis. "Teaching About Climate Change." Radical Teacher 102 (2015): n. pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Dunlap, R., and P. Jacques. "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection." American Behavioral Science 57.6 (2013): 699-730. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Dunlop, Riley, and Aaron McCright. "The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming." The Sociological Quaterly (2011): n. pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Edwards, Guy, Timmons Roberts, Monica Araya, and Christian Retamal. "A new Global Agreement can Catalyze Climate Action in Latin America." Global Economy and Development (2015): n. pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Klein, Naoimi. This Changes Everything. Alfred A. Knofp Canada, 2014. PDF File. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. A&C Black, 2011. Web. 18 Mar 2016 Percival, Robert V. "Regulatory Evolution and the Future of Environmental Policy," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1997: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1997/iss1/7 Web. 18 Mar 2016 UN 7 Work Cited Stavins, Robert N. "Market-Based Environmental Policies." Public Policies for Environmental Protection. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2010. Print. Tamiotti, Ludvine, Robert Teh, Vesile Kulaçoğlu, Anee Olhoff, Benjamin Simmons, and Hussein Abaza. Trade and Climate Change. World Trade Organization, 2009. Web 18 Mar 2016 World Bank. Development and Climate Change: World Development Report. World Bank Publications, 2010. Web. 18 Mar 2016 STEPS to a SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT THE OVERVIEW An Argumentative essay takes a position on a debatable issue, such as abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gun control, tax increases, and so forth. In writing your argumentative essay, you think out the issues and take a position, which is called your thesis. You use the body of your essay to defend and explore your position. The goal is to persuade the reader to agree with your side of the issue. THE STEPS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Create a Strategy by exploring both sides of the argument and considering who will be your audience. To do this you will LIST the arguments on both sides of the issue and take notes on whom your readers will be. Consider the Merits and Weaknesses of Both Sides by looking over the lists of arguments and weighing them against how you previously felt about the issue. You also reconsider the audience as you do this. Take a Position by writing out your thesis. This is your firm stance on the issue. Create an Outline by using the items in your list that support your side of the issue. Draft an Introduction that clearly states your thesis, your position, and invites the reader into your argument. Use the Body of the Essay to Support Each Point in Your Argument with specific evidence. You may want to use statistics, evidence, examples from real life, expert opinions, and other reasonable sources of evidence. Present and Refute Opposing Arguments by drawing from you original lists. Show the weaknesses and problems in the other side’s position. This will bolster your case. Build a Link to Your Readers by finding some common ground between the two sides. This is often done by sharing the common values underlying a position on an issue, such as a sense of justice or fairness. Be Sure to Avoid Common Mistakes in Reasoning by carefully using inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning means: you arrive at a conclusion based on several facts. Deductive reasoning means you reach a conclusion based on premises, which may or may not be proven true. Also be sure to avoid logical fallacies, such as making hasty generalizations, using circular language, or employing biased language. Always provide a thorough bibliography for your well-researched argument essay. (taken from Rules for Writers, by D. Hacker [pp. 348-361])
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Check

Surname 1
Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Fight against Climatic Change and Our Relation with Environment
The better future that one can ever imagine of can be built with our action or inaction on
matters pertaining climatic change. This is because climatic change has become one of the
alarming threat to our environment and immediate action needs to be put in place to curb the
threat before it becomes a global disaster. That is why Naomi Klein in his book This Changes
Everything portrays that through global collective action and long-term planning, humans can
globally transform our political and economic system fast enough to deals with current emerging
crisis. Klein suggests that the very effort than man is trying to change the climatic crisis, it will
entirely fail unless collective action is taken in place. Many technological inventions help in
solving social problems globally but cannot help in solving the political and climatic problem.
Only a global mass movement and unity will be effective because man will express love,
strategize, set goals, make sacrifices, cooperate with each other, and reorient the political setup
and economic crisis. Besides, the ideology of people that there is no way to solve the current
climatic change, Klein argues otherwise. She argues that when we change our views with how
we relate to nature will eventually lead to collective action that will enhance better political and
economic system, thereby, addressing the climatic change problem. This paper seeks to argue
that through human collective action and changing our perception towards nature, we can solve
the current problem associated with climatic change.

Surname 2
The fight for climatic change is a politically interconnected act. According to Klein, the
combination of both politics and authoritative laws will build up the collective measures required
for the climatic change (Klein 234). This is portrayed by the government will in initiating
legislative acts that will enhance regulatory measures used for the environmental conservation
and maintenance. The emergence and signing of many legislations are viewed as a responsive
action by the political sector to help in raising the falling existing laws that govern the
environmental sector and tries to erase the disappointment of the previous laws and secure the
environment. The effort actually resulted in the reduction of pollution emitted by most big
industries, thus, saving the environment. Most political leaders because of the rapid increase of
environmental degradation actually considered this as the most fundamental thing. However,
despite the effort, Klein thought that still the leaders were mistaken in the essenc...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags