Jessica's Sources for Research Paper

McCammack, Brian. “Hot Damned America: Evangelicalism and the Climate Change Policy Debate.” American Quarterly 59.3 (Sep. 2007): 645-668.
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: The article as a whole discusses the benefits of Global Warming. It talks about why we should not stop Global Warming as the author demonstrates more negative outcomes from stopping Global Warming than the continuation of Global Warming such as the poor will get poorer and Global Warming itself helps reduce the extinction of plant species and animals.
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: The relevance of the article to my argument is that the author discusses how the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations might result in some increase in global average temperature. However, increasing CO2 levels also result in enhanced plant growth and reduce desertification. Also he firmly establishes that it must not be ignored and he goes on to espouse the benefits of global warming in reducing species extinction.

“Interior seeks advice to minimize impact of wind turbines on wildlife.” Inside Energy with Federal Lands (Mar. 19, 2007): 14.
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This article is about how the measures the Interior Department is taking to reduce the danger of wind farms on bats, birds, and other wildlife, are insufficient. In the end, after reviewing comments on the guidelines and evaluating Interior said it decided that additional input would be valuable in developing a revised product from the FWS, which does not regulate wind energy development, and has proposed interim guidelines for citing and issued them two years later.”
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: This helps prove my point because like the article coherent that “In some instances, wind power has been shown to kill birds and bats during their daily activities and their seasonal migrations. The extent of the killing depends on where the turbines are situated and features of turbine designs that either attract birds and bats or allow them to avoid the machines, according to an FWS information sheet.” On Tuesday, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said "We know that wind power may be key to providing a vital new source of clean, renewable energy for America. But we also know that wind turbines can cause bird and bat mortality and may have other ecological impacts. This committee will help us examine issues such as site selection and turbine design so that we can develop wind resources while protecting wildlife."

Tuma, Debbie. “Turbine Plan in the Wind but foes fear farm may harm birds.” Daily News Suburbian (Sep. 17, 2007): 1.
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This article is about how the conflict of endangering birds comes into the way of the plans of building the nation’s first offshore wind farm to provide an alternate source of energy for 4,000 homes in Orient Point. But in the end, it is decided that the wind farm would be built as they would monitor the cite everyday to make sure no harm falls upon the wildlife.
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: This helps prove my point because it shows that to use wind farms as a solution to reduce the effects of Global Warming, the wildlife such as birds and fish are being jeopardized. Dennis Quaranta, president of Winergy, said “by building this first model wind farm off Orient Point, we would hope to let people see how we could use this renewable source of energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, like they have been doing successfully with 400 wind turbines in other parts of the world.” But the safety of animals should not be the price paid to have such solutions that can only help humans and not plant and animal species as Supervisor Scott Russell demonstrates at a recent meeting of the Southold Town Board where he said that “while alternative energy is an important goal, he was concerned about this particular site being situated in a "significant migratory bird area."


Hannan, Ewin. “'Parrot risk' wind farm to move turbines.” The Australian (Sep. 25, 2006): 4.
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: The article is about how a company called Bald Hills Farms who were approached and stopped by Environment Minister Ian Campbell for constructing turbines that would have caused potential migratory problems for an endangered species of birds called the orange-bellied parrot. In the end, since the parrot’s flight path is mostly within 2km of the coast and 6 out of the 52 turbines proposed for Bald Hills are within 2km of the Victorian coast or along the 2km boundary, therefore Campbell has convinced the company to move 6 of the turbines out of the route of harming the already endangered species of orange-bellied parrot.
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: This helps prove my point because this article shows how our conversions to wind farms and inventing turbines is a good solution for Global Warming and for our society but it provides harm to an endangered species of birds, the orange-bellied parrot, by potentially causing migratory problems. According to Senator Campbell, “the wind farm had the potential to kill one parrot a year, where the claim was based on the cumulative impact of 17 wind farms”, and this is held true, then not only will the orange-bellied parrot’s be endangered but they soon won’t exist.

Loder, Asjyln. “Nuclear Plant raises concerns, naturally.” St. Petersburg Times (Nov. 7, 2007): 1D.
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This article is about how the Levy County nuclear power plant in Florida planned by the Progress Energy that is supposed to help provide a home for endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker in turn provide harm to delicate fisheries by hacking into the forest preserves to make way for transmission lines. In the end, the nuclear power plant is going to be built next as they are hoping the positives will outweigh the negatives.
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: This helps prove my point because by hacking into the forest preserves, the food, shelter, environment, and the lives of animals such as snakes, rabbits, insects, tigers, and etc. will be destroyed and therefore ruin the entire forest along with the hundreds of animals that reside within. Also The environmental protection department “wanted assurances that the plant's water-cooling system will not damage the ecosystem near the Withlacoochee River or harm sea grass. The department was also concerned about the plant's potential impact on the Goethe State Forest. The 42,000-acre preserves borders on its northern edge.”

“Misconception on 'energy saving' could do more harm to our environment.” The Straits Times (May 22, 2007).
SUMMARY OF ARTICLE: This article as a whole talks about how the two ideas of energy saving and environmental friendly are being confused by combining together. “Energy saving is a means to reduce greenhouse gas emission but if a lot of waste is created in the process, it is not environmentally friendly.” Many energy saving solutions are presented but with side-effects that provide harm to both the environment and indirectly to animals. The solution that was decided to be the best solution was nuclear plants even though they create wastage which gets dumped in the water. But without considering the waste factor, the best solution to reducing greenhouse gas emission is to use nuclear power because it has zero gas emission.
RELEVANCE TO ARGUMENT: This helps prove my point because the different energy solutions to reduce the global average temperature from rising, a direct effect of Global Warming, has a negative effect attached that can provide harm to animals examples being “Fluorescent lamps, be it in compact or tubular form, need a device called ballast to limit the lamp current. There are two types of ballasts, namely electronic ballasts and magnetic ballasts. Limited by the lifetime of a component called electrolytic capacitor, e-CFLs have typical average lifetime ranging from seven months (6,000 hours) to about 14 months (10,000 hours).Each unit consists of two parts, namely an electronic ballast housed inside the plastic cover and a folded fluorescent lamp. The electronic ballast consists of toxic components and chemicals such as PBB and PCB, while the fluorescent lamp contains typically 3mg to 8mg of highly toxic mercury. Another problem of e-CFLs is that the electronic ballast fails faster than the lamps. This causes unnecessary wastage of lamps and mercury. Using e-CFLs to reduce carbon dioxide emission for a short time could lead to rapid accumulation of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and non-biodegradable e-waste that can harm the environment for thousands of years.”