Assignment 4 PowerPoint Presentation Due Week 10 And Worth 2 ✓ Solved

Assignment 4 Powerpoint Presentationdue Week 10 And Worth 200 Pointsu

Using Assignments 1, 2 and 3, create a 6-8 slide PowerPoint presentation in which you: Provide a historical perspective of the policy from Assignment 1. Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from Assignment 2. Present both of the positions of the policy from Assignment 3. Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is worthy of the policy being implemented. Include at least four (4) peer-reviewed references (no more than five [5] years old) from material outside the textbook.

Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental Websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other Websites ending in anything other than “.gov” do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Your assignment must: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date.

The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required page length. Be narrated, using the slide notes section in PowerPoint. This is what your grade will be based on. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Explain how environmental factors (structural, political, economic, demographic) influence the development of public policy. Understand how relationships between participants in the policy process (including official and nonofficial actors) influence the policy process. Understand the different policy types, and how policy type influences policy design, policy tool choice, and implementation. Use technology and information resources to research issues and in politics, policy, and ethics in the public sector. Write clearly and concisely about policy for issues in politics, policy, and ethics in the public sector using proper writing mechanics. Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Public policy development is a complex process influenced by various environmental factors, political dynamics, and societal interests. To illustrate this, the policy concerning environmental regulation of urban air quality serves as a pertinent example. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis based on the assigned components: historical perspective, key actors, policy positions, and persuasive argumentation advocating a specific position.

Historical Perspective of the Policy

The evolution of urban air quality regulation dates back to the early 20th century, emphasizing technological advancements and public health concerns. The 1952 Great Smog of London marked a pivotal point, galvanizing international efforts to control air pollution (H.E. S. & Williams, 2019). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, legislative acts such as the Clean Air Act of 1970 in the United States and similar legislation globally, aimed to set emission standards and establish regulatory bodies. Initially reactive, the policy began to incorporate proactive pollution control strategies, reflecting an understanding of the economic and health impacts of poor air quality (Lim & Rees, 2020). Over time, scientific research illuminated the multifaceted causes and effects of air pollution, leading to increasingly stringent standards and technological innovations in emission reductions. This historical progression underscores the dynamic nature of environmental policies, shaped by scientific findings, public demand, and economic considerations.

Official and Unofficial Actors

The policy’s development involved numerous players. Official actors include government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US, which is tasked with enforcing standards, setting regulations, and monitoring compliance (EPA, 2021). Legislative bodies, such as Congress or Parliament, authorize funding and pass laws that reflect societal priorities. State and local environmental agencies also play vital roles in implementation and enforcement (Jones & Smith, 2022). Unofficial actors encompass environmental advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association, which lobby for stricter standards and public awareness campaigns (Brown & Patel, 2020). Industry stakeholders, including automobile manufacturers and energy producers, influence policy through lobbying efforts and technological innovation. Media outlets serve as intermediaries, shaping public opinion and political pressure (Chen et al., 2021). Recognizing these actors illuminates the multi-layered negotiations characteristic of policy processes, including formal governance structures and influential non-governmental entities.

Positions of the Policy

Historically, environmental policy positions have been polarized. The conservative stance emphasizes economic growth and technological adaptability, advocating for voluntary standards and market-based solutions (Williams & Lee, 2018). Conversely, the progressive position champions strict regulatory measures, citing health urgency and environmental justice concerns. The former argues that overly stringent standards hinder industry competitiveness, while the latter believes aggressive regulation is necessary to address disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations (Nguyen & Carter, 2020). Recent debates focus on balancing economic development with environmental sustainability, with some stakeholders advocating for innovation incentives over mandates (Smith et al., 2019). Both positions have shaped legislative compromises, yet they fundamentally differ on the role of government intervention, the importance of technological solutions versus regulation, and the acceptable level of pollution reduction.

Persuasion: Advocating for a Strong Regulatory Position

This paper advocates for adopting a comprehensive regulatory framework grounded in scientific evidence and public health priorities. Ensuring that emissions standards are ambitious enough to protect vulnerable populations aligns with the ethical imperative of environmental justice. Evidence demonstrates that stricter standards significantly reduce health problems, such as asthma and cardiovascular diseases (World Health Organization, 2018). Moreover, technological innovations driven by regulation can foster economic growth through green industries and job creation. Opposition concerns about economic costs can be addressed with phased implementation plans and incentives for industry adaptation. The case for robust regulation is further supported by international success stories, like the European Union’s emissions trading system, which has contributed to measurable air quality improvements (European Commission, 2020). Therefore, the evidence strongly supports policy measures that prioritize health and environmental integrity while allowing for economic innovation within regulated parameters.

References

  • Brown, T., & Patel, R. (2020). Advocacy and public participation in environmental policymaking. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 523-538.
  • Chen, L., Zhou, J., & Kumar, P. (2021). Media influence on environmental policy debates. Environmental Communication, 15(2), 185-200.
  • European Commission. (2020). Report on the EU emissions trading system. European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emissions-trading-system-report
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). Air quality standards and enforcement. https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-management-programs
  • H.E. S., & Williams, M. (2019). The history of air pollution regulation. Environmental History Review, 25(3), 45-67.
  • Jones, A., & Smith, D. (2022). State-level environmental regulation enforcement. Journal of Policy Analysis, 36(1), 25-42.
  • Lim, T. & Rees, M. (2020). Evolution of air quality policies: From reactive to proactive strategies. Environmental Policy Journal, 18(2), 77-94.
  • Nguyen, P., & Carter, L. (2020). Balancing economic growth with environmental justice. Journal of Sustainable Development, 13(4), 210-225.
  • Smith, J., Oliver, K., & Rodriguez, M. (2019). Policy innovation in air quality management. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 219-230.
  • World Health Organization. (2018). Air pollution and health: Summary of evidence. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/air-pollution-and-health

Related Assignments