In Phase III, You Are Ready To Craft A Term Paper Of 3–5 Pag

In Phase III, you are ready to craft a term paper of 3–5 pages (12 pt. font, 1” margins, MLA or APA format including sources)

In Phase III, you are ready to craft a term paper of 3-5 pages (12 pt. font, 1” margins, MLA or APA format including sources) that brings these two sides into dialogue. You will need to look beyond direct quotes from a public figure, to explore the sources of their thinking. Where do these ideas come from? What assumptions do they include? What values do they represent?

Why are those values important to members of a particular community, or to citizens as a whole? In Phase III, you will write your paper following this outline:

Part A: Introduction

Present the background for your issue (what the issue is, why it is important /relevant, what does it have to do with our lives, what is the central question you are going to address). If you have done this well in a previous submission, you may draw from it or even copy it here.

Part B: Thesis 1

“In response to this question, one point of view is that we should.....” (here, you will state your first position). Present appropriate arguments for this position – i.e., premises to support the conclusion -- and wherever appropriate, cite your sources. Make sure you are using sources that are specific, credible and identifiable; refer back to your text for help determining what constitutes a good scholarly source.

Part C: Thesis 2

Present an argument against the position you have just outlined. What is an alternate perspective? What will they argue for? Their assumptions, values? Their sources? Are they credible? Why? Make sure you point out any weaknesses in Thesis 1 that this view would highlight -- are there fallacies in the first position? Questionable claims or assumptions? Shaky predictions? Values you reject (and if so, why)? Why would these arguers believe they have a stronger point of view?

Part D: Thesis 1 responds to Thesis 2

Repeat the critique process, in the other direction. Show weaknesses / strengths for Position 2, and explain how proponents of Thesis 1 might seek to respond to criticisms leveled against them.

Part E: Your own conclusion

Based on this dialogue, what do you see as the relative strengths / weaknesses of each side? Do you support one or the other, or do you perhaps have a third view to present? Based on everything you've learned, what do you think we should believe / do with regard to the issue you have raised? Why is this the best solution? What values does it represent?

Please make sure to review and edit your writing; have someone else read it, especially if you know this is not your strong suit. Remember, no jargon, no slang, no text-speak; grammar, spelling and punctuation do count. You are writing as if for publication. Be proud of what you have to say... picture it on the editorial page of Sunday’s paper, and write accordingly!

A note on citations: Please use APA format, and remain consistent within the format – if you have questions about the requirements of APA go to the library home page and click on the link for the appropriate model. You can get complete citation instructions online. I do expect a Works Cited page as part of your submission.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction: Climate Change and Public Policy

The issue of climate change has become one of the most pressing concerns of our time, impacting not only environmental stability but also economic and social structures globally. Its relevance extends beyond environmentalists to encompass policymakers, businesses, and citizens, as the implications threaten the very fabric of our societies. The central question addressed here is: Should immediate government intervention be implemented to combat climate change, even if it entails economic costs? The debate involves contrasting perspectives that weigh economic growth against environmental preservation, each underpinned by different values and assumptions.

Thesis 1: Advocating for Immediate Government Intervention

Proponents argue that prompt governmental action is essential to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change. This perspective hinges on the assumption that human activity—particularly fossil fuel consumption—is the primary driver of climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2021). From this viewpoint, delaying action exacerbates environmental degradation, threatening future generations’ well-being. Supporters cite scientific consensus claiming that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vital (NASA, 2022). Economically, early intervention can stimulate innovation in renewable energy sectors, creating jobs and fostering sustainable growth (Markard et al., 2012). Ethically, the need to protect vulnerable populations from climate-induced disasters reinforces the call for urgent policy measures.

Thesis 2: Skepticism Toward Immediate Intervention

Opponents contend that immediate drastic policies could hinder economic development, especially in developing nations reliant on fossil fuels. Their assumption is that climate change mitigation measures may lead to unemployment, inflation, and reduced global competitiveness (Baer et al., 2014). Critics argue that such policies may rest on exaggerated scientific claims or uncertainty regarding future climate impacts (Lomborg, 2010). They also point to potential unintended consequences—such as energy shortages and increased costs—highlighting the need for cautious, incremental approaches. This perspective emphasizes economic stability and growth as values necessary for social progress, questioning whether rapid policies are justified given uncertain projections.

Response: Defending Immediate Government Action

In response to critiques, proponents highlight the irreversible nature of environmental damage and the ethical obligation to safeguard future generations. They argue that economic fears often underestimate the long-term costs of inaction, which include increased disaster response expenses and loss of biodiversity (IPCC, 2021). Furthermore, technological advancements, such as cleaner energy sources, can offset economic disruptions associated with transition policies (Stokes & Ongwamoh, 2021). Critics’ reliance on uncertain models underestimates the precautionary principle, which advocates for action in the face of risk. Therefore, timely policy implementation aligns with principles of environmental justice and intergenerational equity.

Conclusion: Balancing Perspectives

Assessing both sides reveals the complexities of addressing climate change. While immediate intervention presents economic challenges, its potential to prevent catastrophic environmental consequences and uphold ethical obligations appears stronger. A balanced approach might involve phased implementation, combining cautious policy measures with investments in green innovation. Such a strategy aligns with values of sustainability, economic resilience, and social justice. Ultimately, addressing climate change requires embracing scientific evidence and ethical responsibility to protect our shared future.

References

• Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., Kartha, S., & Kemp-Benedict, E. (2014). The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework: The right to development in a climate constrained world. Development and Change, 45(2), 445–468.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Sixth assessment report: Climate Change 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
• Lomborg, B. (2010). Smart solutions to climate change: Comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press.
• Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967.
• NASA. (2022). Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
• Stokes, L. C., & Ongwamoh, F. (2021). Innovation and policy pathways in renewable energy development. Energy Policy, 148, 111941.