Read the following Op-Ed article:
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20150320/NEWS/150329982/1307/opinion?Title=GUEST-COLUMN-EPA-rules-will-harm-the-poor-most
Answer the following questions related to the article:
1. What organization does Charles Steele represent?
2. Of the four types of discourse (narrative, argument, description, exposition), which category does this article fall into?
3. Explain the new measures that the EPA is trying to put into place.
4. Explain Steele's argument against them.
5. Why would Steele begin his article with the allusion to the Hippocratic Oath?
6. Do you have any connections to coal mining? Knowing that it is one of the biggest employers in the Tuscaloosa area, how do you feel about the EPA proposal?
Lynsey Simpson:
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Confrence
2. argument
3. curb carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants and wants governors across the country to shut down coal-fired plants in their states
4. They're the same plants that provide a lot of the electricity and usually more affordable, it might make our supply less reliable.
5. Because he's alluding to the fact that this will cause harm if we go through with it, because he thinks everyone should be held to that standard.
6. No, but I think this might be a nice thing, although it may force some people to be let go from their jobs, I believe we all should make sacrifices if we want to preserve the Earth and live a little longer.
Lorenzo B. Winston:
ReplyDelete1. Charles Steele represents the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
2. This article, in my opinion, can fall into either the argument or exposition category.
3. The new measures that the EPA is trying to put into place are to curb carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants and wants governors across the country to shut down coal-fired plants in their states.
4. Charles Steele’s argument against them is that he thinks that heir plan will do nothing but raise the cost of electricity for both homes and businesses, and make it harder for the people who lie in the less fortunate category or has lower income. He thinks that the EPA is asking to pay the price for a problem that others can’t fix and it expect low-income households to pay the largest share.
5. So he can get his main point across by saying do not harm people out of their income, especially people who barely make an income or doesn’t make enough income.
6. I do not have any connections to coal mining. I think that it is very witless and thoughtless, and I think the plan is a set-up and a scheme as well. I think that the EPA is just trying to get more and More and MORE money out of individual’s pockets, and do nothing with the money but just let it either lay around, go to the “economy” or “government,” spend it carelessly, or just let it sit in people’s pocket. America as a whole always comes up with a way to steal back money from individuals.
Emily Keller
ReplyDelete1) Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2) argument
3) the EPA is trying to curb coal power plants because they believe it affects global warming
4) Steele makes it a point that lower income families wont be able to afford to pay electricity bills because it would be more expensive, and the it wouldn't change global warming
5) because the doctors pledge not to harm people purposely and although the EPA might think they're helping they're only causing harm
6) no; I don't think its a good idea because it will put a lot of people out of a job, harming the economy.
Carter Billings 3rd (1 Charles Steele represents the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. (2 This is an exposition. (3 They are trying to get rid of coal burning power plants. (4 He argues that cutting these will bring a higher payment for a less reliable power source and the high price will endanger lower income households. (5 To point out that doctors have to abide by the rule, but the government doesn't have to, it doesn't make sense. (6 I personally have no connections to coal mining, but this EPA proposal I think is not right. If this will not cut down on global warming, but will make thousand's of people loss their job along with higher electricity prices. This proposal is clearly flawed and should not be passed.
ReplyDeleteShalyn Dale
ReplyDelete1) The SCLC
2) Exposition
3) The EPA wants to curb carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants and wants governors across the country to shut down coal-fired plants in their states.
4) Steele is arguing against them because coal is an inexpensive mean of electricity, closing the coal burning power plants will equal a rise in electricity bills for everyone, and some people are already living check to check as is, therefore he feels its a plan for low income people and the elderly to potentially go into debt.
5) To say that if doctors can say this oath, why can't members of the government.
6) No I don't. however I know that this proposal is stupid, but it may pass because of our ignorant government. As long as the rich and famous are taken care of its okay, the rest of us don't matter. The government is the capital and we are the districts, fighting for our lives.
Kat Phillips
ReplyDelete1. EPA
2. Argumentative
3. They want to shut down all coal power plants
4. They provide the cheapest source of electricity
5. Because they are harming greatly the population and our efforts for affordability
6. Yes one of my friends dads is in the business and very upset that they would make a proposal concerning this.
Kayla Fincher
ReplyDelete1. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2.argumentive
3. to shut down coal-fired plants
4 that they are asking them to pay the price for a problem they can't fix, and it expects low-income households to pay the largest share.
5. because he is saying they are hypocritical by wanting to help people but in reality they are just making it worse on low income families
6. I don't personally have any connection to coal mining but I don't believe they should carry out plans if it is going to make poor people suffer.
Josie Parham
ReplyDelete1- President and CEO of Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2-Argument
3- Curb carbon emissions from coal burning power plants and get governors across country to shut down coal fired plants in their states.
4- The new electricity is going to hike up the electricity bills so it wont be as affordable for low income families.
5- To catch peoples attention and add credibility. Also, to show that that oath is very important and so is this matter.
6- No, but i think its very unfair to the coal miners who will be out jobless on the streets. I just don't think its the EPAs decision to cause so many people to lose jobs when our jobless rate is already so low in the country as it is
Morgan Burroughs
ReplyDelete1) Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2) descriptive
3) they are trying to shut down coal factories to reduce the carbon dioxide in the air and help global warming.
4) it would hurt the people on low incomes and people with fixed incomes like the elderly because they wouldn't be able to afford the other, more expensive, forms of electricity.
5) so he could make a point that if what the EPA does get this approved, the government would be breaking the Hippocratic oath.
6) I personally do not have any connections to coal mining. I feel that the EPA proposal is idiotic. According to the article, there will not be much help with the global warming solution from the proposals plan, but the repercussions are huge. Many hard working men and women would lose their jobs for seemingly no reason. It would hurt these peoples incomes as well as the Tuscaloosa economy in general since so many people work in the coal mining business.
MacKenzie Jones
ReplyDelete1) Christian Leadership Conference
2) Description
3) Raising utility bills
4) Raising the bills will not help the environmental issues but worsen them and will cause troubles for people with lower incomes.
5) "First do no harm," is alluding to the meaning which is "One of the fundamental principles of medicine according to which the physician should not cause harm to the patient," and he is explaining that the government nor EPA should do any harm to the people by raising bills which puts us all at more risk of environmental problems and poverty.
6) The closest connection I have is my good friends father works for the coal mines. I agree with Steele because raising bill prices will not help cure global warming which honestly the biggest environmental in the world currently. The fact that they're worried about bills other then the safety of the human race is unbelievable.
Sydney Emmons
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
2. Argument, because they are arguing their opinion and stressing that poor people will have trouble paying electricity bills.
3. They are trying to stop carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants. So they are wanting to shut down carbon power plants. This will cause electricity bills to raise very high.
4. Steele believes that poorer people will have a lot of trouble paying these high electricity bills, and will cause them to skip meals, and this will effect their health.
5. Because he is trying to stress how big of a deal this can be and uses this to show it.
6. I feel that its wrong to higher the prices of electricity. I understand that climate change can be bad, but we cant help that, and its not our fault, so we shouldnt have to pay more because of it.
Ke-Anna' Rich: 1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference
ReplyDelete2. Argument
3. Shutting down coal plants
4. The rising prices will make things harder for those in the lower class to pay for the electricity they need to survive
5. To show that the EPA's new strategy is going to cause more harm than it will to help people
6. I have no coal mining connections, but based on the knowledge that it is a big part of Tuscaloosa I don't think that taking coal mining away is a smart move. Since it is such a big employer, by getting rid of it hundreds of people could be out of a job and with so many out of a job t could seriously effect the economy.
Makenzie Taylor
ReplyDelete1) the Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2) Argument
3) The EPA is trying to curb carbon emissions from coaling-burning power plants and shut down coal-powered plants.
4) Steele is says that the EPA is making electricity more costly and less reliable for everyone.
5) To make it look like what the EPA is doing is wrongful or unjust. Like they are going against ethical laws.
6) I don't have any connections to the coal mining. But I'm not sure if this was EPA's best choice. The majority of people think of electricity as a necessity and many need it for urgent things. So, to know that the electricity bill is going to be higher would be very upsetting. Especially for working-class citizens who are typically not very affluent.
Olivia LeComte
ReplyDelete1. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Argument
3.To get rid of carbon emissions and shut down coal power plants.
4. That shutting down the power plants would lead to more expensive electricity hurting lower income homes.
5. To try to show that the government is hurting people by trying to help them.
6. I don't have any connections to coal mining. I believe that it creates lots of jobs for local workers. The EPA proposal would put many people out of work. The proposal might be good for the environment but not for the economy.
Emily Perry-
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Argument
3. They want the governers of states to shut down coal-burning power plants in order to better climate change, but this will also greatly affect the poor populations.
4. The EPA will do anything for global warming, but since the coal power plants are main sources of affordable electricity the prices on new power sourcs will skyrocket and affect the poor.
5. Because the new way poepe have began to run things always seems to harm someone/ group in our society.
6. No, I am not connected to coal mining. I believe that this is a very bad idea because the EPA needs to keep in mind that when they lose workers, those people use money. The poor are a large majority of our society and when those people lose jobs, they cant support their families which may lead to an increase in homelessness.
Troy Banks
ReplyDelete1. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Argument
3. They are trying to close coal mining facilities to lessen carbon emissions and to replace them with cleaner energy sources.
4. First, that these new sources of energy are no better for the environment than the sources we have in place today. Second, this shift in energy sources will increase the amount of money the poor will have to pay for the necessity of power for their homes.
5. To assert that the government shouldn't try to fix a problem by creating another one, or by doing harm, and he is asserting that they are doing just that.
6. I have no connections to coal mining, I think that the proposal is for the greater good. While we should all be concerned for the people who would lose their jobs, we all must come to terms with the fact that we must undergo changes as a society to better our future. Steele disagrees, but the environmental benefits that go along with this proposal are substantial.
Reagan Ross.
ReplyDelete1) He is president and CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
2) Description?
3) EPA wants to curb carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants and wants governors across the country to shut down coal-fired plants in their states.
4) "the EPA is asking us to pay the price for a problem we can't fix, and it expects low-income households to pay the largest share. "
5) Because they are creating more problems, while claiming to be attempting to fix one.
6) I do not have any connections, but. I think it would be quite unfortunate as many people would be out of a job. What are they going to do when they don't have money to feed their children? The EPA is attempting to want to fix a problem, but they are only stirring up more. The idea of making a change to the pending climate change issue is obviously nice and needed, but putting people out of jobs and creating turmoil in many areas is idiotic. A change can be made without cutting incomes; the situation needs to be thought on and processed more.
Grace Singley
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Argument
3. They're trying to shut down all of the coal mining plants
4. He doesn't want to shut down the coal mines because he says its the cheapest way to get electricity.
5. Because they say do not harm but then in the end they actually are.
6. No, I have no connections with coal mining. However, I think that is wrong to shut down coal mining because that is peoples jobs they're taking away that have worked really hard. Therefore, it kinda makes me feel mad and sad what the EPA have proposed to do.
Abbye Blocker
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Exposition
3. The EPA is proposing new regulations to curb carbon emissions from coal burning power plants.
4. The plants provide the biggest portion of energy ant the most affordable rate.
5. because the EPA is trying to make the environment better but it has created a bigger problem because it is taking away the biggest and cheapest power source.
6. I do not have any connections to coal mining but I do think the EPA is creating a big problem by creating the proposal because a lot of people have jobs in the coal mining business.
Alex Turner 3rd period
ReplyDelete1. Southern Christian Leadership Conference
2. Argument
3. New regulations on power plants and shut down coal-fired power plants
4. The problem is that the plants there talking about is the same plants that give the most portion of electricity and most affordable.
5. Because it's is saying not to harm but in the end they do.
6. Yes I have a friend who's dad works in a type of coal mining company. I feel that it is a bit too drastic to help solve a problem they are creating more problems by putting people who help us out of the job.