Project 3 Outline

In the post below I have developed an outline for Project 3, primarily focusing on my body paragraphs.

Adriano, Andrea Della. "Global Warming. The Earth became the newest Waterworld". November 3, 2007 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Introduction:
For my introduction I plan on taking the approach of defining or narrowing the problem. Seeing as climate change is such a huge issue, individuals can often feel lost and like they aren't able to help. I want to show my audience that they do matter and that they can help to progress climate change mitigation.

Body:
1. Major Supporting Arguments:

• *Aerosol injecting (chemicals) has negative health impacts.
• *Aerosol injecting has a negative impact on our soil, which produces our food.
• *This method doesn't even address the root of the problem.
• *Although it may seem cheap now, it will be more expensive in the long run.
• These scientists and the government are only interested in making a profit.
• Investing in CDR will be much more beneficial.
• Utilizing such a method infringes on protecting the rights that we have as Americans.
• Although it will initially appear to be helping out, aerosol injecting is only making the problem worse.
• *They haven't even tested the method out and they believe it can help combat climate change. Where's the proof?

2. Major Rebuttal Arguments:

• *The other methods take more time to work and climate change needs to be dealt with now.
• *Climate change isn't real and there is no need to test these methods.
• *There is no need to fund climate change projects because money could be better spent elsewhere.
• Geoengineering is cheap and easy to implement.
• Geoengineering will quickly combat climate change.
• Climate change is just being used as a way for politicians to corrupt the country.

3. Key Support and Rebuttal Points:

• * will symbolize the main points I plan on addressing.

4, Tentative Topic Sentences:

Major Supports:

1. Sulfuric aerosol injecting has many negative impacts on our health and our environment.
2. This supposed brilliant method for dealing with climate change doesn't actually address the source of our problems.
3. Many scientists support geoengineering because it is easy to use now and is cheap. However, when you take into account all of the negative effects it ends up being more expensive.
4. These scientists are so eager to put aerosol injecting to wide-scale use, but they haven't even tested the method out.

Major Rebuttals:

1. Climate change is having a negative impact now and needs to be addressed before it is too late.
2. It shouldn't matter if scientists wish to test out these methods because climate change does not exist.
3. Regardless of whether or not this method will work, there are more important areas that deserve the funding.

5. Gather Evidence:

Major Supports:

1. "What in the World Are They Spraying?" documentary where they discuss soil impacts, breathing problems, and neurological damage.
2. The Ethics of Geoengineering and Tim Flannery. Both of these address how SRM methods aren't actually addressing the root of the problem and are attempting to cover it up.
3. 20 Reasons, Paul Crutzen interview and Paul Crutzen essay. These three sources, along with chart projections from my gen ed class, will be very useful for addressing the fact that not addressing the root of the problem is more expensive in the long run.
4. The Ethics of Geoengineering and David Keith MIT article. Both of these articles discuss how they haven't even tested the methods out yet. They are eager to put the methods to use, but are unsure of any possible side effects.

Major Rebuttals:

1. Paul Crutzen essay and TED Talk by David Keith. David Keith and Paul Crutzen are both heavily invested in the SRM method. The year 2050 is seen as a doomsday year for many environmental individuals and these two wish to address the problems now rather than later.
2. Global Warming Believers are a "cult". This article addresses the fact that climate change isn't a real issue. It was made up and some people are just trying to convert the innocents to their ways.
3. Exxon Funding Climate Denial and "Dark Money" Funds. Some major companies have decided to support funding those who don't believe in climate change. They want to show that scientists are just out for the money and other areas need it more.

Conclusion: 
For my conclusion I will either be outlining the positive consequences or focusing on the future of the debate. I know that I am addressing many negatives in my piece, but I don't want my audience to feel completely hopeless. I want to leave them looking forward to a brighter future and show them how they can help.


Reflection:
For this reflection I read Swati and Chloe's Project 3 Outline posts. Swati and I have both chosen topics that can leave our readers feeling overwhelmed and like that they are unable to help out. We are both aiming to show them that they can contribute, even if they aren't necessarily in the field that the issue began in. Chloe is taking a different approach than I am, but we are both informing our audience of an issue that is going on in an attempt to enlighten them.