Davenport, Coral.
"Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
I read “Obama to Introduce Sweeping
New Controls on Ozone Emissions”, by Coral Davenport. The article was about the
new regulations that the Obama administration is planning to release on
emissions of ozone. Emissions of ozone are a pollutant that can cause heart
disease, asthma, and premature death. The regulations would lower the ozone
pollution level from 75 parts per billion to 65 to 70 parts per billion. Many
Republicans have criticized the regulations saying they are a waste of money. Industry
groups also say that the regulations would be a burden on the economy and would
do little to improve public health. The ozone rules that would be put into
place would cause factories to install expensive technology. The Environmental
Protection Agency is expected to try and pass two more Clean Air Act rules that
are meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This would help to stop Global
Warming.
These Clean Air rules could have a
huge effect on society. Lowering the Ozone Emissions could help to decrease the
levels of asthma, heart disease, and premature death. Unfortunately, these laws
could also have a negative effect on the world. These laws would require
factories to pay for expensive technology. These laws would have a negative
effect on the economy. These laws would do little to effect me personally, but
may keep many people I know for developing heart disease and/or asthma.
Overall, I thought this article was
well written. One thing I liked about the article was how it talked about both
the negative and positive effects of these laws. This shows that the article is
not bias. I also liked how the article included quotes from many people who
have studied the environment and the ozone. One thing I didn’t like was how the
article switched to talking about greenhouse gases at the end. It seemed like
the article completely switched topics. To improve this article, I would conclude
this article without talking so much about greenhouse gases. In conclusion, I
believe that this article was very well written.
Davenport, Coral. "Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/politics/obama-to-introduce-sweeping-new-controls-on-ozone-emissions.html?ref=science&_r=0
I reviewed Margot’s article called “Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions”, which was written by Coral Davenport. In the review Margot did a great job of writing with facts. She said that the regulations would lower ozone pollution from 75 parts per billion to 65 to 70 parts per billion, and this fact helped me to understand the article. Margot also did a good job of writing. In her review there were no confusing sentences and I was able to read easily because of the good flow. Lastly, Margot did a good job of critiquing the author. I thought that it did a good job of pointing out pros and cons in the article.
In her review Margot could have improved. She could have improved by adding in a quote or two from the article. She said that the author included quotes but she did not restate any. This would have made the review better because there was a professional’s opinion. Another way Margot could have improved is adding why heart disease and asthma are so bad for you. For example Margot could have said, the asthma is preventing people in the world from doing normal activities and this is why we need the laws.
I thought that it is great that Obama is trying to help people stay healthy but it is not good because it is very expensive. I am impressed by the fact that the ozone can cause these effects on humans.
Davenport, Coral. "Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/politics/obama-to-introduce-sweeping-new-controls-on-ozone-emissions.html?ref=science&_r=0
I review Margot Richard's article about President Obama imposing new controls on ozone emissions to protect our environment. One aspect of Margot's piece was that she used statistics to show how these new regulations would help the environment saying that the parts per billion could be lowered from 75 to 65. Another component that she did well was giving the opposite opinion, saying that republicans and industries are against the new laws because they would hinder the economy and are a waste of money. Finally, I enjoyed Margot's critique of the author, as she said she liked that the author was not biased in this heated argument about the laws, but that she did not like how the author switched topics. Margot could have done a better job saying how these controls would affect the world, as I thought she gave a vague overview of public health and not the environment. I also thought that Margot could have interweaved a direct quote from the article, to be a final emphasis on now vital these new regulations are to preserving the environment and aiding public health. The element that impressed me most was again how she gave both sides of the argument, because that was important in giving me a sense of the pros and cons of these new regulations on different people and groups. Overall, this was well-done by Margot and this is an interesting and heated topic in science right now.
Sam Abukhadra 12/7/14
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Comment Chemistry
Davenport, Coral. "Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Nov. 2014. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/politics/obama-to-introduce-sweeping-new-controls-on-ozone-emissions.html?ref=science&_r=0
I read Margot Richard’s review of "Obama to Introduce Sweeping New Controls on Ozone Emissions.” Margo did a really great job, although there were a few areas in which she could improve. One aspect of her review that I thought was particularly good was how she gave many viewpoints on the subject at hand. She did this particularly well when discussing the effects of possible regulations. I chose this part of the article to highlight because it really added a lot of quality into the review. This incorporation of different viewpoints really allows us to see how various regulations affect different people in different locations. Another aspect of Margo’s review that I thought was particularly well presented is how she talked about many different outcomes and who would be affected by them if certain laws were past. She did this very well when discussing the possible effects of clean air rules and regulations. I chose to highlight this part of the article because it really broadens the readers perspective of the effect that these laws have. This addition of the possible effects on the economy, health, and the environment really add great depth to the article. The final aspect of her review that I thought was very well presented was how she gave specific facts when discussing possible rules and regulations. She did this very well when talking about how many parts per billion of Ozone pollution would be lowered if a particular regulation were to be put into place. I chose to highlight this because it really added quality to the article. The addition of specific facts made the article much more clear and allowed us to put the amount of pollution in the atmosphere and how these regulations would help, into perspective.
Throughout Margo’s review there were a couple of areas that need refinement. For example, when Margo was discussing what she liked and didn’t like about the article. She could have improved her article dramatically after adding in a quote that she liked, after saying how she liked how the author incorporated quotes. This leaves the reading hanging and wanted to see one of the quotes she liked and how it was affected. This could have easy been fixed if she just added in a quote she liked. Another area in which her article needs improvement is the grammatical side. Throughout the article there were a few grammatical mistakes. For example, towards the end of the second paragraph there were a couple. This makes the review seem sloppy and that much care wasn’t given. She could easily fix this problem if she just aid more attention to detail.
This review was very detailed and filled with such great facts. Margo’s review completely changed my perception of pollution. I now view pollution and the Ozone completely differently to way I did before reading this, due to the incorporation of specific, meaningful facts and different viewpoints.