dhagglund20ahsgov-blog

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Civic Action Assessment of Issue

1) I see the role of a citizen to be very important because the decisions made by citizens shape our country. As citizens, we must vote and participate in our community so everyone benefits from the actions of each other. Personally, I believe that I need to make a difference in my community so that my community’s needs are met. If our community’s needs are met, then we are successful. 

2) In this class, we learned about how voting is essential for our country to flourish. It is very important to be active as a citizen. To be responsible as a citizen, you must stay informed about current news so your participation in your community is up to date and accurate also, you must do jury duty, and pay taxes as well. Civic responsibility is crucial in having a successful community because every person must have a position in the community. 

3) I feel that by addressing oceanic health and preservation is my civic obligation because environmental health is a large problem in today’s society and is harmful to our world. By addressing the problem, it starts a movement towards improving our environment so that changes can be made. 

4) I spent my time volunteering at the local food bank. Although it does not directly relate to oceanic health and preservation, by benefitting my community and those around me, there is a change to improve our society being made. When at the food bank, I felt that although we were just putting fruit in bags, I was making a real difference in someone else’s life. I went to the Contra Costa Food Bank on November 4, 2019. We bagged about 5,000 kiwis and pears for people in need from about 3:30 pm- 5:30 pm. I really enjoyed this experience because I felt that I was making a difference in my community in one way even though it is not relating to oceanic health and preservation. I am definitely going to return with my family so we can do it again. 

5) I was civically engaged.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Executive Action Assessment of Issue

1) Trump believes that America’s energy revolution has produced affordable, reliable energy which means that our planet is no longer in need/ running out of energy. Also, he believes that we are dropping carbon emissions to their lowest level in 25 years. He believes a balance in economic growth and environmental protection must be met in order to encourage innovation and prosperity. Lastly, Trump states that a strong economy means a healthy environment.

2) I strongly disagree with this statement and belief. I think that a strong economy could benefit our environment by using that money to go towards eco-friendly products, but it could also be bad. With a strong economy, people could consume more and use more waste which ends up hurting the environment. Also, Trump states that our carbon emissions are very low which is also false. Our carbon emissions are extremely high and will continue to climb unless we do something to prevent it. 

1) The Department of the Interior manages my issue.

2) The Cabinet’s mission statement is: The Department of the Interior (DOI) conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. This relates to my issue on oceanic health and preservation as it relates to environmental conservation efforts which strongly regards to the ocean. Environmental conservation is a large effort regarding several parts of the environment including the ocean.

3) The secretary of the department is David Bernhardt. He is the 53rd Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Bernhardt is an avid hunter and angler. His expertise ranges from the Endangered Species Act to Outer-Continental leases, from mining royalties to Indian Affairs. He was raised in Rifle, Colorado and earned a B.A. He is married to Gena Bernhard and has two children. He lives in Arlington, Virginia. He is professionally qualified to lead this department because from 2001 to 2009, he held several positions within the Department of the Interior. Also, he served then-Secretary Norton as a deputy solicitor, deputy chief of staff and counselor to the Secretary, and as director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs and counselor to the Secretary before that. Since he is apart of the Republican Party and therefore apart of Trump’s political party, I think much less action will be taken in support of this department. Although he is an avid participator in the environment, I think steps towards preserving it will be much slower. Ultimately, this pushes my issue back further in time which it cannot afford since time is what is killing it. 

4) I think the pollution issue and the going green service responds to my issue the best. The pollution issues page directly gives the Environmental Laws and Regulations related to pollution along with a link to report environmental emergencies and violations. On this page, there are several options to read about the environment. Specifics such as air pollutants, clean water, wildlife, pesticides, etc are explained through both laws and regulations stated. On the Going Green service page, there are two options for finding energy efficiency resources and also energy tax incentives. Under the resources, there are options to choose either at home or at work which is beneficial to many people trying to make a big difference in many places. 

5) Overall, President Trump is not doing much to help the environmental issue. It seems as if he is almost ignoring it, hoping it will go away, as I saw online that he took the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement. I am not satisfied with the efforts of our executive branch to help the issue of the environment. Like I said before, by taking us out of beneficial programs President Obama put the US into, the problem will not disappear, it will just get worse. Additionally, by repealing from this agreement, Trump is acting like climate change and environmental health are no longer a problem. This problem has not gone away and is not close to being solved as the issue has just recently begun to spiral into action. This department is definitely one President Trump wants to cut funding on as he believes that the environment is recovering since our carbon emissions are decreasing, which is false and harmful to our world if the president believes this. I think cutting funding would do the exact opposite of resolving the issue. We need all the funding we can get to protect our planet and to come up with solutions to these issues. Ultimately, decreasing funding would leave our country with no money to take action against the declining health of our environment.  

Article: Trump Administration Makes It Easier to Dredge Protected Areas to Restore Beaches

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/climate/trump-beaches-sand-protected-areas.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

S- The subject of this article is that the Trump administration changed a policy allowing coastal communities to take sand from protected ecosystems to improve their beaches. Ultimately, this new policy change allows wealthy communities to harm coastal ecosystems in order to replenish their beachfront. This could destroy important habitats and poses as a threat to coastal zones. 

A- The author of this article is Christopher Flavelle. The article is from the New York Times which is a fairly reliable source. Flavelle’s main articles focus on climate adaptation, so that makes him reliable for this article. Politically, this article is neutral as it states both Trump’s side and the other side. 

C- This source was produced on November 7, 2019. Since is is so current and up to date, the information is reliable and recent. The information stating policy changes by Trump’s administration proves to be real as it occurred just this month. The New York Times article was produced by Christopher Flavelle. 

A- This source was written to any audience, as it is a fairly neutral website. It could be interpreted that this source was written towards environmentalists because the article contains information supporting the side that this change in policy was a bad decision. Also, it mostly sides against the policy change because of environmental reasons such as the destruction of ecosystems and habitats. This source still proves to be reliable since it states both sides and the possible positive sides of the new policy enacted by Trump. 

P- This article is objective because although it does mostly side with the environmentalists/liberal side, it also is posted by a neutral site that also states the side of the policy changers. I agree with this perspective because it is neutral, but also emphasizes the importance of how destructive this policy change could be. I specifically support the push against the policy change a little bit because the new policy does not support coastal ecosystems and oceanic preservation. 

S- The significance of this article is showing the new policy by Trump’s administration and reviewing the pros and cons and the views of other officials. Facts supporting the environment and coastal habitats are used to support the author's claims. Also, statements such as the Coastal Barrier Resources System protecting 1.4 million acres of land around the country help the reader sympathize with the environment rather than with this new policy change. Additionally, the author uses direct quotes from the Secretary of the Department of Interiors stating “This flawed interpretation of the law has prevented a number of coastal storm damage reduction projects”. This quote proves his support of Trump’s administrative decisions with the environmental policies. All of this evidence proves the harms on these environmental coastlines are not seen by the head of the environmental department which overall is harmful to our world and future for the environment. I agree with this article because I believe that this new policy change is harmful to our environment and without it, we could be protecting our coastlines much better. Additionally, this new policy only adds up more costs which we could be using to protect our oceans in a different, more efficient way than we are now.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

State and Legislative Action

1) a) Kahan states her position of extreme disappointment towards Governor Gavin Newsom as he vetoed her bill, crafted in preserving the environment. She believes that it is for the best for constituents' voices to be heard in regards to environmental beliefs and that action must be taken to meet their needs. Also, she states that money is being wasted when it could be put towards preserving land and the environment. Senator Glazer does not directly address environmental issues, but he does address water preservation which ultimately ties into this issue. He addresses the passing of a bill which stated that people can set up water preservation systems without encountering increases in their property tax. Glazer claims saving water is a key element for California and due to climate change water arrives in the form of rain rather than snow, so it is important to capture the overflow through recycling and rainwater recapture. By doing so, the state becomes much more water-efficient. 

b) I agree with these two lawmakers because they emphasize action that needs to be taken to prevent future harm to our planet and ecosystem. Kahan made it clear that by vetoing this bill, Newsom rejected environmental improvement and preservation and enclosed it for industrial needs. Glazer stated that water conservation in California is essential due to recent climate change and future reactions to our climate. Both lawmakers issue positive change for the future which I support entirely. 

c) Assemblymember Kahan has sponsored several bills related to the environment in general, but not specifically oceanic health and preservation. These environmental bills consist of, Tesla Park Preservation - AB 1086, Small Farm Micro-Irrigation Grant Program, Illegal Dumping Penalties – AB 1216, Alameda/Contra Costa County Illegal Dumping Pilot Project, and McCosker Creek Restoration and Public Access Project. State Senator Glazer also does not specifically address oceanic health and preservation, but does support bills regarding environmental issues such as SB 558 (Rain Water Capture Systems Property Tax Exclusion), SB 836 (State Beaches Smoking Ban), SB 1316 (Carnegie-Tesla Land Preservation), SCA 9 (Rain Water Capture System Property Tax Exclusion).

2) a) There are several bills regarding oceanic health and preservation, but Senate Bill No. 367 stood out to me most. This bill establishes the State Coastal Conservancy and overall enhances specified coastal lands in the state.

b) This bill was introduced on October 9, 2019, when it was filed with the Secretary of State. 

c) The last major action produced by this bill was is was chaptered by the Secretary of State, Chapter 701, Statutes of 2019 on October 9, 2019. Since it is so recent, no actions have been taken. 

d)  I strongly support this bill because it is taking action in protecting the coast and oceans in California. By ensuring protection and preservation of marine areas, the movement towards oceanic preservation booms as oceanic health becomes restored. I would encourage my representatives to support this bill as it leads to a bright, healthy future for our environment and oceanic ecosystem. 

e) There was a bill to review. 

3) a) Mark Desaulnier’s perspective on environmental issues is very important as he used to be a member of the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. He is a proud supporter of policies that protect the environment and address climate change. He also believes that forward-looking energy and environmental policy is a key driver of growth, innovation, and competitiveness. He believes that environmental enforcement is necessary for the health and well-being of all Californians. Kamala Harris has a similar perspective to Mark Desaulnier. She helped introduce a major Senate resolution to set a national goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the land and 30 percent of the ocean within the territory of the United States by 2030. Through this action, Harris proves her support in protecting the ocean and ensuring a healthy environment. Harris directly recognizes climate change as an issue as she states “The United States is facing a climate crisis that has already led to damaged oceans, newly extinct species, and ecosystems in distress. In order to ensure our planet is healthy and hospitable for our children and grandchildren, we must commit ourselves to bold land and ocean conservation efforts.” Dianne Feinstein is in a similar agreement as she addresses climate change on her web page. Feinstein directly states that she believes climate change is a real issue and that its main cause is driven by human activity. Through the recent wildfires, Feinstein believes that our environment is only declining from here and effects such as these need to be prevented. She suggests possible solutions such as reducing our carbon footprint by adopting more efficient technologies, promoting zero-emission vehicles and embracing renewable energy sources. 

b) Mark DeSaulnier supports the concurrent resolution H.Con.Res.147 which calls for an update to certain Occupational Safety and Health Regulations and certain Environmental Protection Agency programs relating to highly hazardous chemicals. Kamala Harris supports bill S.2565 which is a bill to establish a Global Climate Change Resilience Strategy, to authorize the admission of climate-displaced persons, and for other purposes. Lastly, Dianne Feinstein supports the California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act which she states “this bill will add more than 6,200 acres to the existing California Coastal National Monument, safeguarding the pristine land and helping boost tourism and recreation activities in local communities.”

c and d) I found all perspectives. 

4) a) There are about 13 bills referencing issues of the environment and possible solutions. 

b) Senate Bill 2239 addresses the question of: Should an Obama-Era Climate Change Executive Order Be Codified Into Law?

c) This bill basically states that if you are in favor of this bill then, you believe that climate change is a critical issue and it’s important for the federal government to work together to develop a whole-of-government response to this challenge. If you are against this bill then you mostly believe that President Trump’s decision to rescind President Obama’s executive order on taking climate change into account when federal agencies develop policy was reasonable. The bill essentially addresses, Modernizing Federal Programs to Support Climate Resilient Investment, Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience, Providing Information, Data, and Tools for Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience and Federal Agency Planning for Climate Change Related to Risk. Furthermore, it sets forth a commitment to ensuring that the federal government identifies climate changes’ wide-ranging impact in the development of relevant national security doctrines, policies, and plans. 

d) It will have a severe impact on several things such as communities’ safety, climate change and prevention efforts, extreme weather resilience, U.S. federal agencies, Executive Order 13653, and Executive Order 13653.

e) I would vote yes, in support because I am in support of protecting our environment, specifically the issues relating to climate change. If I support this bill then I am supporting actions to prevent a harmful future and I am supporting actions to ensure a hopeful future. 

f) This bill originated in the Senate which then went to the House which was then vetoed by the President. This bill has been viewed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It was introduced July 22, 2019, and neither the Senate nor the House has voted on it. The President also has not signed this bill yet. Currently, the bill is still in the Senate.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Political Interest Groups, and PACs Assessment

1) a) Ocean Champions

b) This interest group focuses on oceans and ocean wildlife and their main goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a priority of federal and state governments. 

c) 5 Important Pieces of Information: 1) Before the National Ocean Policy Executive Order was crafted, this work involved moving H.R. (Oceans) 21, a sweeping bill that addressed many shortcomings in how our oceans are governed. 2) Though shark finning in U.S. waters is banned by federal law, ill-gotten fins can still be imported into the U.S. Demand for fins in Asian markets drives the import of fins taken from other nations. 3) Over a billion people are looking to the ocean as their primary source of protein, and 500 million people rely on coral reefs for food, tourism, renewable resources, and coastal protection. 4) Harmful algal blooms, which often produce a toxin and occur in both salt and fresh water, are known to kill fish, marine mammals, and birds. 5) Congress worked to garner bipartisan support to pass two important bills related to harmful algal blooms and dead zones: Drinking Water Protection Act and Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act

d) This interest group favors several laws prohibiting abuse of marine animals and the ocean, but specifically The Trash Free Seas Act which will reauthorize and strengthen the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2005, which supports important Coast Guard work to research and remove marine debris. This act was passed in 2011 and is very important as trash is a large issue for our oceans. Each year more than 14 billion pounds of trash flow into the ocean as marine debris and this debris kills over 100,000 marine mammals each year. 

e) This group is located in Capitola, California. After looking all around their page, I could not find any local meetings for the group, but there are several ways to get involved via social media.

f) There are not any volunteering opportunities, but there are ways to donate to the organization through the website, and solutions are given through the website to do individually such as personal beach clean-ups and such. 

g) I find it very interesting how invested this group is with candidates and wanting to be represented by them. There is a whole page to research what Senators and candidates are apart of this new change towards oceanic health which is very important for our future generations to see. 

2) a) Clean Water Action California

b) This interest group is an organization working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for all of us. This group was succeeded in winning some of the nation's most important environmental protections through grassroots organizing, expert policy research and political advocacy focused on holding elected officials accountable to the public.

c) 5 Important Things: 1) Make sure that the implementation of the Fund results in safe and affordable drinking water solutions for the over one million Californians who lack access to safe drinking water. 2) Combat the negative, years-long impacts of ruthless profiteering by the oil and gas industry down there. 3) California is the last major oil-producing state to allow for the disposal of oil and gas wastewater by discharge into open, unlined pits. 4) Clean Water is taking-on single-use products: from shopping bags, to food and beverage packaging, to plastic water bottles, our goal is to minimize them. 5) Each of our offices is working hard to support our national mission to resist President Donald Trump’s polluting, dirty water agenda

d) This interest group supports the act SB 1281 (Pavley). This act was passed in 2014 and it exposes the amount of water used by oil companies and their wastewater disposal methods. Through this act, the public becomes more aware of the harm these companies are doing to our environment. 

e) This interest group is located in Oakland, California. There are not any local meetings that I can find on the website, but if you research how to act in support of this group, it allows you to take action in many different ways. 

f) There are several volunteer opportunities for many different issues within Clean Water Act to become involved in such as helping elect environmental champions, attending/planning events, lobbying elected officials, data entry, research, or other things as well.

g) An additional development I found interesting was there was a blog section, where the researcher could read about studies being done or events that happened and they could read this information from a person who experienced it first hand. 

3) Clean Water Action California seems much more organized and active in their interest group. Since they have many studies and volunteer opportunities going on, I feel like they also are more successful. The target audience was definitely environmentalists and liberals because of their strong attacks on President Trump’s policies and approach on environmental issues. Their target audience is also their supporters. 

4) a) Environment America

b) Through Environment America, they protect the places they love and promote core environmental values, such as clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean energy to power our lives. They support several acts to prevent global warming, energy overuse, etc. 

c) Their total receipt is $272,076. They have spent $13,520. On hand, they began at $568,272 and ended at $826,829. 

d) The Democrats get 100% of the amount spent on political parties, the Republicans get 0%. The Democrats receive $5,838. 

e) Most of the donors are self-employed or retired individuals, but also people such as David Nunez from National Capital Planning and Gitta Montoto from Florida International. Since the majority of these donors are random individuals, this shows that the PAC interests the majority of the public, not only big corporations or companies. This PAC interests the people rather than the companies.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Political Party Action

Party Platforms:

Republican Platform: 

a) This party believes that environmental issues are best resolved through private ownership since most environmental degradation occurs under government control. Also, they believe that poverty is the main threat to the environment. They see today’s environment as progress from the past and that our world is moving away from such environmental issues of the past. They want the environmental regulation to be moved from federal control to state control. They strongly support the Clean Water Act and believe that the US Panel on Climate Change is unreliable and biased. They are demanding a halt towards the funding of the US Framework on Climate Change. Altogether, they believe environmental problems are solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies rather than command-and-control regulations.

b) I do not agree with this position because they take the position against acts to prevent climate change. Personally, I believe that climate change is a major issue today and that actions need to be taken or worse events could occur. Also, they took the position that the worst of our environmental waste ad degradation is in the past, but in reality, the worst has yet to happen and with the measures this party is taking, it is not going to stop.

Democratic Platform:

a) Democrats main priority is to prevent climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations. They support the actions taken by President Obama to instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming. They strongly do not support President Trump’s failure to act and join the Paris Climate Agreement with the rest of the world. Acting against Trump’s views and with Obama’s, this platform is working to protect the planet from climate change and ensure a safe, successful future for later generations.

b) I agree with this position because I also believe that climate change is a major issue in today’s world. Going off of Obama’s ideas I believe we should continue to build off those actions despite Trump’s willingness to cooperate with other nations for the sake of our future generations. By taking action now against climate change, there is hope for future generations.

Libertarian Platform:

a) Libertarians support competitive free markets and property rights in order to protect the environment and our ecosystems. They believe our government cannot be counted on to provide support for our environment and therefore has only caused more damage. In order to protect the environment, they believe that individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources must be defined. 

b) I agree with a part of their belief that the government is lacking in success to help the failing environment. I agree that in order to make a change for our future, we cannot count on the government to do it for us. I disagree with the fact that property rights will protect the environment because some property owners abuse the land, which could be the main source of an ecosystem. 

Green Platform:

a) The Green Party believes that the oceans are essential to life on Earth and therefore must be preserved. Through simple, strong policy changes, harmful events such as climate change, pollution, overfishing can be prevented and our oceans can be restored back to health. This platform suggests several solutions to the issue of our unhealthy oceans such as create more marine protected areas, ban offshore drilling, ban sonar testing in oceans, ban ocean transportation of nucleic and toxic waste, and several more. 

b) I completely agree with this party’s beliefs and solutions because our ocean is suffering a severe decrease in health and preservation and our world needs to take action to fix that. Through these solutions, I believe that many of our issues can be resolved and through the Green Party’s sort of mindset, our planet can work to rejuvenate back to health. 

Peace and Freedom Platform:

a) This party believes that the people that exploit and brutalize the world's working-class people are destroying the world's biosphere. Many policies today overlap and as a result, they are destroying our environment. They believe that Socialism is necessary to end this environmental crisis because it was originally caused by capitalism. Their overall goal is to obtain peace and harmony throughout nature and people. Through these beliefs, this party favors restoration and protection of air, water, land, and ecosystems, public ownership of public utilities, banning practices such as clear-cutting, fracking, mountaintop removal, tar sands extraction, and offshore drilling, massive development of free public transportation and many more ideas. 

b) I disagree with this party in some ways regarding the causes of environmental degradation. I do not believe that it is a cause of only one class because our world worked as a whole for this tragic event to occur. Also, I do not believe capitalism is to blame for mistakes made by the human species, not pertaining to capitalism. I agree in ways they support to prevent environmental destruction such as protecting air, water, land, and ecosystems and banning destructive practices. 

c) I agree with the Democratic Party’s position the most because of their beliefs in taking action immediately. I also found a close connection to the Green Party because of their strong passion towards the environment, but I feel the Democratic Party contains both environmental concerns as well as how we can prevent this from happening in the future politically. Through their actions following President Obama, they continue to seek reform and protection for the environment, despite President Trump’s lack to do so. I am not surprised that I agree with this party the most because from past research, I have seen several points of view that I agree with, mostly coming from the Democratic Party. I am not sure if I would vote for the presidential candidate because they could be apart of the Democratic Party and still want nothing to do with environmental protection, it really depends on the candidate.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Constitutional Issues

1. The name of the case was Stop the Beach Re-nourishment Inc V. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

2. The Roberts Court decided the case on June 17, 2010

3. In 1961, Florida issued the Beach and Shore Preservation Act to maintain critically eroded beaches. In 2003, Florida filed for an application to dredge sand from a shoal to rebuild a beach. Then, stop the Beach Re-nourishment Inc. challenged their permit and the constitutionality of the BSPA. The Supreme Court of Florida questioned to determine whether the BSPA was constitutional. The court ruled it unconstitutional, because it did not deprive land owners of littoral rights without just compensation.

4. The constitutional question the justices were deciding was “By reversing long standing holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected, did the Florida Supreme Court cause a "judicial taking" proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?”

5. The amendments in question are the 5th and 14th amendments. The 5th amendment states that no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. The 14th amendment states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State where they live.

6. The final decision of this issue was an 8-0 vote that the Florida Supreme Court didn’t take property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This meant that they could not take anything without rights to future exposed land and contact with the water superior to Florida’s right to fill in its submerged land.

7. This decision establishes a precedent that taking is a transfer of property by eminent domain. The Court’s precedents don’t provide support that the takings effected by the judicial branch are entitled to special treatment. This precedent is furthermore explained through Justice Scalia’s ruling that the state has the right to fill that land and the exposure of land previously submerged belongs to the state even if it interrupts the beachfront property owners' contact with the water.

8. I disagree with the court’s decision because in order to protect the ocean from land erosion and sediments on land, a beach is needed. By restricting the access to the dredge sand, the beaches cannot be made and the ocean is not protected from the erosion. Without protection, ocean health is a concern as well as the health of the marine species living in the ocean. Although I understand the unconstitutional aspect that landowners are deprived of their littoral rights without just compensation, in order to protect both the ocean and the eroding land, dredge sand is needed. 

Article: The North Atlantic right whale will soon be extinct unless something is done to save it, researchers warn

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/us/whales-nearly-extinct-atlantic-ocean-scn-trnd/index.html

Subject- The subject of the article is the North Atlantic right whale is becoming extinct due to human activity such as vertical fishing lines and rapid speed of boats. If whales go extinct, oceanic ecosystems will be thoroughly effected as whales play a key role in the ecosystem. Despite efforts to stop whale hunting, whales find other enemies underwater as well.

Author- This source is from CNN and is written by Scottie Andrew. CNN is a fairly reliable source as it contains fair interpretations of the news. It is also neutral in terms of political opinion. 

Context- This source was produced on September 12, 2019 which is very current and recent, so the information and data is up to date. This proves that the statistics being portrayed are reliable to this current day and it shows how devastating the news is. The source was produced by CNN, specifically by Scottie Andrew. 

Audience- This source was written to any audience, as it is a fairly neutral website. It could be interpreted that this source was written towards animal rights activists and environmentalists because the article contains graphics and information sensitive to those viewers. This source still proves to be reliable since it is solely stating facts and data gathered. 

Perspective- This article is fairly objective because although it does contain information and graphics sensitive to certain viewers, the information and data given is neutral and fact- based. I agree with this perspective because it is neutral and therefore readers can interpret the article in their own ways and opinions, but the facts and statistics are still being presented.

Significance- Several uses of statistics and data are used to back up the author’s claims. By stating that 100 whales were dying from entanglement each year, the author proves his point that vertical fishing lines are harmful to whales. Furthermore, in 1935 whale hunting was banned and still, whale extinction continues to increase up to this day. Additionally since 2017, 8% of the right whale population has died in this “unusual mortality event”. All of this data and evidence proves the harm acted on the North Atlantic right whales and that we need to find solutions to prevent further harm before the whole population becomes extinct. I agree with this article because I believe that the extinction of the North Atlantic right whale could be very destructive to the oceanic ecosystem and future marine animal generations. I believe that human activity is destructive to the whales but also to several more oceanic species and that solutions need to be found to prevent this harmful activity.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Media Assessment of Issue

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/climate/marine-heat-waves.html?rref=collection/timestopic/Oceans&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=34&pgtype=collection

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/30/henderson-island-the-pacific-paradise-groaning-under-18-tonnes-of-plastic-waste

https://nypost.com/2019/08/26/lab-grown-coral-breakthrough-could-save-americas-reefs/

2. NY Times Article: 

S: Heat waves in the ocean are destroying the ecosystems and much of the heat being trapped is from greenhouse gases. Diversity is decreasing because the heat is killing many marine organisms.

A: Kendra Pierre- Louis and Nadja Popovich

C: March 4, 2019. At the New York Times. Very Credible. 

A: The audience is mainly for readers who share a neutral view politically. 

P: This article has very little bias and therefore is objective. If some bias was detected, it would be said that the authors are against institutions which release greenhouse gases and therefore hurt the ecosystems. 

S: The significance is that our ocean’s are dying due to heat exposure from human activity of burning fossil fuels, and creating more greenhouse gases that are harmful to the ocean. I agree with this because I believe that human activity is far too harmful and is the main cause to marine decay.

The Guardian Article:

S: An island off the southern Pacific Ocean is covered in trash and research teams head out to clean the beaches

A: Andrea Vance and Iain McGregor for Stuff. The Guardian.

C: July 29, 2019. Very recent, therefore accurate data. 

A: This article is intended for a liberal audience, wanting change for our ocean’s protection. 

P: This article is subjective because it is stating how much this one research team is working to clean up the ocean, yet there is still a whole other side where people are not doing anything to prevent this. I agree with the effort of cleaning the ocean, but disagree that it is helping a lot.

S: This is significant because it shows that research teams are working to clean up the beaches and show the world how harmful trash is on the oceanic ecosystems. I agree with their claims because beach litter is one of the main causes of marine animal deaths. 

New York Post Article:

S: An aquarium in Florida is working to regrow coral tissue in their labs to help save the coral reef.

A: Hannah Sparks-- written many articles before

C: Created August 26, 2019. Source seems not very credible. 

A: This article is written to a conservative audience as it does not reference many solutions to helping the environment, but it does reference attempts to create marine life in a lab.

P: This article is subjective because it does not come off as an article eager to save the environment and protect marine diversity. This article works to create coral in a laboratory for aquarium life.

S: This is significant because it shows the conservative view on oceanic health and proves that more needs to be done. I disagree with this article because it uses aquarium life and produces marine life in laboratories which usually ends up negatively affecting ocean life.

3. These articles are similar because they all are working to protect the ocean and its inhabitants. They are also similar because they promote possible solutions. They are different because all three pose different perspectives and opinions on the subject. Some articles are eager to help the ocean and the environment, others are not so eager. The Guardian article and the New York Post article were very different because they were on opposite sides and therefore you could really tell which was the more active environmentalist article. 

4. I identify the most with the article about the Ocean Heat Waves by The New York Times. I felt that the article addressed all problematic points of human activity and how harmful it is to the environment. I am very passionate about this topic and I found it very interesting how much heat the ocean traps as a result of greenhouse gases.

[dhagglund20ahsgov-blog]

Conceptualizing the Issue and Assessing Types of Action

1. I chose the issue of Oceanic Health and Preservation. I chose this issue because I am very passionate about ocean preservation and the health of marine animals. Originally, my topic was focused on The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but I expanded it to Oceanic Health and Preservation because I wanted to cover both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. 

2. This is a major issue because the littering of our oceans with plastic and non- disposable items is causing oceanic health and the health of marine animals to decline significantly. With unhealthy oceans and dying or sick animals, the oceanic ecosystem will eventually shut down. Along with negative effects on our oceans and animals, humans often rely on resources in the ocean to either make a living or to live off of, so with declining health, the oceans will stop producing those natural resources. 

3. I believe that several actions need to be taken to address this issue. Actions towards reducing waste will help the trash quantities decrease tremendously. Also, efforts of beach clean ups and being more conscientious about our waste use will protect the oceans health. Through efforts of preservation I believe that our oceans will see a significant difference in both trash quantity and health of the ecosystems below.

4. I am following: The Ocean Cleanup, Oceanic Preservation Society, Plastic Paradise, Ocean Conservancy, and Blue Planet Society. I am following The Ocean Cleanup because it gives several updates on the efforts to clean the ocean floor and surface. I chose Oceanic Preservation Society because they promote sustainability and protection of oceans and endangered animals which plays a large role in my issue. Plastic Paradise focuses on the Pacific Garbage Patch and what it is doing to the health of both our oceans and us. Ocean Conservancy promotes possible solutions for a healthier ocean and for those who depend on the oceans. Lastly, I followed Blue Planet Society because they work to campaign the end of over- exploitation of the world’s oceans. On Plastic Paradise I found it interesting in one of their tweets that they talked about how Canada will be banning single use plastics in 2021. Also, I found a tweet on Ocean Conservancy about an article emphasizing the best strategies to save the coral reefs in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. I agree with both of these tweets because they are essential in saving oceanic health and working on oceanic preservation. When choosing those I wanted to follow, I made sure to find different angles in ocean health and preservation. Some account take the perspective of animal protection and some take the angle of preserving the whole ocean in general. Also, some accounts offered solutions or possibilities for the future which was a whole new outlook.