+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Description

ENV 4001: ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Spring 2021
Test #2
Wednesday, March 24
University of South Florida
Civil & Environmental Eng.
Prof. J.A. Cunningham
Instructions:
1.
Sign in to Canvas and launch Test #2. It should be available under the Quizzes tab and/or
the Assignments tab. Test #2 in Canvas doesn’t contain very much information, but it does
include places to submit your numerical answers. The actual test questions are in this
document on the pages that follow.
2.
This test contains three questions. Answer all three.
3.
Questions may have multiple parts. The point value of each part is indicated. The total
number of points possible is 60.
4.
Unit conversion factors and other potentially useful information are provided on the
following page.
5.
Answer each question on your own paper. Put your name on each page of paper.
6.
Show your work and state any important assumptions you make. I cannot award partial
credit if I can’t follow what you did.
7.
Report a reasonable number of significant digits in your answers. Sometimes a question
might specify the number of significant digits to report.
8.
Include units in your answers as appropriate. An answer without proper units is not correct!
9.
You are allowed to use your text book, your course notes, or any other printed materials.
However, you may not receive help from another live person.
10. A hand-held calculator is recommended.
11. Numerical answers should be uploaded and submitted in Canvas by 12:15 PM. The
test will close in Canvas at 12:15 PM.
12. After submitting your answers in Canvas, scan your work and send it to me by e-mail
(cunning@usf.edu). E-mail me your file before 12:25 PM. Answers in your scanned work
must match the numerical answers that you uploaded to Canvas.
13. Don’t cheat. Cheating will result in appropriate disciplinary action according to university
policy. More importantly, cheating indicates a lack of personal integrity.
14. Hints:
• Read each question carefully and answer the question that is asked.
• Watch your units. If you take good care of your units, they will take good care of you.
• Work carefully and don’t rush.
p 1/9
Potentially useful constants:
Ideal gas constant, R:
Gravitational acceleration, g:
Molar mass of water, H2O:
Density of water at 20 °C:
Viscosity of water at 20 °C:
Density of air at 25 °C:
Viscosity of air at 25 °C:
8.314 Pa•m3•mol–1•K–1 = 82.06×10–6 atm•m3•mol–1•K–1
9.81 m/s2
18.01 g/mole
0.9984 g/mL = 998 kg/m3
1.002×10–3 Pa•sec
1.18 kg/m3
1.85×10–5 Pa•sec
Potentially useful conversion factors:
Pressure:
1 atm = 760 mm Hg = 760 torr = 101325 Pa
1 Pa = 1 N/m2 = 1 kg/(m•sec2)
Mass:
1 kg = 1000 g = 106 mg = 109 µg
1 kg = 2.207 lbmass
1 t (metric tonne) = 1000 kg = 2207 lbmass
1 ton (English ton) = 2000 lbmass
Length:
1 km = 1000 m = 105 cm = 106 mm = 109 µm
1 ft = 12 in = 30.48 cm = 0.3048 m
Temperature: 25 °C = 298.15 K
Volume:
1 m3 = 1000 L = 106 mL = 106 cm3
1 gal = 3.785 L
Work/Energy: 1 BTU = 1.055 kJ
Power:
1 MW = 106 W = 106 J/s = 106 N•m/s
Area :
1 ha = 104 m2
Atomic Masses:
H = 1.008 g/mole
P = 30.974 g/mole
Na = 22.99 g/mole
C = 12.011 g/mole
S = 32.06 g/mole
Mg = 24.31 g/mole
N = 14.007 g/mole
Cl = 35.453 g/mole
Ca = 40.08 g/mole
O = 15.999 g/mole
Br = 79.904 g/mole
Fe = 55.85 g/mole
Equilibrium Concentrations of Oxygen (O2) in Fresh Water (air/water equilibrium):
Temperature
(°C)
———–15
16
17
18
19
20
Equil. Conc. of O2
(mg/L)
———–10.15
9.95
9.74
9.54
9.65
9.17
Temperature
(°C)
———–21
22
23
24
25
26
p 2/9
Equil. Conc. of O2
(mg/L)
———–8.99
8.83
8.68
8.53
8.38
8.22
from “Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science”, 2nd edition, by Davis and Masten
p 3/6
1.
(15 pts) (111) We have discovered that the drinking water in the city of Malasuerte is
contaminated with a hazardous chemical called toxicane. It seems that the chemical has
been in the water supply ever since the 1940s, as a result of an experimental program
conducted nearby during World War II. Ever since then, the concentration of toxicane in
the water supply has been around 100 µg/L. Now we are trying to figure out if the presence
of toxicane in the water supply has led to any health consequences for the residents of
Malasuerte.
During the “Baby Boom” of 1946–1955, about 36,000 babies were born in Malasuerte. Of
these 36,000 people, 30 of them developed a rare form of esophageal cancer at some point
in their lives. We think maybe it is because of the toxicane in the water.
The nearby town of Buenafortuna is about the same size as Malasuerte, and also had about
36,000 babies born between 1946–1955. However, in Buenafortuna, only 6 of these 36,000
“boomers” developed the rare esophageal cancer.
a.
(5 pts) Estimate/calculate the incremental lifetime risk of contracting esophageal cancer
due to the presence of toxicane in the water. Report your answer to two significant
digits. For the purposes of this problem, you may assume that the only significant
difference between living conditions in Malasuerte and living conditions in
Buenafortuna is the presence (or absence) of toxicane in the drinking water.
b.
(10 pts) Estimate/calculate the cancer slope factor for oral ingestion of toxicane.
Report your answer to two significant digits, using units of (mg/kg•d)–1. For the
purposes of this exam, you may assume the following: (i) the people born in Malasuerte
lived in that city for an average of 40 years throughout their lives; (ii) a person’s
average body mass is 70 kg.
Be sure to show all your work and state any important assumptions that you make. Report
your numerical answers in the appropriate places in Canvas.
p 4/6
2.
(20 pts) (111) Recently, the residents in the vicinity of Jensen River realized that there is a
“dead spot” in the river that seems to be devoid of fish. The “dead spot” extends from about
24 km to about 26 km downstream of a factory that discharges its wastewater into the river.
The residents surmised that the factory is the cause of the dead spot, so they collected some
water samples from just a little bit downstream of where the factory discharge enters the
river. Here is what they determined from the water samples that they collected.
• The temperature of the river is 22 °C.
• The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the collected water samples was 7.00 mg/L.
• The biochemical oxygen demand in the collected water samples (BODult) was 20.0 mg/L.
• The rate coefficient for biodegradation of organic contaminants in the river is 0.20 d–1.
• The rate coefficient for reaeration of the river by the atmosphere is 0.45 d–1.
There are a couple things that, for some reason, nobody bothered to measure. One is the
average velocity of the river. Another is the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the “dead
spot” of the river. It won’t be too difficult to send somebody back out to the river to take
these measurements, but before we do that, let’s calculate what values we think we should
get.
a.
(12 pts) Estimate/calculate the average velocity of the river, in units of km/d. Hint: you
know the location of the dead spot in the river.
b.
(8 pts) Estimate/calculate the concentration of dissolved oxygen that you would expect
to measure in the dead spot of the river.
Report your answers in the appropriate places in Canvas.
p 5/6
3.
(25 pts) (111) Your engineering firm has been hired to design a new drinking-water
treatment plant to treat water taken from the Jensen River. (…a different stretch of river
from that considered in problem 2.) The river water will be filtered via granular media
filtration. Although you probably would use dual-media filtration in real life, for the
purposes of this problem, we will assume that you are using a single filter medium: sand.
Here is some information about the filtration process.
• Design flow rate to be treated is 3.1×106 L/hr (equivalent to nearly 20 million gallons per
day).
• You are going to design a number of filters to be operated in parallel; this is standard
design practice. That way, when one filter is being backwashed, all the other filters can
still be in operation. Each filter will have a cross-sectional area of 25 m2 (5.0 m by 5.0 m
square).
• Each filter will be comprised of a layer of sand grains that is 0.80 m deep.
• The sand grains have a diameter of 0.4 mm, a density of 2650 kg/m3, and an initial
(clean-filter) porosity of 0.42.
• The water temperature is 20 °C.
Your job is to determine how many filters must operate in parallel to ensure that the initial
head loss (i.e., the clean-filter head loss) is less than 1.0 m. Show your work and clearly
state any assumptions. Report your answer in Canvas.
YOU MUST SHOW YOUR WORK TO EARN CREDIT FOR THE PROBLEM. YOU
WILL GET VERY LITTLE PARTIAL CREDIT FOR A LUCKY GUESS.
Hint #1: You will make your life easier if you convert all parameters into a consistent
system of units (e.g., meters, kilograms, seconds).
Hint #2: How is head loss related to “filter velocity”, and how is “filter velocity” related to
the number of filters in operation? If you increase the number of filters in operation,
what happens to the filter velocity in each filter, and then what happens to the head loss
in each filter?
Hint #3: Depending on your approach, you might have to solve a quadratic.
END OF TEST
p 6/6
ENV 4001: ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Global Citizens Assignment
Stage 6
The sixth part of the Global Citizens Assignment is a peer review of another group’s paper. Here
are the parameters. Please read the instructions carefully.
•
following six sections. Please follow these instructions exactly.
1. Divide your peer review into six (6) sections and number the six sections.
2. In Section 1, include your name and the names of the group whose paper you reviewed.
3. In Section 2, provide a brief (probably about one paragraph) summary of your general
opinion of the effectiveness of the paper. Were there things about it that you liked? Did
it meet its intended goal? Was there something in it (either good or bad) that particularly
stands out to you?
4. In Section 3, provide a numerical score (between 0 and 5, in increments of 0.5 – for
example, 2.5, 3.0, 4.5) for each of the 10 writing characteristics. Refer to the ENV 4001
Writing Rubric (posted on Canvas) to help you provide the score for each characteristic.
5. In Section 4, provide a numerical score (between 0 and 3, in increments of 0.5 – for
example, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5) for each of the 6 characteristics on the ABET Outcome Rubric
(posted on Canvas).
6. In Section 5, for the particular characteristics that you scored the lowest (say, the two or
three characteristics that you think are most in need of improvement), provide specific
examples from the text that indicate why you gave the score you did.
7. In Section 6, offer suggestions – as specific as you can be – as to how the group could
improve on the characteristics that you identified as most in need of improvement.
I think it will probably take you about 2 pages to include all six sections, but there is no set
length requirement – use as much or as little space as you require to do the job properly.
p. 1/2
•
In addition to your written critique, you can choose to mark up the rough draft that you are
reading. This is optional; you can earn full credit without providing the marked-up copy. If
you choose to mark up the rough draft, I recommend using a colored pen (not black) so that
your comments are easily visible; or, if marking up an electronic copy, make sure your
comments are clearly visible and easy to find. Also, write your name (legibly) on the markedup copy, so the group can ask you follow-up questions if they don’t understand your
comments. I will assign your grade based on your written critique, not based on the mark-up,
but you can optionally decide to provide this mark-up as a service to your classmates.
•
Please try to be helpful and constructive in your comments. Your goal is to help the other
group improve their final product. It is not constructive to say “this paper is a mess.” It is
constructive to say “The organization of this paper needs improvement, and I think it could
best be improved by…[give suggestions, as specific as possible].” You should give your
honest assessment of the work you are reading, but while being honest you should still
provide your criticism in a constructive manner.
•
If you think the paper needs a lot of improvement, you will help your classmates by saying
so. The final paper is worth ~58% of the overall project grade, and I am not an easy grader. If
you give your classmates high marks to be “nice”, but then their final paper earns a low score,
then you have not actually been nice to them. The best way to help your classmates is to be
tough but fair. See also the bullet point immediately above; you want to be constructive, but
honest.
•
If this part of the project goes well (i.e., if each student completes the assignment), then each
group will receive 3 or 4 constructive reviews of their rough draft, which will help all of you
produce excellent final reports.
If you have questions about the requirements…ask!
p. 2/2
ENV 4001
Environmental Systems Engineering
Student Writing Assessment Rubric (rev. August 2017)
2. Systematic organization
1. Appropriate consideration
of audience
The first seven categories or traits included in this rubric are those suggested as essential elements of the “Written Language Skills” competency under USF’s
“Foundations of Knowledge and Learning Core Curriculum” (also known as the General Education or Gen Ed curriculum). The final three categories or traits were
included as other components of high-quality writing.
5. Exceptional (A+)
4. Very Good (A-/B+)
3. Good (B-)
2. Fair (C/C-)
1. Poor (D)
The paper goes above and
beyond the stated
requirements or parameters,
but does so without
diverging from the main
topic. The writer exhibits a
keen or insightful awareness
of the audience’s needs and
expectations.
The paper addresses all of
the stated requirements or
parameters of the
assignment. The writer
exhibits a proper awareness
of the audience’s needs and
expectations.
The paper addresses most of
the stated requirements or
parameters of the
assignment. The writer
generally exhibits awareness
of the audience’s needs and
expectations, but this may be
inconsistent throughout the
paper. At times the paper
may “go off on a tangent” or
include extraneous topics.
The paper fails to address at
least some critical
requirements or parameters
of the assignment, perhaps
addressing a topic or
question other than that
which was assigned. The
writer often does not meet
the needs and expectations
of the audience. The paper
frequently digresses to
extraneous topics.
The writer shifts between
multiple and/or inappropriate
audiences because of a lack
of reader awareness. The
paper is off-topic and/or
does not meet the
assignment.
The writer exhibits a lack of
respect to the reading
audience, perhaps through
the use of disrespectful
and/or harsh personal
comments. The paper has
little or nothing to do with the
given assignment.
Opening of paper clearly and
effectively introduces the
main idea of the paper.
Paper adheres to an overall
structure that is clear and
facilitates the paper’s main
idea. Coherence devices
(transitional words, phrases,
sentences) are present and
appropriate, and enhance
the reader’s understanding.
Ideas are organized in a
meaningful way and are
tightly stitched together.
Paragraphs logically and
coherently build upon each
other. Closing synthesizes
ideas from throughout the
paper to produce a coherent,
convincing, effective
argument.
Opening of the paper clearly
introduces main idea of the
paper. Paper adheres to an
overall structure that is clear
and facilitates the paper’s
main idea. Coherence
devices are present and are
used appropriately.
Paragraphs generally build
upon each other in a logical
order. The closing is
effective but is based
principally on a re-statement
of ideas already presented,
rather than a synthesis of
ideas.
Opening is present but the
main idea of the paper is not
fully clear. Overall structure
of paper may not be fully
clear or may not fully support
the paper’s main idea.
Transitional words, phrases,
or sentences are generally
present. Order of paragraphs
is usually, but not always,
logical; paragraphs may lack
unity. Closing is present, but
is likely to merely re-state
points from throughout the
paper, and does not
otherwise strengthen the
main idea.
Opening is present but the
main idea is unclear.
Overall structure of paper is
unclear or ideas appear in
an order that does not
facilitate the paper’s main
idea. Transitional words,
phrases, and sentences are
not used effectively.
Paragraphs lack unity or do
not follow in a logical order.
Closing is present but is not
effective at supporting the
paper’s main idea.
Opening is not present
and/or the opening lacks a
main idea. Overall structure
of the paper is absent or
detracts from the paper’s
main idea. Transitional
words, phrases, or
sentences are absent or
inappropriate. Order of
paragraphs is confusing
and/or does not support
paper’s main idea. Paper
may resemble “free
association.” Closing is not
present or does not support
the paper’s main idea.
The paper has no main idea
or purpose. The paper lacks
any sense of organization.
Order of paragraphs or ideas
appears random.
1/4
0. Unacceptable (F)
3. Good (B-)
2. Fair (C/C-)
1. Poor (D)
0. Unacceptable (F)
Exhibits an analysis or
logical progression of ideas
that supports the focus of the
paper. Errors in logic are
rare or absent. Conclusions
or inferences follow logically
from evidence provided.
The progression of ideas is
generally sound, but is in
some places interrupted by
contradictions or errors in
logic. Conclusions or
inferences usually, but not
always, follow logically from
evidence provided.
Progression of ideas is
noticeably interrupted by
contradictions or by errors in
logic. Conclusions or
inferences frequently do not
follow logically from
evidence provided.
Little or no progression of
ideas is exhibited, and the
demonstrated progression of
ideas is marked by frequent
contradictions or errors in
logic. Conclusions or
inferences are not supported
by the evidence provided.
Ideas presented are
unrelated to the topic and/or
represent no logical
progression. The paper may
appear to reflect the writer’s
“stream of consciousness.”
Identifies and insightfully
analyzes all important
features of arguments.
Develops ideas cogently,
organizes them logically, and
connects them with clear
transitions. Includes and
refutes counter-arguments
and evidence contrary to the
writer’s thesis. Arguments or
analysis thereof support the
main point of the paper.
Identifies most or all
important features of
arguments, and analyzes
them in a generally
thoughtful way. Develops
ideas clearly, organizes them
logically, and connects them
with appropriate transitions.
Includes some consideration
of counter-arguments or
evidence contrary to the
writer’s thesis. Arguments or
analysis thereof support the
main point of the paper.
Identifies and analyzes most
important features of
arguments. Analysis is
present but may miss one or
more key elements.
Develops and organizes
ideas satisfactorily, but may
not connect them with
transitions. Usually does not
address counter-arguments
or contrary evidence.
Arguments or analysis thereof
generally support the main
point of the paper.
Does not sufficiently identify
or analyze the most
important features of
arguments, although some
analysis may be present.
Devotes too much space to
analyzing tangential or
irrelevant issues. Limited in
the logical development of
ideas. Does not address
counter-arguments or
contrary evidence. Offers
support of little relevance or
value in terms of supporting
the paper’s main idea.
Does not present a logical
analysis, but may instead
present the writer’s preconceived views on the
subject without adequate
substantiation. Does not
develop ideas and/or is
disorganized. Provides little,
if any, relevant or
reasonable support for the
paper’s main idea.
Provides little evidence of
the ability to understand,
construct, or analyze
arguments.
All points are supported by a
sufficient number of details.
Details help to develop each
element of the text, and to
provide supporting evidence,
examples, or statements
necessary to explain or
persuade effectively.
All points are developed, but
some may need additional
details. Details support the
elements of the text with
sufficient clarity, depth, and
accuracy.
Additional details are needed
to develop some points.
Details are related to the
elements of the text, but
inconsistently support those
elements with sufficient
clarity, depth, or accuracy.
Additional details are
needed to develop most
points. Details which are
provided are only loosely
related to the elements of
the text, and may be lacking
in clarity, depth, and/or
accuracy.
Virtually no details are
present. The details which
are provided do not develop
the elements of the text.
Paper merely presents an
opinion that is not
substantiated.
Seamlessly incorporates and
explains the accuracy and
relevance of data, evidence,
and/or visuals (e.g., graphs
or tables). Offers support or
evidence from a variety of
sources. Analysis of
evidence convincingly
supports the paper’s main
idea.
Incorporates and examines
data, evidence, and/or
visuals (e.g., graphs or
tables). Offers support from
more than one source.
Treatment of evidence
generally supports the main
idea of the paper.
Incorporates data, evidence,
or visuals, but may require
additional explanation of
those elements. Sources of
evidence are acceptable but
may not be the most
authoritative or compelling.
Treatment of evidence at
least partially supports the
paper’s main idea.
Little use of data, evidence,
or visuals. States an
argument or viewpoint, but
with little reflection on facts
or data. Sources of
evidence may be
questionable. Treatment of
evidence is not effective or
convincing at promoting the
paper’s main idea.
The writer states an
argument or viewpoint, but
offers little or no use of
evidence or supporting data
or facts. Evidence offered
may be inappropriate to
substantiate the claims
attributed to it. Sources of
evidence are not
appropriate.
No evidence is provided to
substantiate claims. Paper
may lack a discernible
argument or viewpoint.
4. Construction and analysis of
valid and sound arguments
3. Demonstration
of reasoning skills
Exhibits an analysis or
logical progression of
sophisticated ideas that
supports the focus of the
paper. Makes new or
significant insights.
5. Effective use of
detail
4. Very Good (A-/B+)
6. Compelling
treatment of evidence
5. Exceptional (A+)
2/4
7. Language use appropriate to
discipline and audience
8. Sentence structure, grammar,
spelling, and mechanics
9. Use of required style or
format
5. Exceptional (A+)
4. Very Good (A-/B+)
3. Good (B-)
2. Fair (C/C-)
1. Poor (D)
0. Unacceptable (F)
The writing is clear and
language use is precise.
The paper demonstrates an
ease in using discourse and
language appropriate for the
particular discipline and/or
genre. Selects sophisticated
word choice and masters
accurate use of vocabulary
of the field. Tone is mature,
consistent, and suitable for
topic and audience. Uses
specialized terms accurately
and consistently.
The paper mostly uses
discourse and language
appropriate for the particular
discipline and/or genre.
Demonstrates good use of
appropriate word choice and
vocabulary of the field. Tone
and vocabulary level are
usually appropriate.
Specialized terms are used,
usually correctly and
consistently.
The paper sometimes uses
discourse and language
appropriate for the particular
discipline and/or genre.
Attempts and sometimes
succeeds to use vocabulary
specific to the field.
Vocabulary or sentence
construction are generally
accurate but may be
simplistic. Tone may have
some inconsistencies in tense
and/or person and may lapse
at times to colloquial
discourse. Specialized terms
are used, but superficially.
The paper uses minimal
discourse or language
appropriate to the particular
discipline and/or genre.
Inconsistently uses
vocabulary of the field,
including some inappropriate
word choices. Words are
used incorrectly or
inappropriately in many
places. Specialized terms
are used inappropriately or
out of context.
Paper’s use of discourse or
language appropriate to the
discipline and/or genre is
weak. Does not use
appropriate vocabulary for
the field. Paper consists
largely of slang,
colloquialism, or other
vocabulary inappropriate to
the assignment.
Paper demonstrates no
awareness of the language,
style, discourse, or
conventions of the field.
Sentences are varied and
convincing. Transitional
words, phrases, sentences
and paragraphs (coherence
devices) smoothly connect
the paper’s elements, ideas
and/or details, allowing the
reader to follow the writer’s
points effortlessly.
Sentences are grammatically
and mechanically correct,
with no discernible errors.
Sentences are generally
varied and convincing but
may have minor construction
errors intermingled.
Coherence devices are
present through most of the
paper and assist the reader’s
understanding. Infrequent
sentence-level errors in
grammar, spelling, or
mechanics. One or two
patterns of error may be
present. Errors do not
impede comprehension.
Sentences are not always
varied or convincing, and/or
may have construction errors.
Coherence devices appear
throughout the paper, but
additional and appropriate
connectors would enhance
the flow. May contain several
consistent patterns of errors
in grammar, spelling, or
mechanics, but these usually
do not impede
comprehension.
Sentence construction
shows little variation.
Frequent errors distract the
reader and/or detract from
meaning. Tone has
inconsistencies in both tense
and person. On occasion
there are lapses into
colloquial vernacular.
Many sentences exhibit
grammatical, spelling, and/or
mechanical errors,
sometimes obstructing
meaning, frequent enough to
distract the reader.
Sentence construction is
overly simplistic and/or
construction errors obscure
the writer’s meaning.
Constructions or language
patterns are inappropriate
for the assignment. Words
are frequently used
incorrectly, obscuring
meaning. Most sentences
exhibit grammatical,
spelling, and/or mechanical
errors. Reader must expend
significant additional effort to
discern meaning.
Meaning is difficult or
impossible to discern
because of ubiquitous errors
in word use, sentence
construction, grammar,
and/or spelling.
Demonstrates accurate
ability to use disciplinespecific style (e.g., APA,
MLA, etc.). Correctly
formats in-text citations and
references. Includes all
elements or sections
required and follows
guidelines for organization.
Font, punctuation, section
headers, and other elements
are all used correctly.
Demonstrates competence
in following disciplinespecific style (e.g., APA,
MLA, etc.). Citations and
references mostly adhere to
required format. Most
required sections or
elements are present and in
proper locations. Font,
punctuation, section
headers, etc., mostly adhere
to required format.
Demonstrates acceptable
ability to follow disciplinespecific style. Citations and
references attempt to follow
requirements but may contain
some errors. Required
sections or elements are
mostly present, but may not
be organized properly. May
fail to use required fonts,
punctuation, section headers,
or similar.
Makes errors in using
discipline-specific style
guide for documentation.
Errors may include: citations
and references do not
adhere to required format;
one or more required
sections or elements are
absent; paper does not
adhere to proper guidelines
for font, punctuation, section
headers, or other
mechanics.
Paper contains multiple
deficiencies in following
specific style, including at
least two of the following:
citations and references do
not adhere to required
format; one or more required
sections or elements are
absent; paper does not
adhere to proper guidelines
for font, punctuation, section
headers, or other
mechanics.
Does not adhere to any
recognizable format or style.
3/4
10. Proper use of references
and citations
5. Exceptional (A+)
4. Very Good (A-/B+)
3. Good (B-)
2. Fair (C/C-)
1. Poor (D)
0. Unacceptable (F)
Appropriate references are
provided for all claims or
statements that warrant
citation. Cites sources
accurately and consistently,
and provides an appropriate
and error-free bibliography or
list of works cited, formatted
in the proper style. In-text
citations match reference list.
Uses the most appropriate
references to support claims
or provide evidence.
Exhibits a keen or
particularly thorough
awareness of significant
sources of information
relevant to the topic at hand.
Appropriate references are
provided for nearly all claims
or statements that warrant
citation. Cites sources
accurately and consistently,
and provides a bibliography,
references, or list of works
cited which may contain
some errors or flaws. In-text
citations and reference list
match closely but not
exactly. Generally uses
appropriate references to
support claims or provide
evidence. Exhibits a strong
awareness of sources of
information relevant to the
topic.
Appropriate references are
provided for most claims or
statements that warrant
citation. Cites sources but
sometimes inaccurately. May
neglect to cite some sources
altogether, but those cited are
done consistent to the
required style. In-text
citations and reference list
may fail to match in some
places. References used to
support claims or provide
evidence are usually, but not
always, appropriate. Exhibits
a partial awareness of
sources of information
relevant to the topic.
Appropriate references are
missing for a number of
claims or statements that
warrant citation. References
are provided but may be
inaccurate, cited
inappropriately, or formatted
incorrectly in the reference
list. In-text citations and
reference list may fail to
match in several places.
References used to support
claims or provide evidence
are often not appropriate.
Exhibits some significant
gaps in awareness of
sources of information
relevant to the topic.
Paper borders on plagiarism
because of its lack of proper
reference to sources of
information. Few citations
are provided, and these are
likely to be used
inappropriately and/or
formatted incorrectly in the
reference list. Exhibits little
or no awareness of
appropriate sources of
information relevant to the
paper assignment.
No in-text citations are
utilized, and/or no reference
list is provided. Paper may
plagiarize via verbatim
reproduction of another
source without attribution.
Total points possible = 50
48–50 A+
44–48 A
40–44 A–
36–40 B+
32–36 B
28–32 B–
24–28 C+
20–24 C
16–20 C–
12–16 D+
8–12 D
4–8
D–
4/4
0–4
F
Rubric for ABET Student Learning Outcome #4, to be applied to ENV 4001 Global Citizens Project
3 – Excellent
2 – Good
1 – Fair
0 – Poor
Students’ work
recognizes ethical and
professional
responsibilities of
engineers
Ethical and professional
responsibilities of engineers are
considered explicitly and are
central to the final conclusions
of the project.
Ethical and professional
responsibilities of engineers are
not central to the final
conclusions of the project, but it
is evident that students did
include some consideration of
such factors in their analysis.
Students’ analysis largely
ignores ethical and professional
responsibilities of engineers, but
final results or conclusions do
partly respond to such factors,
even if unintentionally.
Ethical and professional
responsibilities of engineers
were not considered in the
students’ analysis and are not
part of the final project results.
Students make
informed judgements
relevant to the task
assigned
Students’ findings, conclusions,
recommendations, and/or
judgements are based on a
sophisticated knowledge and
understanding of relevant facts
and factors.
Students consider at least some
of the most important facts and
factors in reaching conclusions
and/or making judgements.
Students’ judgements largely
ignore relevant facts and factors,
and/or are only partly related to
the project assigned.
Students’ findings, conclusions,
recommendations, and/or
judgements are ill-informed,
and/or are not related to the
project assigned.
Students’ findings &
recommendations
consider global context
and factors
Global context and factors are
considered explicitly and are
central to the final conclusions
of the project.
Global context and factors are
not central to the final
conclusions of the project, but it
is evident that students did
include some consideration of
such factors in their analysis.
Students’ analysis largely
ignores global context and
factors, but final results or
conclusions do partly respond to
such factors, even if
unintentionally.
Global context and factors were
not considered in the students’
analysis and are not part of the
final project results.
Students’ findings &
recommendations
consider economic
context and factors
Economic context and factors
are considered explicitly and are
central to the final conclusions
of the project.
Economic context and factors
are not central to the final
conclusions of the project, but it
is evident that students did
include some consideration of
such factors in their analysis.
Students’ analysis largely
ignores economic context and
factors, but final results or
conclusions do partly respond to
such factors, even if
unintentionally.
Economic context and factors
were not considered in the
students’ analysis and are not
part of the final project results.
Students’ findings &
recommendations
consider environmental
context and factors
Environmental context and
factors are considered explicitly
and are central to the final
conclusions of the project.
Environmental context and
factors are not central to the final
conclusions of the project, but it
is evident that students did
include some consideration of
such factors in their analysis.
Students’ analysis largely
ignores environmental context
and factors, but final results or
conclusions do partly respond to
such factors, even if
unintentionally.
Environmental context and
factors were not considered in
the students’ analysis and are not
part of the final project results.
Students findings &
recommendations
consider societal
context and factors
Societal context and factors are
considered explicitly and are
central to the final conclusions
of the project.
Societal context and factors are
not central to the final
conclusions of the project, but it
is evident that students did
include some consideration of
such factors in their analysis.
Students’ analysis largely
ignores societal context and
factors, but final results or
conclusions do partly respond to
such factors, even if
unintentionally.
Societal context and factors were
not considered in the students’
analysis and are not part of the
final project results.
The Global Citizens Assignment
Governments can fundamentally impact their country’s carbon footprint. The United
States is a good example of how leaders can use their influence for energy sectors and citizens to
be more cognizant of their environmental impacts. In August 2015, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aimed to combat climate change in
the United States through reducing carbon emissions from power plants (Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], n.d.-b). After its implementation, many argued that the plan was
unfair and would contribute to higher electricity prices for low- and middle-income Americans.
In 2018, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) was proposed under the subsequent
administration and aimed to focus on only coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions.
This plan deviates away from promoting a switch to cleaner energies, such as natural gas, to
focusing on efficiency improvements to coal. Choosing between the CPP and the ACE is vital
because how greenhouse gas emissions are regulated have a massive impact on the environment
and the health of all human beings on Earth. Although the ACE presents a solution to reducing
carbon emissions, the CPP is the superior plan because it offers a more aggressive solution to
global climate change and provides economic, environmental, and health improvements to
America.
The Clean Power Plan (CPP) offers a more effective solution and is significantly better
for the environment and health of the American citizens compared to the Affordable Clean
Energy Rule (ACE). The CPP was first proposed under the Obama administration by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June of 2014 with the final version of the plan
following after it just over a year later. The CPP mainly targeted power plants because of their
large contribution to greenhouse gases, which is one of the main causes of global warming
(World Wildlife Fund [WWF], n.d.). The main goal of the CPP was to reduce the harmful CO2
emissions produced by power plants in a manageable and affordable way. By implementing this
plan, America would be able to make a more solidified effort in reducing their contribution to
greenhouse gasses. Through research of the implementation of the CPP, it was found that the
plan has tangible effects to the overall condition of the environment. Through a direct plan to cut
emissions from power plants specifically, the CPP would be able to “cut carbon pollution from
the power sector by 32 percent by 2030” (EPA, n.d.-a). This is equal to around 54,000 to 56,000
tons of fine particulate matter, 424,000 to 471,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 407,000 to 428,000
tons of nitrogen dioxide (EPA, n.d.-a). These benefits don’t just clear the atmosphere and help
extend the life of the Earth, they also come with many public health benefits to Americans. The
condition of the environment has a direct correlation to the health of the people it serves.
Implementing the CPP will avoid “3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, and 90,000
asthma attacks” (EPA, n.d.-b). This statistic only applies to Americans, but the effects can be felt
worldwide. Climate change causes increased cases of malnutrition, diarrheal disease, and malaria
in all areas of the world. These increased cases also come along with high associated costs.
Worldwide, these effects could cost up to 5 billion to 16 billion U.S. dollars (Ebi et al., 2017).
Because climate change causes extreme weather events, the damages caused by these events
comes with public health concerns and drastic costs that many poorer countries may not be able
to handle. Just in 2012 in the United States, ten climate change related extreme weather events
were estimated to cost $18.4 billion in health-related and mortality costs combined (Limaye et
al., 2019). The CPP would offer a chance to minimize these public health concerns and the hefty
costs that come with them. Implementing the CPP is critical because America has a
responsibility along with the rest of the world to combat their contributions to global warming. In
fact, America has contributed more to global warming over the entire lifespan of human history
than any other country (Gillis & Popovich, 2017). In addition to the moral obligation that
America has to the health of the world, it is logical for America to take a hefty responsibility in
making changes that will combat the effects of global warming and climate change.
The CPP is better than the ACE because the CPP provides affordability in conjunction
with all the health and environmental benefits that come along with it. Whenever a plan focusing
on the reduction of harmful gas emissions in order to benefit the health of people and the
environment is introduced, there is almost always going to be a cost in order to achieve the goal
at hand. A big reason why the CPP is a better plan than the ACE is due to the combination of the
benefits that would result upon implementation and how economically feasible it is. When it
comes to reducing CO2 emissions, there are not many other methods that compare to the CPP in
terms of the cost that it would take to reduce the same amount CO2 emissions. According to
Gillingham and Stock (2018), (in terms of the currency in 2017) the cost that it would take to
remove 1 ton of CO2 emissions is about $11 (Gillingham & Stock, 2018). This low cost for
reducing 1 ton of emissions is worth noting because it shows that the Clean Power Plan was
created with the intention to reduce large amounts of emissions while still giving flexibility in
order to make the make the transition to cleaner sources affordable. Additionally, when the EPA
proposed its final version of the CPP, the EPA stated that “the CPP has public health and climate
benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030, far outweighing the costs
of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion” (EPA, n.d.-b). The claims of potential health and climate benefits
by the EPA can also be backed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other
economists. The NRDC has estimated that in “2030, the Clean Power Plan could save the
country $20 billion in climate-related costs and deliver $14 billion to $34 billion in health
benefits” (NRDC, 2017). The economic feasibility of the Clean Power Plan can also be seen by
examination of the impact that could occur on electricity prices if the CPP were to have been
implemented. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) as shown in Figure 1,
the average electricity price from 2022 through 2030 for the reference (assumes that the CPP is
implemented by regulating the amount of CO2 emissions) and CPP rate (assumes that the CPP is
implemented by regulating the limit of CO2 per electricity unit) cases are projected to both be
2% higher than the No CPP case, and an average of about 3% higher from 2030 through 2040
(Jones, 2016).
Figure 1
The U.S. Electricity Price Projections Through 2040
There is even a possibility that the implementation of the CPP may even decrease electricity
prices. The NRDC believes that “the shift to energy efficiency and cleaner power will save the
average American family $85 on its electricity bills in 2030” (National Resources Defense
Council, Inc. [NRDC], 2017). The cost implementing the CPP may seem extremely high at first
glance when looking at the potential costs, but these costs can be seen to be outweighed by the
potential net benefits that would occur upon implementation, making the CPP very affordable.
Although the United States does not currently emit the most greenhouse gases, it has
produced the most greenhouses gases throughout history (Gillis & Popovich, 2017). According
to the World Resources Institute, “from 1850 to 2011 the United States has produced 27 percent
of the total carbon dioxide emissions of the world” (Mooney, 2015). This percentage is greater
than all of the nations in the European Union combined. Because of this, America is the most to
blame for all of the effects of climate change that we live with today. Some of these effects
include extreme weather events, public health crises, and all of the high costs associated with
them. Climate change has been linked to the resurgence of malaria in areas where the public
health infrastructure either cannot handle the number of sick patients or lacks the resources to do
so (Haines & Patz, 2004). Pakistan, a country that struggles with extreme weather events due to
climate change such as varying temperature, flooding, melting glaciers, hurricanes, storms, and
droughts also struggles with many social issues such as high poverty rate, and limited financial
and physical resources (Hussain et al., 2019). There are many more countries that face similar or
even more drastic problems with very little financial resources to mitigate these challenges. To
create public health infrastructure that is resilient to climate change, they need to include
climate-sensitive policies and programs such as disaster risk management, air pollution control,
and water and food security (Ebi et al., 2017). In addition to public health, food security is
another element of basic human necessity that would be in jeopardy due to climate change. In
particular, climate change is estimated to increase the prices of agricultural gods which would
threaten food security for poorer regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (Ebi et al.,
2017). For Africa specifically, climate change has been predicted to cause the yields of cereal
grains to decrease because of expected increased drought conditions (Haines & Patz, 2004). The
CPP would act as a disaster risk management policy by providing regulations with benefits that
would extend thousands of miles past the border. Because climate change can be felt globally, it
is imperative that the United States implement a plan like the CPP to repair some of the damage
caused only by the United States.
There are many arguments made about the effectiveness of the ACE that don’t hold much
value when compared to the CPP. The biggest flaw of the ACE has to do with its effectiveness in
reducing emissions. When the ACE was proposed, the EPA projected a reduction of 11 million
short tons for CO2 emissions, 5,700 tons for SO2 emissions, 7,100 tons for NOX emissions and
400 tons for PM2.5 emissions (EPA, n.d.-c). The ACE’s reductions in emissions that were
projected by the EPA are far below its predecessor, the CPP, showing just how effective the CPP
really was in terms of reducing emissions. The EPA’s projection in emissions reductions also
might not be as accurate as initially thought. “Although the ACE reduces the emissions intensity
of coal plants, it is expected to increase the number of operating coal plants and amount of coalfired electricity generation” (Keyes et al., 2019). This increase in coal plants and coal-fired
electricity generation is not good in terms reducing carbon emissions due to more electricity
generation coming from coal and may actually cause the opposite effect of what was intended
and actually increase emissions. “According to the regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) for the
proposal, if states were to have adhered to the proposal, greenhouse gas emissions were expected
to increase by 3% by 2035, relative to 2005 levels” (McCormick, 2019). In addition, the ACE
contains broad language that would allow states the freedom of legal interpretation and would
allow them to set their own guidelines to how the rule should be followed. The verbiage of the
rule would constrain the EPA to make further rules and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (McCormick, 2019). The ACE also was produced with few stakeholders in mind and
only had 500,000 comments to base its rules on. This is a sharp contrast to the CPP which had
over 4.2 million comments by the time of its finalization (McCormick, 2019). Just by this fact, it
can be seen that the CPP is more concerned about the harmful effects of climate change and the
people that it will affect while the ACE is only concerned about the economic benefits, which
have been proven to be very minimal. In fact, the “EPA itself estimates the impact on retail
electricity prices to be very small on average, ranging from one-half of oner perfect decrease to
no change, relative to the CPP” (Harris, 2018). This means the cost savings of the ACE pale in
comparison to the health and environmental benefits the CPP offers.
Implementing the CPP has become increasingly important as the harmful effects of
global climate change continue to become more damaging to the environment and costly to fight
against. These effects not only effect the American economy and health sectors, but they also
effect other countries that may be less equipped to deal with these consequences. It is imperative
that the CPP be chosen over the ACE in order to effectively combat climate change. The ACE
will allow America to stay stagnant and complacent in the global fight against climate change.
Even with the minor costs of implementation, the CPP offers numerous benefits to the energy
sector, healthcare system, and worldwide quality of life. By choosing the CPP, America will take
steps to amend their past actions that will avoid additional healthcare costs, major climate events,
disease outbreaks, and depletion of our natural environment.
References
Ebi, K., Mills, D., & Smith, M. (2006, September 1). Climate change and human health
impacts in the United States: An update on the results of the U.S. national assessment.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(9), 1307-A556. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.114a514
Gillingham, K., & Stock, J. (2018). The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 53-72.
Gillis, J., & Popovich, N. (2017, June 1). The U.S. is the biggest carbon polluter in history. It just
walked away from the Paris Climate Deal. The New York Times.
Haines, A., & Patz, J. (2004, January 7). Health effects of climate change. The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 291(1), 99-103.
Harris, R. C. (2018, September 24). ACE proposed rule: Part II. Environmental Law Institute.
https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/ace-proposed-rule-part-ii
Hussain, M., Butt, R. A., Uzma, F., Ahmed, R., Irshad, S., Rehman, A., & Yousaf, B. (2019,
December 2019). A comprehensive review of climate change impacts, adaptation, and
mitigation on environmental and natural calamities in Pakistan. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 192(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-0197956-4
Jones, J. (2016, June 21). Clean Power Plan implementation decisions affect CO2 emissions and
electricity prices. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26752
Limaye, S. V., Max, W., Constible, J., & Knowlton K. (2019, September 17). Estimating the
helath-related costs of 10 climate-sensitive U.S. events during 2012. GeoHealth, 3(9),
245-265. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000202
McCormick, K. (2019, March). How clean is clean?: An analysis on the difference between
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and the Clean Power Plan and why states should
adhere to stricter emissions standards. Pace Environmental Law Review, 37(1), 103-138.
Mooney, C. (2015, January 22). The U.S. has caused more global warming than any other
country. Here’s how the Earth will get its revenge. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/22/the-u-s-hascontributed-more-to-global-warming-than-any-other-country-heres-how-the-earth-willget-its-revenge/
National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2017, September 29). What is the Clean Power Plan?
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-clean-power-plan-works-and-why-itmatters#:~:text=Economists%20believe%20that%20in%202030,its%20electricity%20bill
s%20in%202030
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan
by the Numbers: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants.
https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602fsimportant-numbers-clean-power-plan.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan
Overview. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/201405/documents/20140602fs-overview.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). FACT SHEET: Final ACE Rule – CO2
Emissions Trends. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201906/documents/ace_co2_trends_6.18.19_final.pdf
World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Causes of global warming. https://www.wwf.org.au/what-wedo/climate/causes-of-global-warming#gs.w781zg
The Global Citizens Assignment
Governments can fundamentally impact their country’s carbon footprint. The United
States is a good example of how leaders can use their influence for energy sectors and citizens to
be more cognizant of their environmental impacts. In August 2015, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposed the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aimed to combat climate change in
the United States through reducing carbon emissions from power plants (Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], n.d.-b). After its implementation, many argued that the plan was
unfair and would contribute to higher electricity prices for low- and middle-income Americans.
In 2018, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) was proposed under the subsequent
administration and aimed to focus on only coal-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions.
This plan deviates away from promoting a switch to cleaner energies, such as natural gas, to
focusing on efficiency improvements to coal. Choosing between the CPP and the ACE is vital
because how greenhouse gas emissions are regulated have a massive impact on the environment
and the health of all human beings on Earth. Although the ACE presents a solution to reducing
carbon emissions, the CPP is the superior plan because it offers a more aggressive solution to
global climate change and provides economic, environmental, and health improvements to
America.
The Clean Power Plan (CPP) offers a more effective solution and is significantly better
for the environment and health of the American citizens compared to the Affordable Clean
Energy Rule (ACE). The CPP was first proposed under the Obama administration by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June of 2014 with the final version of the plan
following after it just over a year later. The CPP mainly targeted power plants because of their
large contribution to greenhouse gases, which is one of the main causes of global warming
(World Wildlife Fund [WWF], n.d.). The main goal of the CPP was to reduce the harmful CO2
emissions produced by power plants in a manageable and affordable way. By implementing this
plan, America would be able to make a more solidified effort in reducing their contribution to
greenhouse gasses. Through research of the implementation of the CPP, it was found that the
plan has tangible effects to the overall condition of the environment. Through a direct plan to cut
emissions from power plants specifically, the CPP would be able to “cut carbon pollution from
the power sector by 32 percent by 2030” (EPA, n.d.-a). This is equal to around 54,000 to 56,000
tons of fine particulate matter, 424,000 to 471,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 407,000 to 428,000
tons of nitrogen dioxide (EPA, n.d.-a). These benefits don’t just clear the atmosphere and help
extend the life of the Earth, they also come with many public health benefits to Americans. The
condition of the environment has a direct correlation to the health of the people it serves.
Implementing the CPP will avoid “3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, and 90,000
asthma attacks” (EPA, n.d.-b). This statistic only applies to Americans, but the effects can be felt
worldwide. Climate change causes increased cases of malnutrition, diarrheal disease, and malaria
in all areas of the world. These increased cases also come along with high associated costs.
Worldwide, these effects could cost up to 5 billion to 16 billion U.S. dollars (Ebi et al., 2017).
Because climate change causes extreme weather events, the damages caused by these events
comes with public health concerns and drastic costs that many poorer countries may not be able
to handle. Just in 2012 in the United States, ten climate change related extreme weather events
were estimated to cost $18.4 billion in health-related and mortality costs combined (Limaye et
al., 2019). The CPP would offer a chance to minimize these public health concerns and the hefty
costs that come with them. Implementing the CPP is critical because America has a
responsibility along with the rest of the world to combat their contributions to global warming. In
fact, America has contributed more to global warming over the entire lifespan of human history
than any other country (Gillis & Popovich, 2017). In addition to the moral obligation that
America has to the health of the world, it is logical for America to take a hefty responsibility in
making changes that will combat the effects of global warming and climate change.
The CPP is better than the ACE because the CPP provides affordability in conjunction
with all the health and environmental benefits that come along with it. Whenever a plan focusing
on the reduction of harmful gas emissions in order to benefit the health of people and the
environment is introduced, there is almost always going to be a cost in order to achieve the goal
at hand. A big reason why the CPP is a better plan than the ACE is due to the combination of the
benefits that would result upon implementation and how economically feasible it is. When it
comes to reducing CO2 emissions, there are not many other methods that compare to the CPP in
terms of the cost that it would take to reduce the same amount CO2 emissions. According to
Gillingham and Stock (2018), (in terms of the currency in 2017) the cost that it would take to
remove 1 ton of CO2 emissions is about $11 (Gillingham & Stock, 2018). This low cost for
reducing 1 ton of emissions is worth noting because it shows that the Clean Power Plan was
created with the intention to reduce large amounts of emissions while still giving flexibility in
order to make the make the transition to cleaner sources affordable. Additionally, when the EPA
proposed its final version of the CPP, the EPA stated that “the CPP has public health and climate
benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030, far outweighing the costs
of $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion” (EPA, n.d.-b). The claims of potential health and climate benefits
by the EPA can also be backed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other
economists. The NRDC has estimated that in “2030, the Clean Power Plan could save the
country $20 billion in climate-related costs and deliver $14 billion to $34 billion in health
benefits” (NRDC, 2017). The economic feasibility of the Clean Power Plan can also be seen by
examination of the impact that could occur on electricity prices if the CPP were to have been
implemented. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) as shown in Figure 1,
the average electricity price from 2022 through 2030 for the reference (assumes that the CPP is
implemented by regulating the amount of CO2 emissions) and CPP rate (assumes that the CPP is
implemented by regulating the limit of CO2 per electricity unit) cases are projected to both be
2% higher than the No CPP case, and an average of about 3% higher from 2030 through 2040
(Jones, 2016).
Figure 1
The U.S. Electricity Price Projections Through 2040
There is even a possibility that the implementation of the CPP may even decrease electricity
prices. The NRDC believes that “the shift to energy efficiency and cleaner power will save the
average American family $85 on its electricity bills in 2030” (National Resources Defense
Council, Inc. [NRDC], 2017). The cost implementing the CPP may seem extremely high at first
glance when looking at the potential costs, but these costs can be seen to be outweighed by the
potential net benefits that would occur upon implementation, making the CPP very affordable.
Although the United States does not currently emit the most greenhouse gases, it has
produced the most greenhouses gases throughout history (Gillis & Popovich, 2017). According
to the World Resources Institute, “from 1850 to 2011 the United States has produced 27 percent
of the total carbon dioxide emissions of the world” (Mooney, 2015). This percentage is greater
than all of the nations in the European Union combined. Because of this, America is the most to
blame for all of the effects of climate change that we live with today. Some of these effects
include extreme weather events, public health crises, and all of the high costs associated with
them. Climate change has been linked to the resurgence of malaria in areas where the public
health infrastructure either cannot handle the number of sick patients or lacks the resources to do
so (Haines & Patz, 2004). Pakistan, a country that struggles with extreme weather events due to
climate change such as varying temperature, flooding, melting glaciers, hurricanes, storms, and
droughts also struggles with many social issues such as high poverty rate, and limited financial
and physical resources (Hussain et al., 2019). There are many more countries that face similar or
even more drastic problems with very little financial resources to mitigate these challenges. To
create public health infrastructure that is resilient to climate change, they need to include
climate-sensitive policies and programs such as disaster risk management, air pollution control,
and water and food security (Ebi et al., 2017). In addition to public health, food security is
another element of basic human necessity that would be in jeopardy due to climate change. In
particular, climate change is estimated to increase the prices of agricultural gods which would
threaten food security for poorer regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (Ebi et al.,
2017). For Africa specifically, climate change has been predicted to cause the yields of cereal
grains to decrease because of expected increased drought conditions (Haines & Patz, 2004). The
CPP would act as a disaster risk management policy by providing regulations with benefits that
would extend thousands of miles past the border. Because climate change can be felt globally, it
is imperative that the United States implement a plan like the CPP to repair some of the damage
caused only by the United States.
There are many arguments made about the effectiveness of the ACE that don’t hold much
value when compared to the CPP. The biggest flaw of the ACE has to do with its effectiveness in
reducing emissions. When the ACE was proposed, the EPA projected a reduction of 11 million
short tons for CO2 emissions, 5,700 tons for SO2 emissions, 7,100 tons for NOX emissions and
400 tons for PM2.5 emissions (EPA, n.d.-c). The ACE’s reductions in emissions that were
projected by the EPA are far below its predecessor, the CPP, showing just how effective the CPP
really was in terms of reducing emissions. The EPA’s projection in emissions reductions also
might not be as accurate as initially thought. “Although the ACE reduces the emissions intensity
of coal plants, it is expected to increase the number of operating coal plants and amount of coalfired electricity generation” (Keyes et al., 2019). This increase in coal plants and coal-fired
electricity generation is not good in terms reducing carbon emissions due to more electricity
generation coming from coal and may actually cause the opposite effect of what was intended
and actually increase emissions. “According to the regulatory impact analysis (“RIA”) for the
proposal, if states were to have adhered to the proposal, greenhouse gas emissions were expected
to increase by 3% by 2035, relative to 2005 levels” (McCormick, 2019). In addition, the ACE
contains broad language that would allow states the freedom of legal interpretation and would
allow them to set their own guidelines to how the rule should be followed. The verbiage of the
rule would constrain the EPA to make further rules and regulations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (McCormick, 2019). The ACE also was produced with few stakeholders in mind and
only had 500,000 comments to base its rules on. This is a sharp contrast to the CPP which had
over 4.2 million comments by the time of its finalization (McCormick, 2019). Just by this fact, it
can be seen that the CPP is more concerned about the harmful effects of climate change and the
people that it will affect while the ACE is only concerned about the economic benefits, which
have been proven to be very minimal. In fact, the “EPA itself estimates the impact on retail
electricity prices to be very small on average, ranging from one-half of oner perfect decrease to
no change, relative to the CPP” (Harris, 2018). This means the cost savings of the ACE pale in
comparison to the health and environmental benefits the CPP offers.
Implementing the CPP has become increasingly important as the harmful effects of
global climate change continue to become more damaging to the environment and costly to fight
against. These effects not only effect the American economy and health sectors, but they also
effect other countries that may be less equipped to deal with these consequences. It is imperative
that the CPP be chosen over the ACE in order to effectively combat climate change. The ACE
will allow America to stay stagnant and complacent in the global fight against climate change.
Even with the minor costs of implementation, the CPP offers numerous benefits to the energy
sector, healthcare system, and worldwide quality of life. By choosing the CPP, America will take
steps to amend their past actions that will avoid additional healthcare costs, major climate events,
disease outbreaks, and depletion of our natural environment.
References
Ebi, K., Mills, D., & Smith, M. (2006, September 1). Climate change and human health
impacts in the United States: An update on the results of the U.S. national assessment.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(9), 1307-A556. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.114a514
Gillingham, K., & Stock, J. (2018). The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 32(4), 53-72.
Gillis, J., & Popovich, N. (2017, June 1). The U.S. is the biggest carbon polluter in history. It just
walked away from the Paris Climate Deal. The New York Times.
Haines, A., & Patz, J. (2004, January 7). Health effects of climate change. The Journal of the
American Medical Association, 291(1), 99-103.
Harris, R. C. (2018, September 24). ACE proposed rule: Part II. Environmental Law Institute.
https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/ace-proposed-rule-part-ii
Hussain, M., Butt, R. A., Uzma, F., Ahmed, R., Irshad, S., Rehman, A., & Yousaf, B. (2019,
December 2019). A comprehensive review of climate change impacts, adaptation, and
mitigation on environmental and natural calamities in Pakistan. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 192(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-0197956-4
Jones, J. (2016, June 21). Clean Power Plan implementation decisions affect CO2 emissions and
electricity prices. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26752
Limaye, S. V., Max, W., Constible, J., & Knowlton K. (2019, September 17). Estimating the
helath-related costs of 10 climate-sensitive U.S. events during 2012. GeoHealth, 3(9),
245-265. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000202
McCormick, K. (2019, March). How clean is clean?: An analysis on the difference between
the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and the Clean Power Plan and why states should
adhere to stricter emissions standards. Pace Environmental Law Review, 37(1), 103-138.
Mooney, C. (2015, January 22). The U.S. has caused more global warming than any other
country. Here’s how the Earth will get its revenge. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/22/the-u-s-hascontributed-more-to-global-warming-than-any-other-country-heres-how-the-earth-willget-its-revenge/
National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2017, September 29). What is the Clean Power Plan?
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/how-clean-power-plan-works-and-why-itmatters#:~:text=Economists%20believe%20that%20in%202030,its%20electricity%20bill
s%20in%202030
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan
by the Numbers: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants.
https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602fsimportant-numbers-clean-power-plan.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan
Overview. https://archive.epa.gov/epa/sites/production/files/201405/documents/20140602fs-overview.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). FACT SHEET: Final ACE Rule – CO2
Emissions Trends. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201906/documents/ace_co2_trends_6.18.19_final.pdf
World Wildlife Fund. (n.d.). Causes of global warming. https://www.wwf.org.au/what-wedo/climate/causes-of-global-warming#gs.w781zg

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!