I changed the intro a bit to make it more specific to relevant policy, it still needs more exigency, I plan on pressing climate approach.
LEDs: Penn State’s Power Saving Shift
Penn State is always in the process of renovating and upgrading buildings around campus. Within the 2019-2020 year alone Penn State was doing some degree of construction on ten residence halls across all five residence areas. Penn State is currently doing either renovations or reconstruction of three teaching spaces. The newest completed project on campus is the 193,000 square foot chemical and biomedical engineering, with a budget of 144 million one would think this lab space would be an environmentally conscious structure. However, this building lacks a key and dare I say easy, enhancement. It utilizes incandescent light bulbs, which are less efficient than their LED counterparts when it comes to light output per energy used. The designs are done up for all of Penn State’s construction for the next three years, but one thing is certain, Penn State construction will never stop. Penn State needs to better implement LED lighting systems into all our buildings, regardless of age.
The Green New Deal is a piece of potential legislation that calls for an extreme change in American Life. The GND primarily proposes the idea that the United States will be greenhouse gas neutral and on 100% renewable energy by 2030, however, this comes at an extremely high cost. Similar to FDR’s New Deal, the GND excludes a plethora of socialist reform ideas, classified as an “Economic Bill of Rights” which includes: the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing, and free college education. These legislative reforms go beyond environmental protection and act as an economic stimulus. The GND premiered through the Green Party in 2015 and was featured in Jill Stein’s presidential platform. In light of recent global climate studies, the GND has since found itself implemented into mainstream democratic platforms, with all 7 of the remaining democratic nominees for 2020 supporting or cosponsoring the legislation.
Economics and efficiency
From an economic standpoint, It is estimated that a GND transition would cost anywhere from 8.3-12.3 trillion dollars, or the equivalent of $52,000 to $72,000 per household, this obviously isn’t feasible in the form of taxation, even over a 10 year period. This level of government subsidisation hasn’t occurred proportionally on a scale of this magnitude since World War II. World War II effectively pulled the United States out of the Great Depression. The problem here is that the Government Debt would have to increase by several trillion dollars to finance this bill, and with that, we risk hyperinflation and crashing the stock market. Of course, economically speaking, a viable alternative to the Green New Deal would be a massive Carbon Tax on companies, make the tax high enough and companies will find a more environmentally friendly way to function. Implementing a carbon tax appears more feasible in today’s gridlocked legislator.
Environmentally speaking, 100% renewable energy by 2030 is an appealing idea at its core, but definitely far off. In 2017 only 11% of our energy was renewable and 9% was nuclear. The GND holds seven environmental objectives:
In addition to its large price tag, a criticism of the GND is that it suffers from a collective action problem. The reforms and pro-environment economic movement of the GND would only take place domestically. The United States accounts for 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Assuming the United States went Net-0, a 15% carbon dioxide reduction would not be sufficient to stop the snowballing degradation of our climate.
The GND is a solid example of the first round of legislation aimed at saving the environment. There is no easy answer to this, AOC said it best by saying, “ “So people are like: ‘Oh, it’s unrealistic. Oh, it’s vague. Oh, it doesn’t address this little minute thing.’ And I am like, ‘You try! You do it!’”
Topics to explore
The price of retrofitting (changing from Incandescent to LED)
The payback period
Learning under LED versus Incandescent (Light color?)
More to come…. Like the start so far…
Work Cited:
Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why the Green New Deal Is Happening Now.” The Balance, The Balance, 30 Apr. 2019, www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071.
BANERJEE, ONIL, et al. “AN ECONOMY-WIDE ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY IN BANGLADESH.” Climate Change Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/climchanecon.6.1.03.
Mitchel, Bobby. “What Is a Green New Deal?” Sierra Club, 27 Nov. 2018, www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal.
Paul, Mark. “The Economic Case For The Green New Deal.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/02/20/the-economic-case-for-the-green-new-deal/#2025c7894c84.
2) I think the thesis has a strong starting point. You might be able do add a little more information about the specifics of the policy in it to help convey a stronger message.
3) You have a good start with the variety of sources that you are using. If possible, you might be able to find some good information from U.S. Department of Energy or other government organizations to support your brief.
4) Your response to possible criticisms of the GND was a good start. I think that you can respond to a few more oppositions regarding the economy and the cost in your economics section. Another possible opposition for your policy would be enforcement, something that can be addressed later on.
5) I think you have a good direction that you’re taking with your brief. The subtitles appear to follow each other well.
6) If you definite retrofitting earlier in your brief, the first topic to explore would be just fine. I think the overall structure is taking a good direction as well.
7) The economics section could possibly be its own bit, and the legislation could tie into the “collective action” problem without mentioning the price tag in the same section.
2). Comment on scope of the thesis and whether or not it was convincingly argued. What improvements are needed to make it more convincing?
I am a bit confused about what the thesis of your issue brief is. I am not sure if you are going to be writing about sustainability in Penn State buildings or the Green New Deal. If it is the latter, it seems like you are on the way to having a good brief.
3). Comment on the evidence for the policy or its implementation. Does the draft need stronger sources to support the arguments? What kinds?
You have used a wide variety of sources, which is good. However, a lot of your data is against the Green New Deal. I think if you are trying to argue for the Green New Deal, you should try to re-frame this data.
4). Did the piece handle questions of feasibility or objections to the policy?
Yes, the piece handled these questions.
5). Comment on any improvements to arrangement that could be considered.
I think that the piece is well arranged at the moment.
6). Comment on the structure of the issue brief, including subtitles.
I think that the structure of the brief itself is good. The subtitles are understandable and match with the information given.
7). Make one recommendation for something that could be moved, changed, added, or deleted.
Given the kairos of your topic, I would make sure that before you submit your brief the information is fully updated. In the second paragraph, you mention the 7 remaining democratic nominees, which is no longer relevant or true. If you are going to talk about both the Green New Deal as well as LED light bulbs, I would try to connect them more.