WRTG3020 Tourists Behavior and their Carbon Footprint Assignment 3 Write a 2400-2500 words research paper on the following question: How can tourists modif

WRTG3020 Tourists Behavior and their Carbon Footprint Assignment 3 Write a 2400-2500 words research paper on the following question:
How can tourists modify their behavior to minimize their
carbon footprint?. The paper should include at least 12 sources, with 6 peer-reviewed, in MLA format. I’ll include the requirement, a sample essay, and some bullet points. Also, I need a rough draft by Monday and should be 6 pages at least, Thank you. How can tourists modify their behavior to minimize their carbon footprint?
Analysis: History of carbon footprint and/ effect (why is it a problem).
Compare carbon footprint between different transportation methods (numbers).
Steps or measurements to reduce carbon footprint while travelling and how effective they are.
*We’re not banding travel, rather, people should travel more and have more exposure to new
culture (globalization). The point of travelling is to enjoy the places we visit, not damaging
them. Also, we need saving them in the same time for next generations. *
ESSAY #3 – CRITICAL INQUIRY PROJECT
WRTG 3020-028 & 031 – SPRING 2019
REQUIRED LENGTH:
8-10 pages (2400-3000 words)
1ST DRAFT DUE:
Monday, April 29th in-class (paper) and uploaded to Canvas
2ND DRAFT DUE:
Wednesday, May 1st in-class (paper) and uploaded to Canvas
FINAL DRAFT DUE:
Monday, May 6th by 5:00pm via Canvas dropbox
The Critical Inquiry Project, our course’s final essay assignment, will require you to understand and situate
the academic discourse on your subject, pose an original intervention, support your claims with evidence and
reflection, and draw thoughtful conclusions about your work. As for subject matter, the only requirement is
that your research question(s) must focus on travel.
While similar to a traditional research study, the Critical Inquiry Project emphasizes exploration and the
production of new scholarly content. In other words, the assignment is not to immediately choose a familiar text –
like with the Deep Dive Archive – and explore many resources related to a single work. Rather, you should make
broader inquiries into a subject, uncover and/or suggest connections and concerns to discuss further, and then
develop a unique argument that produces new knowledge and perspectives for your reader.
You must research the rhetorical situation for your inquiry, including a brief history of the topic, its existing
critical discourse, and why this is a relevant research project at this particular cultural moment. You are welcome
to conduct and include your own original research if it will benefit your project. Imagine the audience for this
essay as a “general academic” one that includes both your peers and me as your instructor: we hope to be
interested in, intrigued by, and ultimately persuaded by the argument that you develop here.
GRADING EXPECTATIONS
Please note that this essay will be graded according to the following criteria:
– A thesis statement that includes a strong claim, sound reasoning, and piques reader interest.
– Plenty of specific and vivid evidence drawn from documented sources.
– Incorporate at least 12 different sources, six of which must be peer-reviewed, scholarly texts.
– Include a Works Cited list (in MLA format) at the end of the essay.
– Topic sentences that organize and introduce the various sections of your discussion.
– Detailed analysis that explains the relationship between your thesis statement and each major piece of
evidence that you include.
– Clear organization of your evidence and analysis that answers the questions: How does this information
relate to the information included directly before it? Directly after it? To the thesis itself?
– Thorough close readings that unpack and analyze direct quotations and relate their significance to the
essay’s larger argument(s).
– Careful attention to the expectations of a general academic audience with regard to language, usage,
style, and tone.
– Appropriate length. Not reaching the required number of words will result in a grade deduction, as will
exceeding the indicated maximum by more than 300 words.
– The Works Cited list does not count towards the word requirement.
– Evidence that you have reviewed my comments on your previous essays and have attempted to address
and improve upon indicated concerns.
– Page numbers and a word count at the top of the essay.
– Failure to bring a (printed) draft to class for either assigned peer review workshop and upload it to
Canvas before each class begins will result in the essay receiving a ten-point (letter grade) deduction.
Be sure to consult the grading rubric on the syllabus for further insight into how this assignment will be assessed.
Please email me, discuss with me after class, or visit office hours if you have any questions or concerns.
3299 Words
Sample Critical Inquiry Project
WRTG 3020
It Hertz: The Shocking Truth Behind Electric Vehicles
Even though they make little noise, you have heard of them. You’ve seen them on the
road, on TV, and possibly in a friend’s, neighbor’s, or even your own driveway. Electric cars
have all the hype these days. They are being hailed as “the wave of the future” and the best way
to save the environment from damage. Electric technology has been making its way into vehicles
of all shapes and sizes; even all three members of the “Holy Trinity of Supercars” (the McLaren
P1, Ferrari LaFerrari, and Porsche 918) incorporate either hybrid or plug-in hybrid technology.
But are electric vehicles really as great for us and for the environment as they are made out to
be? And is it a good idea to buy one now…or even ever?
By the end of November 2016, there were over 542,000 electric vehicles on the road in
the United States. The amount of those vehicles on US roads has seen nearly exponential growth
in the past eight years, so this number is probably closer to 700,000 as of 2018. This number
includes both battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which run solely on electricity, and plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which are driven by electric motors and can be plugged in to
recharge but also contain an internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries (Bhuiyan). For
the purpose of this paper, I will focus solely on BEVs and will refer to them more commonly as
EVs. In the U.S., the top-5 selling EVs are the Tesla Model S, the Tesla Model X, the Nissan
LEAF, the BMW i3, and the Fiat 500e (Bhuiyan). The recent rise in production of electric cars is
boldly reflected in Google search data. In 2004, the words “electric cars” were searched 861,000
times; in 2012, that term was searched over 42 million times (Nosi et al.).
2
This recent rise began in 2010 with the introduction of two cars to the American market:
the Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan LEAF. The Volt is technically a PHEV, but it could run on
electricity alone for up to 35 miles and was able to drive at up to 100 miles per hour. The LEAF,
however, was purely electric, had a range of up to 138 miles (although this number was closer to
60 in everyday conditions), but could only reach a top speed of 57 mph (MacKay 54-57). These
cars have been improved and are still on the market, and about 12 other mainstream EVs have
been introduced since then, most notably the 2.5-second 0-60mph Tesla Model S (“Model S”).
This makes it sound like EVs are a relatively new invention, right? Not quite. One of the
first vehicles to ever resemble what we now consider a road car was invented in 1884 and
powered by electricity. Around the start of the 1900s, three types of engines were being widely
used in cars: the electric engine, the internal combustion engine, and the steam engine. Internal
combustion and steam engines were quick, but had to be stopped to refuel with gas or water.
Internal combustion engines were also loud, smelly, and difficult to start. The electric engine was
clean, quiet, and easy to use, making it popular among city residents and women. One thing was
about to change all this. In 1908, Henry Ford introduced the Model T, an affordable ($600) car
powered by an internal combustion engine; EVs were now about to become a thing of the past,
especially once the electric starter motor was invented in 1912. By 1914, with the completion of
the Lincoln Highway, Americans could explore their country from coast-to-coast, and the
internal combustion engine was the best way to cross the country, as there were now plenty of
gas stations along the highway, but no EV charging stations between Salt Lake City and
Sacramento. The internal combustion engine was now the most popular engine technology,
leaving the other two in its dust…or should I say smoke (MacKay 20-26).
3
It is that smoke that has caused the desire to produce EVs in recent years. Gas vehicle
emissions have polluted our air and contributed to global warming. EVs, on the other hand,
produce no emissions, which is a main reason electric-car buyers have cited for their desire to
purchase an EV. In a study of EV buyers, other positive factors for the purchase of an EV
include quietness, strong acceleration, quality, safety, low maintenance, and positive image. In
that same study, buyers identified deterrents such as limited speed, lengthy recharging time, lack
of an expansive charging infrastructure, and lack of variety (Nosi et al. 4).
A major incentive to buy an EV in the U.S. is that the Federal Government will give a
$7,500 tax rebate to buyers of EVs, which is great…until you read the fine print (“Electric
Vehicles”). As soon as a single manufacturer delivers 200,000 EVs, the incentive for cars sold by
that manufacturer begins to phase out. Six months later, the rebate is cut to $3,750, six months
after that, it’s cut to $1,875, and six months after that, it goes away completely. Tesla is expected
to deliver its 200,000th car within the next couple months of 2018, and GM is expected to reach
that number within the next few years, meaning buyers who have already ordered but not yet
received EVs may be missing out on the full rebate by which they were enticed. Some states
even offer further rebates. In fact, Colorado is the best state for incentives and will give a $5,000
tax rebate to purchasers in that state…but only until December 2021; after that, there will be no
rebate (Vincent).
I pulled up behind a LEAF the other day and noticed two things on the back. One was a
badge, affixed by Nissan, which said “Zero Emission Vehicle.” The other was a bumper sticker
that read, “Powered by Coal.” This got me thinking, how could a car that has zero emissions and
is supposed to be great for the environment be powered by one of the worst-polluting
substances? The simple answer is because this car is truly powered by the power source for our
4
homes, which is often coal. Does this mean our EVs are not as clean as we thought? Jack
Barkenbus, a Vanderbilt University researcher claims, “The major factor determining the scale of
the [environmental] impact from [EVs] is the carbon intensity of a country’s electrical grid. The
more carbon intensive the grid (primarily due to the burning of coal), the less effective EVs will
be at reducing carbon emissions” (1). Of course, different areas of our country get power from
different mixes of sources, so energy production in some areas might be cleaner than others. All
energy sources release CO2 into the environment, and, according to the International Energy
Agency, energy sources that produce over 559 gCO2/kWh (grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatthour) negatively contribute to climate change (Barkenbus 5). Coal-production emissions have a
median of 820 gCO2/kWh; the emissions for other energy sources are 740 gCO2/kWh for
oil/biomass, 490 gCO2/kWh for natural gas, 45 gCO2/kWh for solar, 24 gCO2/kWh for
hydroelectric, and 11 gCO2/kWh for wind (Bruckner 7). Clearly, the renewable energy sources
are much better for our environment. On average, U.S. energy production emits 489.43
gCO2/kWh, so the nation is having a positive effect on climate change (Barkenbus 2). However,
it is important to understand that it is an average, and some areas of the U.S. are cleaner than
others. For example, the Western U.S. relies more on clean energy than does the Midwest
(“Environmental Studies”). Washington, California, and Oregon are the top three states for
renewable energy production, making them some of the best states to own an EV, something that
will be discussed in-depth shortly (“America’s Cleanest”).
But what happens when EVs are charged in states that use little renewable energy
sources? A 2013 British study claimed, “Electric vehicles juiced by coal-fired generation had
four times the emissions of vehicles fueled by low-carbon electricity” (Nikiforuk 1). So not only
is it false to say that EVs are “zero emission vehicles,” but the same EV can have higher
5
emissions depending on where it is charged. That isn’t the only harm to the environment. To
manufacture one gas-powered car, 5.6 tonnes of CO2 are released to the atmosphere. That same
figure for an EV? 8.8 tonnes, with about half of that coming from producing the lithium-ion
battery (Nikiforuk 1). So, EV buyers – who are concerned about polluting the environment –
have already polluted more than a gas-car buyer before they even drive their car off the lot.
All vehicles, gas or electric, harm the environment in the form of “human health, crop
and timber yields, degradation of buildings and material, and reduced visibility and recreation”
(Holland et al. 12). Wouldn’t it be great if someone were able to quantify this damage in terms of
a dollar amount? Fortunately, a group of researchers from the National Bureau of Economic
Research have done exactly that for every county in the United States. Across the country, the
average EV environmental damage is 2.6 cents per mile (cpm) (i.e. for every mile driven, EVs do
$0.026 worth of damage to the road, air, and our health) (14). The average environmental
damage for gas vehicles is 1.87cpm (28). That’s right, EVs, nationally, do more harm to the
environment than gas cars, but we have established that the damage by EVs varies depending on
the energy source in an area. Breaking the data down by region, we see that, “Mean [EV]
damages…range from $0.01 [1cpm] or less per mile in California and the West to over $0.04
[4cpm] in the Midwest” (14).
The researchers have compiled the data into maps showing the damage in cpm across the
country for gas and electric vehicles, and the results are, frankly, shocking. The first map (shown
below) shows the cost of damage done by gas vehicles. Green colors correspond to low costs,
while red colors correspond to high costs. As can be seen, red colors are focused around large,
congested metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Chicago, while green colors are
found pretty much everywhere else. The second map shows the cost of damage done by EVs,
6
and the entire eastern half of the U.S. is red, yellow, or orange (Holland et al. 17) Clearly, EVs
are doing way more harm than we previously assumed, and this should be giving potential EV
buyers reasons to rethink their purchase.
Figure 1: Damage done by gas vehicles (top) and electric vehicles (bottom). (Holland et al. 17)
7
All eleven EVs tested in this study, ranging from the efficient Chevrolet Spark to the
powerful Tesla Model S, had a higher mean damage to the environment than their gas
equivalencies (meaning the EV was, on average, always a higher polluter than the gas car)
(Holland et al. 15). The researchers took this information and calculated, for all metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) of the U.S., the total cost of damage, per car, if the car was to be driven
150,000 miles. As the government usually foots the bill through our taxes to repair our roads and
our environment, the researchers then took that cost and subtracted it from the $7,500 tax rebate
on EVs. In the “green” counties, the number was still positive, meaning that the government was
going to give a buyer $7,500 in rebates but could expect to get some of that back in the form of
savings on environmental and road repairs. In the “red” counties, the number wound up being
negative, meaning the government was going to give away $7,500 and pay more money to repair
environmental damage done by the EV. The cleanest MSA was Los Angeles, where the “new”
subsidy was $4,743; the dirtiest was Grand Forks, North Dakota, with a “new” subsidy of $4,711. The national average for urban areas was -$1,095 and was -$2,500 for non-urban areas
(17). Perhaps the government should be adjusting the $7,500 rebate amount depending on where
the car is sold to more closely align with these “new” rebates. As discussed, EV buyers are
hoping to help the global environment, but, “For all electric vehicles, the negative local
environmental benefits outweighs [sic] the positive global environmental benefits. Focusing
solely on global environmental benefits provides a misleading impression of environmental
consequences of electric vehicles” (16). I suggest we make our main goal be switching to cleaner
forms of energy rather than promoting the purchase and production of EVs so that all counties on
the above map turn green.
8
Now that we see how EVs are bad for the environment, let’s take a look at how bad they
are for your wallet. It’s a well-known fact that EVs cost more than their gasoline counterparts
because their lithium-ion batteries cost more to produce than a typical internal combustion
engine. It’s also well-known that maintenance costs are much lower for EVs because there are
very few moving parts, so no oil changes are required. A major cost associated with owning a car
is insurance. Data collected shows that it costs 21% more to insure an EV than it does to insure a
similar gas car. This is due to higher initial costs and high costs of lithium-ion batteries (Cohen).
These batteries are expensive – by 2026, the cost of an average EV battery will hopefully drop as
low as $4,000 – to repair or replace in the event of a crash (in which a fire is likely) (Lagowski).
Another cost associated with an EV is the $1,100-$1,200 to purchase and install a home charger,
assuming your house does not need an electrical box upgrade and an extra circuit installed
(“Home Electric Vehicle”).
At today’s gas prices, it costs around $1,400 to fill a car with gas each year, assuming the
car is driven 15,000 miles per year. Today, the average cost for electricity is $0.12/kWh. This
means that if you drive a typical, small EV for 15,000 miles per year, it will cost around $540 to
charge it each year (Campbell). Electricity rates, however, can fluctuate throughout the day and
year and can be different among charging stations, so EV owners have to do the math to find the
optimal time and location to charge their cars. Once again, the figure of $540 is a national
average, so this savings on fuel might not be as great as you expect depending, once again, on
location (“Electricity Rates”). The US Department of Energy has come up with a conversion to
compare the cost of filling up with gas to the cost of filling up with electricity; the cost to fill
with electricity is called the eGallon. According to data and methodology from March 2018, the
average gallon of fuel in the US costs $2.65, while the average eGallon is $1.11. Therefore, an
9
eGallon is 41.89% the cost of a gas gallon. In some clean states like Utah, gas is $2.53 and an
eGallon is $0.94, so an eGallon is 37.15% the cost of gas. In Hawaii, perhaps the worst state to
own an EV, a gallon of gas is $2.95, while an eGallon is 95.93% the price, at $2.83, due to
Hawaii’s heavy reliance on burning oil for electricity (“eGallon”). So far, EV owners are saving
on fuel and maintenance along with getting tax rebates, but is that alone enough to make the
costly purchase of an EV worth it?
To find out, I researched costs for a car that is available in both gas and EV models: the
Kia Soul. The gas Soul costs $16,200 for a base model, while the Soul EV costs $33,950 and has
a 111-mile range (“Kia Models”). The national average state and local combined sales tax is
6.93% (Drenkard and Walczak). According to nationally-reported repair data, average yearly
maintenance costs for the Soul and Soul EV are $446 and $267, respectively (Kirby). Us…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment