Task
You are being asked to write a longer essay that conforms to the convey-analyze method you have been using throughout the term, synthesizing information that you have learned and ideas you have been exposed to throughout the entire course. You will be judged specifically on how well you critically analyze the information you convey and weave in other course readings/viewings (950 – 1200 words).
Write a letter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Canada, The Honourable Steven Guilbeault. Drawing on course readings and/or lectures, convey to him one of the problems that stem from climate change that we have discussed in class (i.e.: species extinction rates, land or water degradation or depletion, poverty or ocean acidification and/or warming), and outline what you see as Canada’s duty to address these problems and why. Using the arguments put forth in two (2) of our theorists’ primary works* read in class, suggest possible paths Canada might employ to address these problems, critically delineating how these avenues can lead Canada to form a society that is just and sustainable. You are encouraged to consider the authors separately and together. In other words, you are encouraged to consider the value and/or limitations of each author’s ideas for the goal of a sustainable Canada, as well as how their ideas relate to each other.g. where the authors’ ideas are similar and/or different, complementary and/or contradictory. Be sure to define all terms and support all your claims with logical reasoning and examples. You are encouraged to bring in additional ENV100 readings, class lectures, video viewings to support your claims.
Note
*“Primary works” refers to the required main readings (not videos or short 1-2-page writings).
The format for choice #1 is like the one used in the first writing assignment. For the letter (choice #2), while the convey-analyze method is used, you are to format the paper as a letter (“Dear Minister _____,” ending with “Sincerely”). However, you must still follow the essay referencing requirements (see below). You do not need to include personal information such as your address, but you are using first person singular (“I”). Also, keep political partisan issues out of the letter; you are writing to your elected representative in charge of climate change issues for Canada.
Format
12pt. black font (can be double or single spaced)
950 -1200 words
Uploaded as a .pdf, .doc, or .docx file
Your submission will automatically be reviewed by Ouriginal plagiarism detection software (see syllabus for details)
No cover page needed
Referencing
Avoid bringing in information or ideas from sources that are not from ENV100. We are assessing your ability to convey, analyze and synthesize ENV100 materials (readings, lectures and videos) by going deeper into each author’s ideas, and by bringing them ‘into conversation.’ However, if information from an outside source is vital to your argument, include an in-text citation and bibliographic entry in a standard referencing style of your choice (e.g. APA, Chicago, MLA, etc.). Any information or ideas taken from non-course sources must be cited!
When citing readings/videos from our course, you do not need formal citations or a bibliography entry, but it should still be clear to us which course reading/video you are referring to (i.e.: the first time you mention the reading, you might say “As Carson mentions in ‘An Obligation to Endure’…. “).
Avoid using non-gender-neutral words like “man” or “mankind.” Use “human” and “humankind” are better.
Avoid using quotes. However, if you cite a direct quotation from one of the course readings (i.e.: you are using the author’s exact words), make sure to put it in quotation marks. Put the page number where the quotation was found in brackets after the direct quotation (i.e.: In his song “Old MacDonald Had a Farm”, Old MacDonald states “I had a farm e-i-e-i-o” (p. 10)).
Evaluation
See marking rubric below:
27-30/30
Student conveys claims and evidence precisely and accurately. She analyzes proficiently and develops a critical and logical line of reasoning to argue her case using evidence (i.e.: comparisons, examples, statistics, and testimony) to support claims. Student also writes very clearly, conforming well to formal essay style.
24-26.5/30
Same as above except one or more issues in conveying, analyzing or writing was less satisfactorily performed.
21-23.5/30
In conveying student avoids ambiguity for the most part with no major factual errors. She analyzes satisfactorily demonstrating a fairly detailed line of reasoning, employing an adequate amount of evidence to support claims. She writes clearly, conforming to essay style.
18-20.5/30
Same as above except one or more issues in conveying, analyzing or writing was less than satisfactory.
15-17.5/30
Student employs some vague generalities and/or has some factual errors when conveying. When analyzing the line of reasoning is not always clear or valid and/or she provides limited amount of evidence to develop and support an argument. Writing is not always clear and style is not entirely proper for an essay.
14.5 or below/30
Throughout work the argument is vague and imprecise and/or student commits factual errors. She uses little or no evidence, making for a weak argument. Writing is unclear and not proper for an essay.
