I managed to find another source with an even better solution to this menace of air pollution. The source is written by Crane, Keith, and Zhimin Mao. The title of the source is “Costs of Selected Policies to Address Air Pollution in China”. This source’s question is about three solutions that would reduce or minimize the effects of air pollution in China. It’s responding to the menace of air pollution in china. It’s got various ideas that may be of help as it points out the costs of the environmental problem to the economy and especially names use of coal to be the number one source of pollution. Another idea that I may use is the solutions that this source proposes. The solutions are: using natural gas instead of coal, using cleaner, renewable energy sources instead of coal, and ending the use of old cars or adding new equipment to limit their pollution. I think that what makes sources more authoritative is being published by authors who are highly educated and experienced with the topic in question. I haven’t thought about changing my research question yet as I tend to find even more and more sources as I go on with my research.
Crane, Keith, and Zhimin Mao. “Costs of Selected Policies to Address Air Pollution in China.”
RAND
Corporation. 2015. 5 Nov. 2016 < www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt14bs468>.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Good—now I encourage you to read a bit more about so-called “natural gas.” Though it may not impact human health directly—i.e. air pollution—you might include some research on methane as a “transition fuel.” It’s actually fracked gas, which has a pretty violent extraction process, and can contribute in a big way to global warming. Go ahead and immerse yourself in that debate and see if anything changes there. And at this point, you might see what non-scholarly sources you can find.
Great work so far, Raj.
This source is not a scholarly article but is on that does have an authoritative feel to is because it is from the Guardian an English newspaper company. What makes it authoritative is when they write they also source where they get there information and you feel like they are a reliable source. The title is Ocean acidification can cause mass extinctions, fossils reveal. I actually enjoyed this article because they did a comparison between a meteoroid and the effects of carbon pollution . They do not really ask a question but they do address how the population that we are producing a slow rising and becoming very similar to the meteoroid that hit the Earth and caused mass extinction. However, now applying the question you asked I see how they could have added more details or linked there resources. I think I am going to stay clear from articles like this unless I feel that It would be very supportive for my question. I still have to find a focus question but I think it is going to be on the lines of living with or reversing the impacts of acidity in our oceans. I might even focus on a particular set of waters or different theories that some say that could help.