Original Comment by Jarrett Vigil:
“One of the main issues that kept arising with this push in renewable and alternative energies was the push back by fossil fuel industries for the incorporation of natural gas in the new policy.”
What do you now understand that you didn’t when you first wrote this?
What I realize now is that I did not take other aspects of the push back and support into consideration. In my research I found that it is more than just fossil fuels being the primary supporters of fossil fuel inclusion on new energy policy.
How does this new understanding change things?
This new understanding changes things because it increases the audience demographic. Doing this means communication must be focused on being understandable and clear to both parties instead of one.
What guidance do you need from your peers so that you can revise your Reflection?
The guidance that I would need from my peers would be how I could angle technical wording to non-technical audiences while still being detailed enough for more involved stakeholders.
What is your way forward?
To pay attention to the flow of my writing and language used to ensure that the message is still understandable to all involved parties.
“The push for natural gas is purely economic due to high short run returns. What is neglected to be forecasted are the high long run costs of incorporating a fossil fuel energy infrastructure.”
What do you now understand that you didn’t when you first wrote this?
What I understand now that I did not when I first wrote this was the true economic impact of climate change based on true costs of carbon.
How does this new understanding change things?
This new understanding changes things because it creates very solid support for the persuasion of my paper.
What guidance do you need from your peers so that you can revise your Reflection?
I think the support I could use here would be input on clarity with my supporting evidence and double checking my math for me.
What is your way forward?
My way forward is to see how my peers respond to my writings and see how I can incorporate their recommendations while still trying to stay aligned with the point I am trying to make.
“My question I would like to propose for this class’s main assignment would be: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of natural gas in the Denver Climate Action Plan and why we would be better off not incorporating natural gas in the building emission reduction strategies”.
What do you now understand that you didn’t when you first wrote this?
What I understand now that I did not then was how I wanted to word the title of my assignment. My initial question is very wordy and drags on which can decrease reader interest.
How does this new understanding change things?
My new understanding from this is to be more concise while being specific to the topic at hand. To do this I worked on condensing my assignment title.
What guidance do you need from your peers so that you can revise your Reflection?
The guidance I could use from my peers is feedback about my assignment title to help me improve it if it is unclear.
What is your way forward?
My way forward is to review feedback from my peers and use it to better craft my assignment title to be concise and detailed enough to deliver the correct message in a clear way.
My Comment:
Hey Jarrett,
One of the main issues that kept arising with this push in renewable and alternative energies was the push back by fossil fuel industries for the incorporation of natural gas in the new policy.”
In regards to #3, the important step to do here is go back to considering the audience. Who did you write the permission memo for? Then, research the language that the audience uses internally with each other. How can you make your wording match with that? It is a crucial to reconsider the audience at this stage of the process because, if the language that you’re using is not technical enough, then it may diminish ethos in the report. Another aspect to consider is not just the degree of detail but also the type of detail that you’re including in the report. It is important to provide them with information that they do not already know or else they will become less entertained by the report. Perhaps, dissect the audience’s online material to find gaps in its understanding and see how you’re able to fill the gaps with the information that you gathered thus far.
“The push for natural gas is purely economic due to high short run returns. What is neglected to be forecasted are the high long run costs of incorporating a fossil fuel energy infrastructure.”
I’d be glad to double check the math for you. I recently accepted a data-focused job in asset management for utility-scale solar projects and want to develop my skills in numerical analysis. So, we would both be able to benefit from it. You’re welcome to send any material to my Canvas inbox, and I’ll review it. What specifically are you looking for in terms of clarity with the supporting evidence? Are you hoping someone can review it to confirm it is a logical flow between tenants of the argument?
“My question I would like to propose for this class’s main assignment would be: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of natural gas in the Denver Climate Action Plan and why we would be better off not incorporating natural gas in the building emission reduction strategies”.
Thanks for the reminder that selecting a title for the report needs to be strategic. I see it as needing to be argumentative in nature.
Here is a title draft I brainstormed based upon the provided question:
A Thorough Evaluation Depicting the Ultimate Need to Omit Natural Gas from the Denver Climate Action Plan
Having this draft provides a base to revise. Hope that helps!