This is a rubric to help you prepare an informative and persuasive Op-Ed. When you are writing and reviewing your response against this rubric, be aware that a statement or series of statements can fulfill multiple objectives listed under the Required Content. Required Content Above Average Average Below Average Utilize observations and/or Includes accurate references to Includes specific and appropriate Includes vague or non-specific credible climate data and model references to data and output references to climate trends. model output from class or output that you found yourself. used in class. Accurately describes Includes incorrect or incomplete other credible sources to Particularly useful is data/output scientific consensus. information. accurately describe the at the local or regional scale. scientific consensus on climate Persuasively describes scientific change. consensus. Include some relevant natural Links locally-appropriate natural, Includes natural and economic Includes only natural or economic social, and economic impacts impacts that are more general. impacts. Unclear or inaccurate and economic impacts of from climate change. Tries to connect the two. descriptions. climate change to your local environment and target audience. Demonstrate systems thinking Appropriately uses systems Accurately describes the system Omits or mischaracterizes the thinking terminology (forcing, but lacks references to specific system. Fails to use systems by explaining the feedback, equilibrium, input, policies or other details. terminology. links between output) to describe the links carbon emissions, damages, between the climate, economy, and regulation. (Hint: see law that led to creation of CPP or Module System Diagram) other policy to reduce emissions. Make a persuasive argument Presents a well-reasoned, Presents a sound argument that Argument is inaccurate or lacks interdisciplinary argument for a lacks details or interdisciplinarity. persuasive elements and/or for policy to regulate carbon specific kind of policy (i.e., carbon interdisciplinary perspective. emissions. taxes, cap and trade) to reduce carbon emissions with economic efficiency. Includes a critique of the CPP or otherwise references CBDR.
This is a rubric to help you prepare an informative and persuasive Op-Ed. When you are writing and reviewing your response against this rubric, be aware that a statement or series of statements can fulfill multiple objectives listed under the Required Content. Required Content Above Average Average Below Average Utilize observations and/or model output from class or other credible sources to accurately describe the scientific consensus on climate change. Includes accurate references to credible climate data and model output that you found yourself. Particularly useful is data/output at the local or regional scale. Persuasively describes scientific consensus. Includes specific and appropriate references to data and output used in class. Accurately describes scientific consensus. Includes vague or non-specific references to climate trends. Includes incorrect or incomplete information. Include some relevant natural and economic impacts of climate change to your local environment and target audience. Links locally-appropriate natural, social, and economic impacts from climate change. Includes natural and economic impacts that are more general. Tries to connect the two. Includes only natural or economic impacts. Unclear or inaccurate descriptions. Demonstrate systems thinking by explaining the links between carbon emissions, damages, and regulation. (Hint: see Module System Diagram) Appropriately uses systems thinking terminology (forcing, feedback, equilibrium, input, output) to describe the links between the climate, economy, law that led to creation of CPP or other policy to reduce emissions. Accurately describes the system but lacks references to specific policies or other details. Omits or mischaracterizes the system. Fails to use systems terminology. Make a persuasive argument for policy to regulate carbon emissions. Presents a well-reasoned, interdisciplinary argument for a specific kind of policy (i.e., carbon taxes, cap and trade) to reduce carbon emissions with economic efficiency. Includes a critique of the CPP or otherwise references CBDR. Presents a sound argument that lacks details or interdisciplinarity. Argument is inaccurate or lacks persuasive elements and/or interdisciplinary perspective.
carbon_regulation_op-ed.v2.docx