Tedext

Atmosphere - Policy brief relating to climate change

Assignment 4: Atmosphere
Using Peerceptiv in e-campus, you will create a 1-2 page policy brief for decision-makers
endorsing one mitigation measure as defined by the IPCC relating to climate change as
proposed in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Your policy brief must recognize how people,
communities, societies, and governments would benefit from, or be harmed by, the
mitigation measure by specifically addressing a scientific measure or hypothesis relating to
climate change. Your statement must define the problem scientifically, using relevant and
appropriate facts, and then create statement that recognizes 'winners' and 'losers' in the
near, medium, and long term. You must reflect on how this recognition may allow
individuals and/or organizations to function in a global society. Specifically, your policy
statement must indicate how globalization and a global society inform your proposed
mitigation measure. Document due on Wednesday. Reviews due on Friday
1. Structure and Organization- Policy Brief
Does the policy brief have a clear structure and organizational layout? Policy briefs should have a
clear an Executive Summary, a Problem Statement, a description of Policy Alternatives, followed by
Policy Recommendations.
Comment 1: (*Required)
Comment 2:
Comment 3:
Structure and Organization- Policy Brief.
Does the policy brief have a clear structure and organizational layout? Policy briefs should have a
clear an Executive Summary, a Problem Statement, a description of Policy Alternatives, followed by
Policy Recommendations.
5 - Excellent: The writing has all appropriate sections and the organization is very clear and easy to
follow. The relationship between the problem statement and the policy recommendation is strongly
connected.
4 - Good: The writing has all necessary sections and the organization is clear. The relationships
between policy recommendations and the problem statement are clear.
3 - Sufficient: The writing has all necessary sections and the organization is mostly clear. The
relationships between policy recommendations and the problem statement are mostly clear.
2 - Limited: The writing may be missing one or some of the sections and the organization may not
be clear. The relationship between policy recommendation and the problem statement is only
sometimes clear.
1 - Poor: The writing has no clear structure or organization. The relationship between the policy
recommendation and the problem statement is not clear.
2. Problem Statement
Does the group clearly outline the scope of the problem? Please provide feedback on how clearly the
problem statement was defined.
Comment 1: (*Required)
Comment 2:
Comment 3:
Problem Statement.
The Problem Statement of a policy brief should clearly outline the scope of the problem.
5 - Excellent: Problem was very clearly identified and strongly connected to policy alternatives and
policy recommendation.
4 - Good: Problem was identified and connected to policy alternatives and policy recommendation.
3 - Sufficient: Problem was somewhat unclear, but was present in the policy brief and mostly
connected to policy alternatives and policy recommendations.
2 - Limited: Problem was unclear, but was present in the policy brief.
1 - Poor: Problem was not identified.
3. Scientific Evidence
Provide feedback on how well the student explained the scientific evidence provided. Be specific
about how the student could improve their explanations of scientific evidence to support the
mitigation measure chosen in their policy brief.
Comment 1: (*Required)
Comment 2:
Scientific evidence for policy brief.
Are the explanations of the scientific evidence logically connected to the mitigation strategy chosen?
Does the document incorporate a map, graph, or chart. Is the scientific evidence cited appropriately
with valid sources?
5 - Excellent: Every claim has accurate scientific evidence for all aspects of the mitigation strategy
chosen and is well-cited with high-quality sources. Includes several maps, graphs, or charts that are
well-cited.
4 - Every claim has accurate scientific evidence for all aspects of the mitigation strategy chosen and
is well-cited. Includes several maps, graphs, or charts.
3 - Sufficient: Every claim has scientific evidence and incorporates a map, graph or chart. Meets
citation requirements. Explanations of scientific evidence are sufficient, but not always logically
connected to the mitigation strategy chosen.
2 - Limited: Explanations of evidence are simplistic or sometimes absent or not clearly connected
to the mitigation strategy chosen. Unclear how map, graph, or chart is connected to argument.
Missing some citations or citations are of low quality.
1 - Poor: No scientific evidence is provided for any of the arguments. No map, graph, or chart. No
citations. Evidence is missing or unrelated to the mitigation strategy chosen.
4. Societal outcomes
Students were tasked with clearly identifying how the mitigation measure chosen could potentially
impact different communities, societies, or governments. Please provide feedback on how the
student could have improved their discussion of societal or global 'winners and losers.'
Comment 1: (*Required)
Comment 2:
Societal outcomes.
The policy brief should incorporate a statement that recognizes winners and losers in the near,
medium, and long-term and reflect on how globalization informs the proposed mitigation measure.
5 - Excellent: Policy brief very clearly identifies potential "winners and losers" of the proposed
mitigation measure and provides insightful reflections on the role of globalization on informing
mitigation measures.
4 - Good: Policy brief clearly identifies potential "winners and losers" of the proposed mitigation
measure and provides appropriate reflections on the role of globalization on informing mitigation
measures.
3 - Sufficient: Policy brief mostly identifies potential "winners and losers" of the proposed
mitigation measure and briefly reflects on the role of globalization on informing mitigation
measures.
2 - Limited: Policy brief does not clearly identify potential "winners and losers" of the proposed
mitigation measure and/or does not clearly reflect on the role of globalization on informing
mitigation measures.
1 - Poor: Policy brief does not identify potential "winners and losers" of the proposed mitigation
measure and/or does not reflect on the role of globalization on informing mitigation measures

Atmosphere - Policy brief relating to climate change

  • Order

  • Payment

  • Processing

  • Delivery

Validation error occured. Please enter the fields and submit it again.
Thank You ! Your email has been delivered.