Two Steps forward, one step back
Despite the misgivings of critics, Green Infrastructure (GI) could save America, even the world.
Infrastructure includes everything from roads, bridges, and phone lines to our sewers, storm drains, and water processing facilities. Anything that notes infrastructure outside our sewer, wastewater pipes, and facilities is irrelevant.
Across the U.S., the absence of advancements to our water infrastructure is causing poor hygiene and ill health effects to many Americans since it is hundreds of years old and developed for much smaller cities and populations.
America is quickly falling behind; without quick decisions, we will continue to spiral downhill. James Mcbride, the author of “The State of U.S. Infrastructure,” acknowledges that America is in desire need of upgrades. He states,
” The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has compiled regular “report cards” on the state of U.S. infrastructure since the 1980s. In its 2021 report [PDF], the ASCE found that the nation’s infrastructure averaged a “C-,” up from a “D+” in 2017 and the highest grade in twenty years. Still, the group estimated that there is an “infrastructure investment gap” of nearly $2.6 trillion this decade that, if unaddressed, could cost the United States $10 trillion in lost GDP by 2039.”
Commercial businesses, also known as private sectors worldwide, have provided exciting innovations that will give America a chance to bounce back, as found within my Green Water Town proposal. However, governments loathe implementing new technology since it requires tremendous capital investment.
In March of 2021, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, introduced a Bipartisim Infrastructure Law that would devote one trillion dollars to upgrading America’s crumbling infrastructure. The Infrastructure law plans to focus on ten segments ranging from wifi speed upgrades to upgrading how public transportation runs. Although Biden introduced ten segments to upgrade America’s crumbling infrastructure, only one significant towards water is “No more Lead Pipes.” No more Lead Pipes introduces $55 billion of funding to help out the 10 million American households that do not have access to safe drinking water. This segment is long-awaited and offers government funding to fix severe public health problems.
However, with the introduction of Biden’s Infrastructure Law, Chris Edward believes we need to go in a different direction and could put the funding elsewhere. Edwards acknowledges that Bidens Infrastructure Law includes realistic goals but argues it is not green and contains a lot of unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Edwards argues that most of Bidens spending would go to facilities owned by states and private sectors. He believes they have all the means to fund infrastructure upgrades without federal aid. He uses an example from The National Conference of State Legislatures, stating that since 2013 over 33 states and the District of Columbia have created legislation that would increase gas taxes.
Edwards also illustrates that Bidens Infrastructure Law took the wrong side on greening our future. Edwards claims that Biden’s plan was supposed to help mitigate climate change through pro-environment user charges, which would include raising prices and taxes to help decrease the usage of water systems. However, Biden’s new law offered incentives for upgrading water systems or buying electric vehicles instead of trying to cut usage overall.
To go along with Chris Edward’s asserments, Chad Staddon, one of the many contributors to “Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environments professions,” firmly believes that implementing green infrastructure across America is too soon, and many concerns still exist.
Staddon states that there is significant uncertainty about how to go about planning, designing, implementing, and maintaining green infrastructure. Staddon’s first challenge discussed is design standards. After interviewing many managers, he discovered limited capacity regarding the design phase: the design phase needs more data and technical experience. Without data, towns and cities have difficulty devising a design that best suits their needs.
Furthermore, regulations are a considerable challenge for towns and cities to incorporate green infrastructure within boundary lines. An example Staddon communicated was that few jurisdictions worldwide have a straightforward process for regulating green infrastructure, unlike fire protection. Legal arrangements must be established before any company steps in to build, so it eliminates confusion about long-term responsibilities and the maintenance commitment green infrastructure composes. Within the U.S., there are currently no federal mandates for green infrastructure for areas that are less vulnerable than coastal areas.
Edwards believes Bidens Law is a waste and goes about greening in the wrong matter, while Staddon asserts why we as a country are nowhere near ready. However, both authors are mistaken, and here is why.
The revamping of America’s infrastructure is 100% needed and not deemed unnecessary and wasteful in any shape or form. Many citizens will prefer to pay more taxes if it guarantees that infrastructure will not pulverize beneath them.
Edwards believes Biden’s plan is not focused on greening the environment but is entirely inaccurate. While Biden may not focus directly on greening the environment, he is taking much-needed steps that other policymakers struggle to do. Biden structured the bill as a “spending bill,” so he would only need one side to be in favor which would not give the Democrats a say. He has deliberately split it into ten segments to kickstart a movement that will hopefully change history.
Staddon firmly believes that without data, the implementation of green infrastructure is incomprehensible. However, he is wrong. In my Green Water Town proposal, this is a perfect scenario. Builders, contractors, and workers should be given free rein when introducing green infrastructure within their town or city. Of course, all current local legislation must be followed, but that is where Staddon acknowledges there is an issue between contractors and legislators.
Today, there is little legislation to obey, so contractors have difficulty picking up contracts for green projects because they are scared that something will go wrong. Staddon concludes,
“Mainstreaming G.I. in cities in the United States not only requires the voluntary participation of citizens but also a change in governance paradigms.-In some cases, G.I. implementation has been possible by orchestrating bespoke planning systems from different layers of government, as the “Sponge City” case from China illustrates. After experiencing severe flooding in 2012, with damage that amounted to $1.6 billion USD, the Central Government of China launched the Sponge City Pilot Programme.”
Legislators, politicians, and lawmakers should collaborate to make green infrastructure a reality. It should not be a question if green infrastructure is worth it. It should be something other than something we constantly go back and forth debating. This is our future talking about and, quite possibly, even our children.
Since the birth of America, we have been installing innovative technology that runs our country. We have yet to stop and look back at what this technology is doing to our environment, and now the consequences are catching up to us. Green infrastructure should be rolled ferociously through America without question, and if, god forbid, someone tries to stop designers and creators from doing so, we must do whatever it takes to stop them.
References:
Edwards, C. (2021, May 26). 10 Reasons to Oppose an Infrastructure Package. Cato.org. Retrieved November 17, 2022, from https://www.cato.org/commentary/10-reasons-oppose-infrastructure-package
Kevin Pula, G. D. B. (2021, August 10). Recent Legislative Actions Likely to Change Gas Taxes. Recent legislative actions likely to change gas taxes. Retrieved November 16, 2022, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/2013-and-2014-legislative-actions-likely-to-change-gas-taxes.aspx
McBride, J., & Siripurapu, A. (2021, November 8). The state of U.S. infrastructure. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved November 17, 2022, from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-us-infrastructure
Staddon, C. (2019, June 12). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in Built Environment Professions. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890
The United States Government. (2021, December 2). President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The White House. Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/#cleanwater
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
I guess ill be your first genuine pig to post a rebuttal argument. Not sure if that’s a good thing or not.
First off, I’m not sure how I feel about this first ROUGH Draft. It definitely needs a lot work, and I’m ready to put that effort into finsih off the last essay for the semester.
Unlike my definition post, I incorporated a lot more sources to help back up my statements, so I did reasonably well on that.
One key idea I think I missed was incorporating my stormwater management. I tried focusing more on infrastructure and how old it is. I also found a great source by Chad Staddon about green infrastructure that I had to use. I think I did okay on the rebuttal side, but this is where I believe where most of my revisions will take place.
So to get to the point, I would like feedback on if you liked the side I took( focusing on green infrastructure and not exactly stormwater.), and I would like feedback on how I can significantly upgrade my rebuttal claims.
Implementing green infrastructure may save America, but numerous people maintain various views on it. Some say it will be why America flourishes again, while others think we are incapable of implementing the technology.
—I don’t like the wavering, BB. Readers won’t either. And they don’t want to count opinions. They want the right answer. This is your chance to deliver it.
—How about, “Despite the misgivings of critics, Green Infrastructure (GI) could save America, even the world.”
Across the U.S., we have struggled with preserving our infrastructure, and as a result, our infrastructure is severely outdated and needs a crucial overhaul.
—This is oddly fussy too.
—What you mean is that in America we’re suffering the poor hygiene and ill health effects of severely damaged and outdated infrastructure much of which is literally hundreds of years old and designed for much smaller cities and populations.
—No need to explain the struggle and that the struggle results in overdue repairs.
—The more important consequences are how the outdated equipment sickens us.
—By the way, “infrastructure” isn’t obvious to all readers. (It includes highways and bridges, and phone lines, etc.)
—If you mean sewers, storm drains, water processing facilities, and the like, you’ll have to tell us before we can visualize the sickening overflows of sewage into basements that result from centuries-old pipes.
Back in March of 2021, Joe Biden, The President of the United States, introduced a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that would devote one trillion dollars to upgrading America’s failing infrastructure. The Infrastructure law plans to focus on ten segments that would significantly help America. However, with the introduction of Biden’s Infrastructure Plan, Chris Edward believes we are going in the wrong direction.
—Identify what part of the list of ten segments is pertinent.
Edwards acknowledges that Bidens Infrastructure is a realistic goal, but it would likely undermine efficiency even if a compromise were to occur. One of Edwards’s essential claims was that Bidens Infrastructure plan was unnecessary and a waste. He states that most of the spending would be on facilities owned by private sectors and states. Edwards also concluded that according to the National Conference of State Legislators or NCSl, since 2013, 33 states have enacted legislation to increase their gas taxes.
—Pretty confusing.
—”undermine efficiency” is an odd way to describe a massive spending plan that puts money into repairs that won’t be made at all without the funding.
—Edwards could be entirely correct without dealing a critical objection.
—Does it matter who owns the infrastructure?
—Really confused about the pertinence of the gas tax increases.
Edwards also expresses that Bidens Infrastructure plan is not green. It was supposed to help mitigate climate change. He believes Biden took the wrong steps and needed to restrain consumer demand instead of offering incentives.
—Again unclear.
—How was it “supposed to mitigate climate change”?
—If restraining consumer demand (for what? natural gas to heat their homes? more electricity?) is wonderfully good, and incentivizing conservation or appliance efficiency is only very good, does that suggest the plan is a bad one?
Although Edwards claims Biden’s plan is a waste and unnecessary, James Mcbride, the author of “The State of U.S. Infrastructure,” believes it will reshape America. He states
—I see the problem now.
—You introduced the objections (which are vague and fail to help us understand the Plan) before you offered the “pro” arguments and details.
—Consider flip-flopping that.
BLOCKQUOTE
” The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has compiled regular “report cards” on the state of U.S. infrastructure since the 1980s. In its 2021 report [PDF], the ASCE found that the nation’s infrastructure averaged a “C-,” up from a “D+” in 2017 and the highest grade in twenty years. Still, the group estimated that there is an “infrastructure investment gap” of nearly $2.6 trillion this decade that, if unaddressed, could cost the United States $10 trillion in lost GDP by 2039.”
—This still isn’t the explanation we need for how the program will help.
—It makes the probably accurate and dire claim that without massive spending SOMETHING will get much worse, but we are left to imagine what that might be.
The revamping of America’s infrastructure is 100% needed and not deemed unnecessary and wasteful. Many citizens will prefer to pay more taxes if it guarantees that infrastructure will not pulverize beneath them. The United States Environmental Protection Agency shuts down the idea that green infrastructure presents “higher costs.” In the short term, design and construction will be higher than conventional pipes. Nevertheless, maintenance costs and upgrades could be significantly lower over time.
—THIS is actually where the essay should begin, rhetorically.
—Maybe you believe your Definition and Causal arguments have already laid out the case that our infrastructure is crumbling, dangerous, unhealthy.
—If so, a very brief summary here will get readers of your Rebuttal Argument (which has to stand on its own) up to speed.
—The outline, as I see it:
1. America’s sewage, stormwater, and water processing facilities are ancient, leaky, unclean, overmatched by today’s populations, dangerous, and make the world hotter.
2. Without massive investment, NOW, we’ll get sicker and farther behind.
3. Commercial businesses have provided thrilling innovations that governments are loath to implement because of their reluctance to make big capital investments.
4. The segments of the Infrastructure Plan devoted to water handling are the long-awaited commitment to fixing severe public health problems.
5. My Worthy Opponent, Mr. Edwards, objects to the philosophical approach to solving the problem.
6. He’s wrong that the Plan will not work.
7. He’s wrong to object that money will go to non-government property owners, since only with commercial-governmental cooperation can we hope to solve these massive problems.
7. He’s also wrong that his proposed alternative (restraining consumer demand) has ever been effective.
Get it?
Staddon will be very useful as an ally once you’re done 1) outlining the serious risk of doing nothing, 2) sketching out the parts of the bill that address water handling, 3) naming the mitigations technology has to offer, 4) refuting the hesitation to involve non-government cooperation.
You’ve gathered plenty of good information (though I’ve noted some things that are missing), BB. I look forward to your revisions.
Provisionally graded. This post is always eligible for a Regrade following significant Revision.
Thanks for the feedback and clarifying it in todays meeting! I’ll have this revised by Thursday
I have made significant revisions and would like a regrade, please.
You have indeed made significant revisions, BB. Your organization plan is radically different and makes more sense in this first sketch. I know you’d like to be finished with this project, and it’s entirely your call how much time you devote to it, if any, from here on. I’m in a better position than anyone to know what you mean in every paragraph, but I still have trouble understanding your point sometimes. It’s time to have a fresh reader take a look at your work and point out places where he/she is confused. If you can clarify your points enough for a person unfamiliar with your research and early drafts, you’ll have a more polished paper.
Regraded.