Sai Yaganti

English 1102-130

Professor Martin

4/2/19

Source Comparison Essay

Just because an author is qualified, and the publisher has an in-depth review process does

not make a source the best option. A qualified person can still have opinions and can publish a

lot of work that is not scholarly. The content of the source is also a main criterion in selecting

credible sources. Even though both of my sources have qualified authors and respectable

publishers, the scholarly source is the first source because it has a combination of all three

criteria.

The first source “USING A CARBON TAX TO MEET US INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE

PLEDGES” was a scientific analysis done by Yunguang Chen and Marc Hafstead and was

published by “RFF”. Both authors are very highly qualified in this topic area. Yunguang Chen

has a Ph.D. in applied economics and a M.S. in agricultural economics. The second author, Marc

Hafstead, has a Ph.D. in economics and is a lead researcher on the evaluation and design on

climate and energy policies. Both authors have very good economics background and have

extensively written about and worked with environmental policy, which makes them a very

credible duo to do an analysis on what effects a carbon tax can have on the economy.

The second source “How the US Can Meet its Emissions Targets with a Carbon Tax” is a blog

post written by Kevin Kennedy and Christina DeConcini and published by WRI. Just like the
first source both authors are highly qualified in this topic area. Kevin Kennedy has a Ph.D. from

the Energy and Resources Group at University of California, Berkeley, and has over 20 years of

experience in environmental policy. The second author Christina DeConcini is WRI’s Director

of Government Affairs and has over 20 years’ experience in law. Both authors are highly

qualified to write about carbon tax as both have over 20 years’ experience in the fields of

environmental policy and law. This shows that just having a qualified author does not make a

scholarly source.

Just like how a qualified author doesn’t make a source scholarly neither does a respectable

publisher. The first source was published by RFF or Resources for the Future which is an

independent, nonprofit research institution. RFF has been a respected research institution since

1952 when it was founded and has published extensive studies and analysis’s on environmental

policy and natural resources. Their core values page states “Rigor: RFF adheres to the highest

scientific and professional standards” (RFF.org). This publisher is very well respected and had

strict publication standards which makes it a very credible publisher.

The second source also has a very respectable publisher, WRI or World Resources Institute. WRI

is a global research organization that was founded in 1982. WRI has a very extensive review

process for anything they publish. Depending on the type of publication there are different

review standards, which include eternal and internal peer review, and review from target

audience members. WRI in some ways is a much more respectable and credible publisher

because they have a much more in-depth review process and spans over 60 countries. Having a

respectable publisher does not always make a source scholarly, however.

So far both sources have had highly qualified authors and respectable publishers, but what

separates the two is the content that they provide. The first source is a scientific analysis done on
the effects of different carbon tax price models affect the economy. This analysis is a first-hand

source that provides raw data that others can base their papers and articles on. This is a very in-

depth analysis of over 20 pages that provides a plethora of raw data and graphical representations

to explain all the different price paths for a carbon tax. There is no opinion provided in this

analysis, just data and explanations which makes this a very credible source.

The second source is a blog post on how the US can meet its emissions target by using a carbon

tax. While this source also provides plenty of information on how a carbon tax would affect the

economy and what different price paths are viable, it is not scholarly because it is a blog post.

While the information may be factually accurate, this article is just the authors opinion on how to

use a carbon tax to meet emissions goals. This article is also not very in-depth, being only about

2 pages, unlike the scientific analysis that was posted in a scholarly journal, this blog post was

just someone’s view on the topic.

To be a scholarly source means the source needs to have all three criteria met: qualified author,

respectable publisher, and credible content. If a source is missing even one of these it cannot be a

scholarly source, which is why the first source was the more effective and the scholarly one out

of the two because it has a qualified author, reputable publisher, and has in-depth, quality

content.
Works Cited:

Kennedy, Kevin, and Christina DeConcini. “How the US Can Meet Its Emissions Targets

with a Carbon Tax.” How the US Can Meet Its Emissions Targets with a Carbon Tax | World

Resources Institute, WRI, 21 June 2018, www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/how-us-can-meet-its-

emissions-targets-carbon-tax.

“Resources for the Future.” Resources for the Future, www.rff.org/.

"USING A CARBON TAX TO MEET US INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE

PLEDGES." Climate Change Economics, vol. 10, no. 01, 2019. Environmental Studies and

Policy

Collection, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A574518362/PPES?u=cod_lrc&sid=PPES&xid=

b9490f95.