Living in Shanghai for two years, I was able to experience the harmful effects that pollution has had on the citizens of China. During the two years I was there, I saw days with little to no pollution. However, I also saw days that were not as nice. In December 2013, the pollution got particularly bad. The AQI (Air Quality Index) reached 600 and was actually so hazardous that it broke the AQI scale used that only ranges from 0-500. The smog was so bad that it was hazy inside my school-and the classes were cancelled for two days. We were also told to wear masks whenever we had to go outside. After this, my AP environmental class decided to do research on air pollution in China. This got me very interested in my research topic. During our research we studied how AQI is calculated, the health effects that it can have on a person, and possible solutions. Learning what I did back then and wanting to learn more, I decided to research how the pollution problem has changed since I have left Shanghai, and what are feasible options to fix this problem without hurting China's economy.  

In his article for The New York Times, Edward Wong explains that for the first time in history China has issued a "red alert" for pollution. This means that the pollution was so bad that the Chinese government told civilians to take precaution until the alert was lifted. However, "despite factory shutdowns and strict traffic controls, the smog remained severe in Beijing until the strong winds blew it away" (Wong). Wong explains in his article that the pollution has caused health effects in China's citizens and that there needs to be other solutions in solving the pollution problem. One of Wong's main points in his article was the fact that the precautions the Chinese government set up for the red alert did not help. The pollution was eventually just blown south to other cities such as Shanghai and Nanjing. Wong's main concern is making sure that the Chinese government does enough to actually solve the problem, not just get a temporary fix. Wong is a journalist and foreign correspondent for The New York Times, and has a B.A. from the University of Virginia and a Master's degree from the University of California, Berkley, which makes him a credible author. Since the article is informative there is no bias because it is discussing the problem of air pollution in China without actually giving the author's opinion about the topic. Even though there are opinions in the article, it is still considered informative because Wong is simply reporting the opinions.

Tao Xie explains in his article for CNN that China is faced with a problem of how they are going to solve the pollution issue that has now gone from Beijing to southern cities such as Shanghai. Xie explains that the pollution has caused a decrease in life expectancy as well as a "major cause of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases". However, the Chinese government is in a tough situation. Even though they would like the reduce pollution and shut down factories, their economy would decline and they would have a harder time developing as a nation. Xie argues that China is facing a balancing act of how to still develop, but to also take care of its citizens. Xie's main argument in this article is that the government has "few incentives to slow down economic development for the sake of environmental protection". Xie believes that they need to take the environment and the health of their citizens into more consideration. Even though this is an argumentative article, which means that there is bias Xie is still a credible source. Tao Xie is a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, which means that he is living with the smog everyday and knows just how severe the problem is. 

In his article for U.S. News & World Report, Keith Crane discusses a specific solution for China's worsening smog problem. Crane explains that China has set aside $215 billion, but they will actually need close to $500 billion to be able to make a significant improvement. In his solution the author suggests using natural gas instead of coal, shutting down half of their coal-fueled power plants, and getting rid of older cars and buses that emit more air pollutants (Crane). Crane's main argument in this article is that China has not put aside enough money to actually fix the problem. Crane believes that since the problem has gotten worse over time, more money will need to be spent to help improve the environment and the lives of the people living in China. Crane explains that although it is going to be a very expensive fix, it will be worth it for the citizens of China to live in a pollution-free place. The fact that the author proposes his own solution to the problem makes the article have a bias. However, the author is still credible. Keith Crane is the Environment, Energy, and Economic Development Program and the RAND Corporation. RAND is a nonprofit organization that focuses on global policy. Crane's background in global policy and environmental issues makes his credible when writing about the smog problem in China. 

My research question can have arguments from a couple different angles. First, there is a balancing act that China has to try and perform. The Chinese government needs to find a way to continue to develop as a country, but also save the environment. There is also the question of how exactly the government plans on fixing the problem as the solutions I have found so far in my research are very expensive. Counter-arguers are explaining that China needs to develop as a nation first before they can think about the environment. They believe as of right now that the Chinese economy is too unstable to set aside billions of dollars and shut down half of their factories to save the environment. While the problem has been worsening, some people still do not believe that the smog is an actual issue. However, I believe that China needs to create a balance between development and conservation. Even though only a limited number of very expensive solutions may actually work, I think it is important to start tackling this problem now. The research I have gathered so far will help me to create this argument, as well as give possible examples for a solution. As this problem continues to worsen, I cannot say what will be the best possible answer for solving China's pollution problem, but I hope as I continue researching that I will be able to make that feasible. 

