Argument 1: The COVID pandemic has decimated global economies. There is call for economic recovery to be centered around a “green economy”, but some critics claim that the recovery of the economy by this method would take longer and cost more, driving nations further into debt. Should “Western” countries (i.e. Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, plus developed nations in Asia such as Japan and South Korea) strive towards this “green” recovery? Why or why not? In your assignment, you must cite at least five (5) primary sources from reputable journals (i.e. peer reviewed) that defend your opinion – these do not include reports from non-peer reviewed sources like agencies such as the UN. If the source of the report is reputable (an agency without a political or financial agenda) then you can use it in your article – but you should be aware that it may be misleading or inaccurate and therefore it should not be the focus around which your article is written (the peer reviewed journals should be). Websites should be avoided at all costs. Anybody can write something and put it up on a website, whether it is true or not. Note that citing a primary source is NOT quoting, and you should refrain from having any quotes in your article. As the skills required to find peer-reviewed articles, and to construct your argument in a way which avoids plagiarism (i.e. the copying of work Things to consider Which side of the argument should you be researching for? The questions that have been posed are quite open, and you could argue for either side of that question. There are no marks available for choosing the ‘correct’ side of the argument – but you should consider where you might find articles to both back up your argument as well as those which are on the opposing side. What does the opposing argument state? You will need to (briefly) address the opposing arguments. What does this mean for your argument? Can you, or does the literature, give a reason for the opposing side? If not, what gaps in the knowledge / research does this suggest? You do not have to consider the opposing argument (see rubric below), but knowing the opposing arguments, as well as the limitations of your own, are necessary in having a scientific basis to your argument.