Rich, Alex. "Point: The World Must Actively Explore Alternative Sources of Energy." 2009. p2-2. Web. Nov 19 2010. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCOhost. Retrieved at Points of View Reference Center. "The World Must Actively Explore Alternative Sources of Energy" is an article stressing the importance of finding cleaner sources of energy for the United States, fast. Alex Rich first discredits oil and coal one of his points being that they are unrenewable and that their peak is coming soon. But unlike some other sites Rich gives some options for America to rely on instead. For example he backs up wind power, solar power, use of heat, and hydrogen all renewable and emission-free. But either way this article emphasizes the need to adopt a renewable, 'greener' energy source. Again, this article is credible because it comes from the Points of View Reference Center, a well-known, used database. This page would be a great asset to my final paper because it not only shows the electric car for what it truly is but it also assess the major world problem; pollution. It gives reasons why people need to be aware of the threat of CO2 emissions and global warming, and they should also be aware of what can happen if we don't stop it soon.

Souder, Elizabeth. "Coal Smoke from Power Plants tarnishes hybrid electric cars' halo." 12/05/2009. n. pag. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 19 Nov 2010. This site pretty much sums up most of the other articles by further proving the point that although electric cars do not produce the large amounts of emissions that gasoline-powered cars do but that they do still produce pollution if you go to the source. The author argues that coal is the worst fossil fuel to use, and that it is the most expensive. She also makes the point that with time the electric car could become 'cleaner' but that the world cannot wait very long. And this short timeline has politicians looking toward the electric car for the solution, but Souder says that this trust is mislead because electric cars do produce less pollution but all that does is kill the world slower. "Coal Smoke from Power Plants tarnishes hybrid electric cars' halo" is a great article to use in my final paper because of the information it gives to me about the effect electric cars has on politics. This is also another site that supports the belief that electric cars do use coal and that they are only a little bit better than a gasoline powered car. The fact that it comes from Points of View Reference Database, makes its information trust worthy.

Bailey, Ellen, and David Morley. "Coal-Burning Power Plants: An Overview." (2009): p1-1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 19 Nov 2010. (Bailey and Morley p1-1) "Coal-Burning Power Plants: An Overview" gives us a summary of the comparison between the use of foreign oil and coal in American soil. The author argues that those in favor of using American coal are mistaken. Bailey and Morley supported by several environmental groups, say that to reach coal reservoirs the environment will be destroyed. As supported by other articles, this one says that the production of coal-power plants will take money from the search for more efficient, alternative energy sources. This is a credible source because it comes a peer-edited database and because the information found here is supported by other sites in my annotated bibliography. The argument of this article is that coal used for electricity is all around 'dirty'. This and the fact that it is a credible source will make it a crucial source on my final paper.

Patel, Purva. "Electric Cars run on coal, partly." iStock Analysis. Houston Chronicle, Nov 19, 2010. Web. 19 Nov 2010. "Electric Cars run on coal, partly" is a two-sided story. Unlike the other sites this one gives you both sides of the story and makes you decide what is right and what is wrong. Purva argues that natural gas is the only way to make electric cars clean. But she also uses sources such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, to defend the fact that electric cars take the pollution from urban densely populated areas and puts them in a less densely populated rural area. She then contradicts this statement with another source that explains that this will only happen if the electric car is charged at night, but that this will most likely not happen because of the busy lives people live nowadays. This is a credible source because it is a newspaper that many people in Houston use and rely on everyday. It has proof of integrity through use of quotes from other newspapers and professionals who have done research on my subject for a very long time. I believe that this will be a critical source in my final paper because it indentifies the loopholes that come with the electric car and it also gives alternatives to help halt CO2 emissions.

Jude Clemente, "The Three National Security Dimensions of Coal," American Coal, No. 1, 2010. American Coal Council. Copyright © 2010 American Coal Council. All rights reserved. Jude Clemente's "Three National Security Dimensions of Coal" refutes all of the other sources in the annotated bibliography. Jude backs her claim ethically with the mention of Al Gore and with statistics, the article appeals to logic. The author's main purpose is to inform the audience in order to reverse their negative view of coal. Referring to future and the large vocabulary used, the audience becomes the average 20-40 year old who can understand the words and understand the importance the topic has their future. Jude separates the paper into sections (environmental, economic, and energy) that portrays the author's purpose with the ease that comes with simple writing. Although this site refutes the rest of the sources, it brings another relevant point of view to my argument. The Opposing Viewpoints Reference Center is a very credible that is backed by years of success and private viewing and critiquing.

"Electricity Choice and Green Power." Renewable Energy: the infinite power of Texas. N.p., 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. This webpage is sponsoring electric energy to power homes in Texas, it provides background into the reason why green energy is important, including the fact that citizens need to separate themselves from strong grasp fossil fuels have on the world's energy. It gives the definition of green power which includes wind and solar and excludes oil, coal, and natural gas. The company also explains that if you buy renewable energy that you will fund the search for other alternative energy sources, therefore buyers are helping save the environment. This page also explains that electric energy is mostly dirty and somehow involved with fossil fuels. Proving to me that even when the purpose of an ad is to sell electric energy they can't help but state the truth. Being an advertisement this site provides me with two things; an opposition to my argument, and proof that the truth is tampered with when it comes to selling electric energy. "Electricity Choice and Green Power" gives my beginning accusations more correctness, shaping my argument an undeniable fact. This site is reliable because it is a part of a large website that includes the professional weight of a state office. I would use it as a source in my final paper because the information I gathered from this site is supported by other articles also.

Spaulding, George. "Electric cars reduce gas dependence but increase coal reliance." The Post and Courier. Evening Post Publishing Co., 30 Oct 2010. Web. 5 Dec 2010. "Electric cars gas dependence but increase coal reliance" is a paper by George Spaulding that emphasizes the population's blindness to the problems with electric energy. He points out that government officials are afraid that America's obsession with oil gives Middle Eastern terrorist groups power over them. But he then points out that the devotion would then just transfer from one fossil fuel to another. He supports his argument with newspapers like the Wall Street Journal who unveiled the truth about the electric car to the public. Dr. George Spaulding is a distinguished businessman who graduated from the College of Business. I foresee myself using this webpage because explains that the batteries used for electric cars are created in coal power plants, and that when these batteries stop working they will be put in a landfill. Adding to pollution in 2 ways, this site discredits coal, and in turn discredits the electric car from its title of being 'green'. I believe this site to be in good integrity because of its use of other sources such as well-known newspapers.

"Clean Energy." U.S Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., 11/14/2008. Web. 15 Nov 2010. One of the connected questions asked on my research proposal was "What is the definition of better for the environment." This site gives me the comparison between the pollution created by an electric car and a gasoline-powered vehicle, I need to answer that question. "Clean Energy" uses lots of scientific terms found in many other articles, and here the terms are defined so that the reader can understand the important information given to them. The site proves that the electric car is better than a gasoline-powered car at least because an electric car produces less CO2 per mile. But it also proves that the electric car is not a "no emissions" car like it said it was. This website is from the EPA webpage which is a very reliable source with their history of helping the environment. It is vital to my final paper because without this site I would not understand very important statistics that can be seen throughout many of the websites, that supports my accusations. This site also adds mathematical proof to my argument.

"Could the Electric Car Save Us?." CBS News. CBS Interactive, Inc., 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. "Could the Electric Car Save Us?" from CBS News argues the point that coal is being used for electric cars and that this material could have fatal impacts on the environment. It supports my earlier found information that although electric cars produce less carbon emissions than gasoline vehicles, it states that electric cars are not the answer to stop global warming because it only slows it down minutely. The site gives alternative energy options like wind power but than explains that people would not carry out the responsibilities that come with maintaining a wind-powered car. This is a credible source because it comes from a very large well-known network that discusses many important modern issues, and it has vital information that can be found under professional opinions. It gives me the background information I need to argue my point that the electric car is not the solution and that an alternative energy is. Although, this site clashes with my belief that the electric car does not minimize emissions instead it is proven that the electric car does decrease amount of CO2 emissions, it just doesn't eliminate them. The information I found coincides with the facts I found on the other websites, and it would be a great help to add to my bibliography of my final paper.