Read Lomborg (2001) ‘The Truth About the Environment’. Lomborg argues that the “litany of environmental fears” is not factually supported, including fears that: “natural resources are running out”; human “population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat”; “species are becoming extinct…forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing”; and “the planet’s air and water are becoming ever more polluted.” Conduct a critical review of one of the following four empirical counter-claims Lomborg makes by finding evidence from credible sources that supports or denies it: “energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so” “more food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history; fewer people are starving” the “threat of biodiversity loss is real, but exaggerated” “pollution is also exaggerated” Your paper should be organized as follows (using these section headings): Background (approx. 15-20% of paper’s content, about 1⁄2 page): Introduce the counter-claim that you are selecting from the Lomborg reading. Summarize which global environmental problem it relates to, and how this fits in with REM-100. Critical review (approx. 50-66% of paper’s content, about 2 pages): Discuss at least four credible sources (including at least two peer-reviewed scholarly articles) that evaluate the counter-claim you have chosen. Summarize the arguments made by each source, including whether they support or negate Lomborg’s counter-claim. Note that REM100 lecture slides are not an appropriate source. Also describe why the source is credible and critically consider if it may have any bias and why. Possible biases may involve opinion-based claims that have no scientific-proven facts behind them or research that might have been not completely objective because it was funded by a special interest group. Conclusion (approx. 15-20% of paper’s content, about 1/2 page): Offer a clear conclusion, based on the evidence you identified and assessed, about whether the counter-claim you evaluate is more likely to be true or false (or a combination of both). Reference list! Including all articles, reports and websites cited in the body of your assignment. Format and Style: This assignment follows a “Briefing” format. You must meet all of these criteria. Name your file as “surname_first-name__REM100Assignment.doc”. Document type: MS Word (or equivalent). Do not submit a PDF – it is easier for us to provide comments using Word. Font: 11 or 12 point (size), Times New Roman font. Document should be single spaced, with one space between paragraphs. Include your name, student number, discussion group, submission date and assignment title in the document header (the top of your document). Use an assignment title that clearly states which of Lomborg’s counter-claims you are assessing. At the top of your assignment, clearly state the document’s word count – you must not exceed 1500 words for this assignment. Reference list, tables, and figures do not count in your word limit (within reason). Clearly structure your assignment with the section headings ‘Introduction’, ‘Critical review’ and ‘Conclusion’. You can use subheadings in your critical review section to separate the discussion of your different sources. Use APA referencing format e.g. (Conrad, 2017). Reference all data, information, assertions, and insights that come from other sources. information, assertions, and insights that come from other sources. Keep your assignment concise and to the point You must provide references, and show how they support your argument or message. Quickly cut to the chase! Papers should use precise language that can be fully documented—this style is often called “technical” or academic writing. Journalistic language is not appropriate. Some bullet points are okay, but make sure the document has a logical and smooth flow. You must use complete sentences, and your text should be free of typos or grammatical errors. You may use a table or figure to support your text, but such visual aids are not required. Any evidence of plagiarism (as defined by SFU) will not be tolerated and penalized according to Appendix 3 of the SFU Policy on Code of Academic Integrity and Good Conduct. Contact your instructor or TM if you have concerns or questions about writing. The key to good writing is practice, taking pride in what you write, and reviewing your writing from the perspective of a reader.