Criterion A: The research question provided is clear, focused (i.e. not broad), and fully relevant to the investigation

Comment: The student’s research question was clear and focused. It directly addressed the impact of the renewable energy sources act on specific emissions in Germany, which was a manageable and specific scope. It was not overly broad and was directly relevant to the study of environmental policy.

Criterion A: The environmental issue (relevant either on a local or a global scale) is discussed in the work, providing context for the research question

Comment: The student’s paragraph addressed Germany's emissions and the power industry's impact on greenhouse gases and air pollution, highlighting the relevance of emission reduction for climate change and public health. However, it could have more strongly emphasized the global implications of these pollutants. The student should have discussed how emissions from the power sector affect global climate change and how successful reductions in Germany could serve as a model for other countries.

Criterion F:

Criterion A: There is an established connection between the research question and the environmental issue discussed

Comment: The student clearly explained the intended outcomes of the EEG, including increasing renewable energy use, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and lowering harmful emissions. This effectively linked the research question to a broader environmental issue.

Criterion A: The connection between the research question and the environmental issue is clearly explained to the reader

Comment: The student provides a coherent explanation of how the adoption of the EEG fits into broader efforts to reduce GHG emissions and air pollution in Germany. The explanation is grounded in the context of global warming, human health risks, and the long-term sustainability of energy resources.

Criterion A: The connection between the research question and the environmental issue is clearly explained to the reader

Comment: The student provides a coherent explanation of how the adoption of the EEG fits into broader efforts to reduce GHG emissions and air pollution in Germany. The explanation is grounded in the context of global warming, human health risks, and the long-term sustainability of energy resources.

Criterion B: The proposed method will allow the student to collect data that is both relevant and sufficient in number

Comment: The student’s method specified acquiring data from reliable sources (EDGAR for pollutants and IEA for renewable energy), and the time frames provided (1970-2019 for pollutants and 1990-2019 for energy production) ensured that sufficient data was collected to identify trends and make meaningful comparisons.

Criterion B: The proposed method will allow the student to collect data that is both relevant and sufficient in number

Comment: The student’s method specified acquiring data from reliable sources (EDGAR for pollutants and IEA for renewable energy), and the time frames provided (1970-2019 for pollutants and 1990-2019 for energy production) ensured that sufficient data was collected to identify trends and make meaningful comparisons.

Criterion B: The proposed method is described in sufficient detail to allow it to be replicated by the readers at a different time or setting

Comment: The student should have specified how the EDGAR and IEA data would be accessed and how the calculations would be conducted to improve the replicability of the method.

Criterion B: The sampling approach conducted by the student is clearly outlined

Comment: The student’s method specified which data would be collected (CO2, CO, SO2, PM10, NOx from EDGAR, and renewable energy production from IEA) and outlined the time periods for both datasets (1970-2019 for pollutants and 1990-2019 for renewable energy). This provided clarity on what data would be sampled.

Criterion B: The sampling approach conducted by the student is clearly outlined

Comment: The student’s method specified which data would be collected (CO2, CO, SO2, PM10, NOx from EDGAR, and renewable energy production from IEA) and outlined the time periods for both datasets (1970-2019 for pollutants and 1990-2019 for renewable energy). This provided clarity on what data would be sampled.

Criterion B: The exploration provides reasoning for the choice of the conducted sampling approach

Comment: The student provided reasoning in the exploration, stating that EDGAR and IEA are reliable and authoritative sources for data on pollutants and renewable energy. Additionally, the data spanned both pre- and post-EEG implementation, allowing the student to assess the act's impact over time.

Criterion B: The student lists and outlines any ethical considerations associated with the exploration

Comment: The student discussed ethical considerations, focusing on the reliability of EDGAR and IEA as trustworthy sources. The student also noted that these sources report data at the EU and global levels, ensuring objectivity and avoiding bias.

Criterion B: The exploration provides reasoning for the choice of the conducted sampling approach

Comment: The student provided reasoning in the exploration, stating that EDGAR and IEA are reliable and authoritative sources for data on pollutants and renewable energy. Additionally, the data spanned both pre- and post-EEG implementation, allowing the student to assess the act's impact over time.

Criterion B: The student lists and outlines any ethical considerations associated with the exploration

Comment: The student discussed ethical considerations, focusing on the reliability of EDGAR and IEA as trustworthy sources. The student also noted that these sources report data at the EU and global levels, ensuring objectivity and avoiding bias.

Criterion B: Any risks associated with the method or exploration are listed and described by the student

Comment: The student has not outlined any risks associated with the method. The student should have included issues with data reliability, accuracy, or limitations in the data sources themselves, as well as challenges in ensuring the correct data spans before and after the EEG.

Criterion B: The student lists and outlines any ethical considerations associated with the exploration

Comment: The student discussed ethical considerations, focusing on the reliability of EDGAR and IEA as trustworthy sources. The student also noted that these sources report data at the EU and global levels, ensuring objectivity and avoiding bias.

Criterion B: The exploration provides reasoning for the choice of the conducted sampling approach

Comment: The student provided reasoning in the exploration, stating that EDGAR and IEA are reliable and authoritative sources for data on pollutants and renewable energy. Additionally, the data spanned both pre- and post-EEG implementation, allowing the student to assess the act's impact over time.

Criterion B: The exploration provides reasoning for the choice of the conducted sampling approach

Comment: The student provided reasoning in the exploration, stating that EDGAR and IEA are reliable and authoritative sources for data on pollutants and renewable energy. Additionally, the data spanned both pre- and post-EEG implementation, allowing the student to assess the act's impact over time.

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion D:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion C:

Criterion D:

Criterion C:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion D:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion E:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion F:

Criterion A: The environmental issue (relevant either on a local or a global scale) is discussed in the work, providing context for the research question

Comment: The student’s paragraph addressed Germany's emissions and the power industry's impact on greenhouse gases and air pollution, highlighting the relevance of emission reduction for climate change and public health. However, it could have more strongly emphasized the global implications of these pollutants. The student should have discussed how emissions from the power sector affect global climate change and how successful reductions in Germany could serve as a model for other countries.

Criterion F:

Criterion F: