# data[].attributes.body
Parker (2018) highlights the on pros and cons of plastic and how people misused this invention by massive production which led to massive plastic waste. The author is right about pros of plastic in our daily life and how this invention has was made to make our life easier and more hygienic in medical use while its cons has led to many environmental problems such as plastic pollution and microplastics in oceans that threatens marine life (make sure you state your ideas and make clear why you agree with her?).  Moreover, she supports the view that people can handle the ocean plastic problem “we don’t have to remake our planet’s entire energy system we know how-to pick-up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it.” (Parker, 2018, p.1). stated differently the writer emphasizes on role of people to handle this problem and everyone knows how to clean. Parker is right because if everyone from individuals, corporations to governments have effectively managed the plastic waste before it reaches oceans as well as collecting plastic from oceans then we can could overcome this problem (explain your ideas, who should be responsible? what should be done?).  
 
To conclude, I agree with the author because she is pointing to a very important problem that the world is facing today, due to mismanagement of plastic waste as well as rapid increase of plastic production. Therefore, the author is calling for cooperation between developed and developing countries to build an effective waste management system. She also adds the impact of individuals in this process. I think the audiences for this article are from politicians to  businessmen, consumers and citizens

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Clean energy won't save us-only a new economic system can" Hickel (2016) mentions that humanity should stop climate change and there are available solutions.
The author argues that fossil fuels are is harmful for the world and we should convert  turn renewable energies.The writer argues that humanity do not want to convert renewable energy since the world's economic system cannot let it (does he actually state?).Thus, people should find new source of energy income. Finally, If humanity escapes the fossil fuels ,it is not sufficient because of to the fact that not only fossil fuels but also overconsumpiton of any resource is the problem.Thus,people should discover new methods in order to prevent the world (what is the solution the writer suggests? Make sure you use linkers and reporting verbs to state the author's feelings.).

Hickel (2016) argues that economical problems leads to use fossil fuels In the article "Clean energy won't save us-only a new economic system can" Hickel (2016) mentions that humanity should stop climate change and there are available solutions.
The author argues that fossil fuels are is harmful for the world and we should convert  turn renewable energies.The writer argues that humanity do not want to convert renewable energy since the world's economic system cannot let it (does he actually state?).Thus, people should find new source of energy income. Finally, If humanity escapes the fossil fuels ,it is not sufficient because of to the fact that not only fossil fuels but also overconsumpiton of any resource is the problem.Thus,people should discover new methods in order to prevent the world (what is the solution the writer suggests? Make sure you use linkers and reporting verbs to state the author's feelings..

Hickel (2016) argues economical problems leads to use fossil fuels.The writer's idea is not enough in order to explain problem due to the fact that (check grammar here) we have not got other options to use sufficiently. People can use electric cars which is working with electric.However it is not cheap.To illustrate,In Turkey,If you want to buy electric cars,you need much money.Thus,people do not want to buy it. (make sure you paraphrase the writer's idea in the correct way and do not change his message.)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can,” Hickel (2016) mentions how we can stop climate change and their solutions. The author discusses that the main reason for the problem is our economic system and therefore we need to change the current economic system. The author warns that even if we stop burning fossil fuels, we cannot save the world. Unfortunately, some human activities such as industrial agriculture and animal husbandry are still responsible for the increase in greenhouse effect. The author emphasizes that the use of green energy cannot protect the world from climate change. The author is concerned about the current economic system and tries to convince people to change it (make sure you use linkers so that the readers can follow the ideas and make sure you also state the writer's idea that some nations have already achieved welfare with low consumption).

Hickel (2016), He argues that we need to change our economic system because clean energy cannot be saved humanity from climate change. Of course, the economic system is a threat to our world, but the elimination of 70% of greenhouse gas emissions has positive effects, and the author disregards about these positive effects. Furthermore, the author cannot explain his claims well the climate movement has made a huge mistake and says we focused on fossil fuels, but it cannot provide strong evidence as to why the focus on fossil fuels is so bad and he cannot explain why we should quit our economic system. The author mentions that it is time to imagine the global economy, but he cannot provide enough evidence that the problem can be solved only by the recovery of the economy. Therefore, we should focus on both fossil fuels and our economic system (you need to explain your reasons how can we focus on fossil fuels? what can we do about economic system? and makes sure you support ideas by referring to the text (paraphrasing and direct quotation).

To conclude, I (do not -full forms only) don't agree with the claim that we should just reform our economic system and not care about t dirty gases clean energy as a solution. Reducing toxic polluted gases will make our world have a cleaner air. This article may be interesting for those who want to see a controversial debate on the impact of toxic polluted gases and the economic system in on the world.

Make sure you explain your reasons and borrow information from the text.
Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Clean Energy won't save us only a new economic system can" by Hickel (2016) the author emphasises that switching from fossil fuels to energy sources can is not solve the climate change problem. As the author mentioned that using fossil fuels are danger for economy (does the author state that? or does this economic system require consumption of fossil fuels?) but the solution is not clean energy. One day fossil fuels will finish and maybe we will switch to clean energy, but it's the same scenario. It have a risk for finish clean energy sources (check grammar here, does the author actually state that? or does the author state that we will start overusing it to meet our demands?). He also argues clean energy will not save us from climate change. First we will have regulate our life style. For example; we can decrease industrial harms. Finally, switching energy resources is very hard because at the same time we have to have fullfil responsibilities against nature and future generations (you need to refer to the author as you summarize his ideas, make sure you use linkers so that the readers can follow the stated ideas and use reporting verbs so that the readers can understand the author's attitude.

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “planet or plastic” Parker (2018) emphasizes on the amount of plastic that is dumped in our oceans and the effect of this plastic on marine life. She argues that the invention of plastic has a huge impact on our daily life from piano keys and medical tools to space, but this revolutionary invention has its disadvantages. Moreover, the author states that the massive production of plastic started about 1950 and eventually it led to vast amount of plastic waste that do not make into recycling bins and thrown in oceans. In addition, she discusses that plastic ocean kills millions of marine species annually and these species from all sizes eat microplastics and we need to change this before oceans turns to plastic soup. Furthermore, the author is concerned about accelerating rate of plastic production that reached 448 million in 2015. She continued with the fact that the waste of this massive production that ended up in ocean turns to microplastic that is found in everywhere people have looked and these plastics travel through continents. Also, Parker mentions that through research scientist have discovered that one third of 504 fishes have microplastic in them additionally microplastics are found in the sand of beaches. Further, she gives examples of companies that produce vast amount of plastic as well as countries in Asia that mismanaging plastic waste. Finally, Parker suggests that we need effective management system as well as rising awareness of people.  Good summary.

Parker (2018) highlights the on pros and cons of plastic and how people misused this invention by massive production which led to massive plastic waste. The author is right about pros of plastic in our daily life and how this invention has was made to make our life easier and more hygienic in medical use while its cons has led to many environmental problems such as plastic pollution and microplastics in oceans that threatens marine life (make sure you state your ideas and make clear why you agree with her?).  Moreover, she supports the view that people can handle the ocean plastic problem “we don’t have to remake our planet’s entire energy system we know how-to pick-up garbage. Anyone can do it. We know how to dispose of it.” (Parker, 2018, p.1). stated differently the writer emphasizes on role of people to handle this problem and everyone knows how to clean. Parker is right because if everyone from individuals, corporations to governments have effectively managed the plastic waste before it reaches oceans as well as collecting plastic from oceans then we can could overcome this problem (explain your ideas, who should be responsible? what should be done?).

To conclude, I agree with the author because she is pointing to a very important problem that the world is facing today, due to mismanagement of plastic waste as well as rapid increase of plastic production. Therefore, the author is calling for cooperation between developed and developing countries to build an effective waste management system. She also adds the impact of individuals in this process. I think the audiences for this article are from politicians to  businessmen, consumers and citizens public.

Thank you:)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) condones that people pinpoint the problem about the fossil fuels to decrease climate change but the main problem for the author is economic system. The writer is worried s about the danger of fossil fuels that represent a change in people's way of thinking. Although, Hickel (2016) argues that the main problem for us has been missed and even though clean energy is important, it won’t save us from climate change. As the writer suggested, what would happen with 100% is going to be the same thing for people because we would still use fossil fuels the way we are using it now, produce more cement, build more meat farms, and expand industrial agriculture. The reason why the society wouldn’t stop is the appealing in economic system. Hickel (2016) advocates that we should rethink our economic system and lower our own ecological footprints. The key solution to our problem would be producing and  consuming our own products less. In conclusion the author suggests that there is a commitment to abandon the economic system. Hickel (2016) suggest that there is a need for a new global economy which would expand human wellbeing and lowering ecological footprint at the same time. A lot of countries have already started which shows us that it is not impossible.

Good summary, make sure you post your response here.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” by Hickel.j (2016) the writer raises his concerns about climate change. He starts by saying that climate change is becoming more and more recognized in the world and that “fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast” (p.1). He also criticizes clean energy as he says that clean energy will not save us from climate change. He supports his claims by saying that only 70 percent of the greenhouse gasses are caused by fossil fuels and that the rest are caused by industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture, and industrial livestock farming . He says (use stronger reporting verbs) the best way to tackle this problem is by rebranding our economic system. He concludes by saying that we need an economic system that "maximizes human wellbeing while actively lowering our ecological footprint “ (make sure you paraphrase the ideas and state that some countries have already achieved this)

The writer makes a valid point has a huge point and I agree with him that clean energy will not entirely save us but I disagree with him because he disregards clean energy and he says that clean energy won't save us. Everything needs to begin from somewhere and I believe that clean energy should be the first step in the solution. He has opened my eyes to other problems causing climate change except for fossil fuels and those problems will still be there even when we switch to clean energy completely . He argues that even when we switch to 100 percent clean energy that only 70 recent of the green house gasses are caused by fossil fuels. So even when we switch things like industrial agriculture and plastic making will still be there. make sure you explain your reasons why will clean energy not be enough?

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” by Hickel (2016), the author emphasises on how switching from fossil fuels to clean energy (will not - full forms only) won’t eliminate the problem of climate change completely. He makes clear the authenticity of his original claim by exclaiming (not needed as it does not add up to content) that fossil fuels only constitute for 70% of the greenhouse gases that exist in the atmosphere. He also suggests that even if we are able to switch to 100% clean energy, we’ll continue to produce the same things with that as we do with fossil fuels. The author goes on to infer that the correct way to go to be able to eradicate the problem of climate change is to reevaluate our economic system and change how it encourages never-ending production and consumption. The author concludes on a vitalising note by restating how we need to change how we run our economies and gives us hope by telling us how some countries have already been successful in increasing human development with low consumption. Good summary

Hickel (2016) makes a valid point throughout his article regarding how the reduction in the use of fossil fuels is not the only path we as mankind need to take in order to overcome the problem of climate change. However, in my opinion, Hickel (2016) trivialises the role of the usage of fossil fuels and their contribution to the increasing climate change by making their 70% contribution to the emission of greenhouse gases seem like not too big a deal by stating that it “only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind.” (p.1) make sure you explain your reasons why are greenhouse gas emissions important? Moving onwards, the author does a good job of strengthening his main argument by discussing how the actual problem is our economy and how it promotes ever-increasing production. However, he doesn’t back this claim up with any statistical details, which naturally leaves us, as readers, wondering about the reliability of his claim. The author is on the right track and has several valid points like the need to snap out of the illusion that solving an isolated issue like the excessive use of fossil fuels will solve the much larger issue of climate change altogether - make sure you explain your reasons why is this idea not a strong one?). On the other hand, he seems to be providing information on the mere surface level without going into details by presenting the reader with hard facts and rare details regarding the subject matter -be specific which piece of information is not reliable and explain why you think so?.

To conclude, reading this article definitely did open up my eyes towards a huge problem that we as humans often overlook in the daily hustle and bustle of life, which is that it is high time we changed the way our economy functions. However, this article also left me, as the reader, with a feeling of incompleteness because it made more claims than it was able to support sufficiently. (state which group of audience can benefit from this article? and why?)
Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Clean Energy Won't Save Us - Only New Economic System Can" by Hickel (2016) the author discusses that %100 clean energy (would not - full forms only) wouldn't be enough to stop a climate change. He proposes that it's time to imagine a new global economy and maximizing minimizing human wellbeing activity and lowering our footprint. Hickel argues that people are only focusing on fossil fuels usage and they are thinking that fossil fuels are killing us. As soon as possible we need to switch to clean energy but in fact it isn't sufficient. The main problem has been missed. The clean energy is important but it won't save us from climate change.
If we are able to stop fossil fuels and switch to %100 clean energy . It wouldn't be enough to stop a climate change. It affects (effect is a noun) climate change only 70%. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes such as industry, plastic forms. According the author we focused all our attention on fossil fuels and it is an enormous mistake. He advocates that we should rethink our their economic system and lowering our ecological footprints and state that some countries have achieved doing this) (make sure you refer to the writer, use reporting verbs and linkers).

Diversely in our knowledge this article approaches the issus from another looks in other perspective. Most of people  thinks that if we stop the usage of fossil fuels, it will be solve the climate change problem. But in fact in Hickel (2016) claims that the article it says that "...the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for %70 of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes such as industrial production of cement..." (p.1) I also advocate that we should reconsider the basic logic of our economic system you  need to explain your reasons here. Accordingly to the author the root problem is our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption do you agree or disagree with this? and then explain your reasons.

In conclusion this article focuses on approaches the main solution of climate change. In our lifestyle everyone wants to consume and gain more and more  Because of that we increase our ecological footprints and damage our planet. Also the usage of fossil fuels is very important but first of all we should change our minds.
Really this article approaches the problem from a looks very different perspective that's why I suggest everyone to read it.

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” by Hickel(2016), the author discuses that using 100% clean energy will not stop climate change. He states that people are now aware of the dangers of fossil fuels. Hickel underlines that clean energy will not stop climate change. He outlines what would happen if people use 100% clean energy. He states that It effect climate change 70%. Also 30% other factors causes climate change. The author mentions that people do exactly the same thing with clean energy. He states with clean energy people produce end consume more. Hickel mentions switching to clean energy will not solve climate changing problem. He mentions that people focuses d on the wrong aspect of the problem content. He advocates that people should reconsider their economic system. The author mentions the main problem is the aim for of more production and consumption. He highlights that reconsidering economic system can solve climate change problem. The author states people should lowering their consumption and ecological footprint (good summary, but make sure you do not use "mention" or "state" instead use reporting verbs like "argue", "claim", "attack", "defend".

Hickel advocates that reconsidering economic system can solve the climate change problem. His idea is logical because as he said people do the same thing with clean energy and it will not solve the problem. But his idea is hard to implement because realizing the  to harmful effects of fossil fuels took too much time. When people notice the harmful effects of fossil fuels, they are believe ing thatusing clean energy will solve climate changing problem for a long time. Changing this idea is really hard and it will take a lot of time. That’s why it is hard to implement (you need to elaborate your reasons and cite information from the text.

In conclusion this article approaches the solution of climate change from in a different perspective. I agree with  to author. I believe people have to reconsider the economic system and  take action before it gets is getting too late (also state if you suggest this article to others? and why?).

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) advocates that switching to clean energy won't be sufficient to alleviate of the impacts of climate change’s impacts instead we must change our economic system. Hickel starts with the fact we are aware of the hazards of fossil fuels but missing the principal problem which is using clean energy instead of fossil fuels won’t save us from climate change. He then moves on to with the fact that use examples to prove the point he calls imagine us even though we are able to switching to 100% clean energy "the best-case scenario" (Hickel, 2016, p. 2) (follow APA rules, look at the sample) even this best-case scenario wouldn’t be enough to stop a climate change as the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions and remaining 30%  is bring about industrial production (check grammar here, language hinders understanding).Then he underlines the problem is not the kind of energy, it’s what we’re doing with it. What we do with 100% clean energy is as same as fossil fuels . We will do things (avoid "thing" it is informal and vague) due to our economic growth so switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow down (what?).He adds we focused all our attention on fossil fuels, instead of considering we considered the basic logic of economic system again. Furthermore, Hickel  approves of if we modify our economic system attributed to endless demand for growth to a new one (make sure you rewrite this part as the meaning is clear here) now so then we can manage climate change.He concludes by  recommending a new economic system building on maximizing human wellbeing while lowering ecological footprint which has already been practiced by some countries (make sure you use your own words).It is not an impossible task as it is already been applied by five countries (not needed here,check the previous sentence).
Hickel (2016) urges that we can alleviate detrimental impacts of climate change only throughout changing our economic system because switching to clean energy (will not - full forms only) won’t be sufficient.Although the writer's idea about overconsumption is reasonable/ realistic/ acceptable I totally believe that our consumption is increasing dramatically every day and it poses a severe threat to the world I do not agree with the his dictating and single-minded manner is biased/ is not convincing (the point you are making is not clear because of the word "constructive") manner.I think that even though clean energy does not solve climate change totally, it plays a considerable role in reducing climate change’s harms because it aeffects (afffect (v.), effect (n.) of the elimination of 70% greenhouse gas emission in a positive way (Hickel, 2016) (explain your reasons: how can clean energy help?).Therefore, due to the fact that it forms the large portion of the issue a large slice of cake it is undeniable fact that every step taken is significant for our future. The Hickel also (2016)  claims that  “We need to abandon this economic system immediately.”( p. 30) but changing our economic system is a long term run issue and when we attempt to change this,we might ignore that there is another solution which is a switching to clean energy and it is easy to do much more than modifying economic system (explain how can we convert to clean energy? and how can this help?).

To sum up, even if the writer has sound ideas about consumption leading to global issues, I disapprove of his argument that defends clean energy is a trivial point to climate change issue.This article would be attractive for those who would like to have knowledge about saving our future from climate change.

Make sure you explain your reasons.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can"  by Hickel (2016) the author justifies that people are only focusing on fossil fuels to stop climate change but for author, the major problem is economic system. According to the author, even the humanity starts to use clean energy, it will not work as they imagine. because its not about the source, it is about how we use the resources. When fossiel fuels effectuate (check this word) 70% of greenhouse gases, there are still 30% percent of harmful gases released by mankind and industry such as methane.People pushed by economy to gain more. as author thinks ing if people maintain this economic system , climate change won't stop Then what does he suggest?, make sure you use linkers and refer to the author. State the main argument fully).

Hickel(2016) focuses ing on the fact that  fossil fuels are not only harmful impact but also economic system has a strong impact on damage to climate change. the author is right about the fact that stop to use using fossil fuels is not a radical solution.  people will maintain to release industrial gases to the environment. As the author mentioned, industrial gases are 30% of greenhouse gases which are more dangerous than CO2. these gases increase as fast as economic growth. everyday people are working for more and they consume rapidly. UNfortunately it became a cycle of consumption. at this point to produce goods they became the reason a cause for oscillation of gases. emissions in this fight, only one thing is winning, economy and climate change is getting risky develop day by day (make sure you use the linkers, refer to the writer and state the complete argument).

Unlike the author i am not 100% pessimistic. it is an improvement for humanity to take action and fight against with fossil fuels. at least it will be slow down the with reduction of usage. Actually the author mentions of slowing too, however, he says that it is not a big deal. contrarily, it is a big deal because fossil fuels are 70% of harmful gases. thus fossil fuels are significant to fight against great loss for climate change.

In brief, in some points ı agree with the author. Reducing fossil fuels is are not the only solution. people need to fight against with their economic system to and consume less. However, if they reduce their usage of fossil fuels, they should be hailed (who are "they"?). in this way, they wont hesitate to take actions and try for the economic system which cares about "less". (you have good ideas, but explain how can this be achieved, explain your ideas and cite (borrow) information and show evidence.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article"clean energy w don't save us-only economic system can" Hickel (2016) the author discusses the using clean energy will be insufficient solution to avoid climate change, we have to change our economic system.The writer argues that awareness about the danger of fossil fuels is growing but even if people stop using fossil fuels and they switch to 100% clean energy, there would be 70% greenhouse gasses caused by people and remaining 30% is caused by industrial production and industrial agriculture and also they produce tons of methane and nitrous oxide which are more dangerous than CO2. Moreover,we build more farms and expand industrial agriculture because of economic growth.He adds that we should focus on our economic system and we must change it instead of focusing fossil fuels (good summary, but make sure you use linkers and refer to the author).

Hickel(2016) argues that extreme weather events are more common in the world and fossil fuels (are the causes of these events) is are the dangerous effect of these events.The writer is right to ask for a change in our economic system because, as stated in the article,only switching fossil fuels to clean energy won't enough to stopping climate change (follow APA rules).The writer states   an assumption that is about even if we use 100% clean energy, we can decrease 70% greenhouse gases and remaining 30% caused by industrial production (you need to explain why you cite this information?). Hickel (2016) also highlights what we are doing with fossil fuels."produce more cement, build more meat farms and expand industrial agriculture.We will do these things because our economic system demands endless growth"(p.1).We should focus on not only fossil fuels problems but also rearranging our economic system (you need to explain you reasons here).

To conclude,I believe that the author explains the main reasons of climate change and extreme weather events and he leads us to think how can we protect our world from this problem (good sentence to wrap up, but make sure you state who would you suggest this article and why?).

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “ clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) tells us (use stronger reporting verbs) that we cannot prevent climate change unless we change the economic system. The author highlights that fossil fuels have a %70 impact on climate change. The rest 30% of the human species' economy stands (language hinders meaning, rewrite and be specific). He thinks that even in the best scenario, even in 100% clean energy usage, we will not be able to prevent change because when our economy grows, it also produces tons of methane and nitrous oxide which are more dangerous that CO2. Our economic system is all about one word and that word is "MORE". We need to abandon this economic system immediately because non-fossil fuel energy resources won't save us from this bad ending. (make sure you use linkers and stronger reporting verbs and state what does he suggest about the economic system?)

The writer highlights there's been extreme (be specific here! extreme what?) where there's all around the world. Everyone thinks that this kind of extreme Weather happens because of fossil fuels. Hickey (2016) supports that mankind's economic system is more effective than fossil fuels for climate change (the present economic system is based on overconsumption and over use of fossil fuels) but I disagree I think that (fossil fuels and humankind's economic system) both are equally destructive if we switch %100 clean energy this will be a very big step for the world. The little bit of a change in our economic system will be so hard. The world's biggest countries use this economic system and at the same time world's smallest countries uses this economic system (good point, give more reasons and examples about this idea).

But on the other hand, I agree with the writer on one point, this is not just about fossil fuels, we need to change our lifestyle and be careful because we use fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution. its been a long time and we still use them, they are dangerous for our health and our world (explain you reasons, why is our lifestyle problematic? As individuals what do we need to change? Good point, but explain your reasons by supporting them with references to the text?).

I think that the change for the economic system is very hard and it will take a pretty long time but if we slow down maybe we can prevent this type of nightmares become real (make sure you explain your reasons by referring to the texts).

in conclusion, I agree with the writer, there is been opposite of thoughts but I think we need to be careful and be aware of climate change use less fossil fuels and control our industry and economic system (state if you suggest it to other readers and why?)

Please go over my comments.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “ clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) argues that switching to clean energy won't be enough to control climate change, instead we must change our economic system. The author discusses that more and more people are considering fossil fuels as the are reasons for extreme weather events and missing the main problem behind it.  Furthermore, he explains by giving best-case scenario, which is using 100% clean energy, we only can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70% and remaining 30% is caused by industrial productions. Then he adds that this 30% is constantly increasing because of economic growth also it produces tons of methane and nitrous oxide which are more dangerous than t CO2. Moreover, Hickel confirms that unless we change our economic system that is based on everlasting demand for growth to a new one immediately so then we cannot solve climate change effect. Lastly, the author recommends a new economic system that builds on maximizing human wellbeing while lowering ecological footprint, which is already been implemented by some countries so not an impossible task (really good summary:).

Hickel (2016) highlights on the commonness of extreme weather events that are affecting the world. As a result, most of the people are united on fossil fuels' danger and rising awareness to switch to a clean energy. The author is right about fossil fuels damage and how it’s connected to the climate change. Also the author considers only using clean energy cannot prevent climate change from happening, so we have missed the main problem behind it. In addition, Hickel explains by using a case, which is shifting to 100% of clean energy “…burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind. The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes such as industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming” (p.1). In other words, this 30% produce two major toxic gases such as methane and nitrous oxide that are more harmful than CO2. Furthermore, this these 30% is are rapidly growing due to constant demand, which is a logical explanation. Therefore, he suggests that on changing the current economic system that is based on indefinite growth. The author has a point because if we want to solve climate change issue, we have to take  both reducing fossil fuels as well as adopting a new economic system into consideration. So the writer is right to propose an economic system that is based on human wellbeing as well as minimizing ecological footprint (you need to explain your reasons why the writer is right or has a point, I need to learn about your ideas more).

In conclusion, I agree with the writer because the writer is trying to draw our attention to the neglected side of problem and only focusing on fossil fuels and importance of switching to clean energy will not solve the actual problem. The author also mentions about some countries that already adopted this new economic system, which is hopeful because it is not an impossible task. So adopting a new economic system is a must if we want to prevent extreme weather events from occurring (conclude by stating who would you sugggest this article and why?)

Best,
MET