# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean Energy Won’t Save Us-Only a New Economic System Can”, Hickel (2016) stresses that switching to clean energy will not prevent the climate change which mankind caused as long as our current economic system (does not- full form only) doesn’t change. He also claims that even though people switch their energy source from fossil fuels to clean energy sources and use 100% percent clean energy, the consequences can not be avoided.The reason is that some amount of the gasses like CH4 and N2O ,which are more dangerous than CO2, are released by the activities of industrial production of some materials and industrial agriculture. But the main thing he wants people to focus on is to reconsidering the current economic system. Because he is critical about the decisions that people made which is focusing on climate change. Since people’s economics system demands for production and consumption, he wants to draw the readers' attention to that point. Furthermore he warns people about the consequences of a non-useful even harmful ing economic system so that people can understand the importance of it.Although he is still hopefull and still has belief on mankind that they will realize do the right call by lowering the ecological footprint and supports himself with illustrating other countries as an example. Good summary:)

Hickel(2016) is aims ed to infom the readers about a common misunderstanding which is the real solution for climate change is to clean energy. But in his article he states that it is not enough and what really can help to lessen the effects of climate change is to change the disrupted economic system which demands production and consumption. I find his arguments convincing in some ways but there is also the 30% that he misses even though he mentions it in his article “The remaining 30% comes from a number of causes such as industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming.” (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Because 30% is a huge ratio that people can start to atone for their mistakes by using and producing environment friendly products or filtering their chimneys. In addition Hickel(2016) made an unrealistic comparison to give hope to his people and get his people to action and mentioned the success of a number of countries. While saying that he misses out a point which is vital. Since every nation has its own problems or issues like hunger, terror, rapidly increasing amount of crime, they might not get to change their economic system “immediately”, which is also challenging for a country. The countries whose welfare level is high might have focused on these issues attented and done that but some countries who have s still troubles besides the climate change will not be able to follow the authors' lead I presume.

To sum up the subject Hinkel draws attention to what is important and he is right to do so but while supporting his arguments he misses some points which is the actions of manner for some countries. Surely it is nice to hear some solutions for a vital problem like this but the solutions he suggests needs to be feasible. The article would be much more useful for the states and governments who are willing to familiarize themselves about hear some solutions for the climate change.

Good reaction, but to show your agreement or disagreement, you can use formal expressions like the author seems to ignore ..., the author seems to make an unfair generalization ...

# data[].attributes.body
that using clean energy only won’t prevent the climate change, humanity  must also change their demanding economic system.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) states that everyone agrees that climate change is a threat for our future and only a change in our economic system can help to alleviate it. Hickel points out that we can slow down global warming by switching to clean energy but it will not a long-term solution on its own. The author states that fossil fuels are not the only reason of climate change. That’s why our climate change problem will not be solved even if we stop using fossil fuels altogether and switch to 100% clean energy. According to the author
article, while 70% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by fossil fuels only 30% comes directly from industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming. The author claims that switching to clean energy also implies that humans are going to keep producing more cement, build more meat farms, and so on. This outcome is exactly the same as what we’re currently doing with fossil fuels. Hickel’s argument is that our current economic system is simply not sustainable. We’re destroying the environment and causing climate climate because of our society based on consumption. Unless we change how we consume, any effort clean energy won’t be enough to prevent the disaster ahead. Therefore, we need to
take immediate action. Humanity needs a new economic system where we can both reduce
our carbon footprint and improve the quality of our lives (make sure you refer to the author and use reporting verbs that reflect the author's attitude in a clear way.) .

Although I agree with Hickel’s (2016) claims that using clean energy cannot be the solution of climate change and that our current economic system is not sustainable, I am not
convinced if the global economic system can be drastically changed. The living standards in the United States, in China, and in Latin America are very different. For example, developing countries have more important priorities like broken infrastructure, transportation, and lack of money. In my opinion, climate change is an urgent issue that all governments around the
world must address together. However, we need to be realistic and think about how governments around the world can act together. The responsibility should be shared among developed and developing countries in the next decades (good points here, but make sure you respond to another idea stated by Hickel in order to have a more convincing paper).

According to the article entitled “We have 12 years to limit climate change
catastrophe, warns UN” by Watts (2018), we only have 12 years left to ensure that the earth does not warm up beyond the threshold of 1.5°C. If the earth warms up by only
0.5°C more, it will be a catastrophe for our species. That’s why we must act immediately. Both Watts and Hickel agree on the urgency of climate change. While Watts reminds us that  we have limited time, Hickel makes a call for action to change the economic system. Although I agree with Hickel’s argument that our current system is unsustainable, we should be realistic. Increasing the use of clean energy is necessary and feasible but changing the economic system around the world seems impossible to me. We need to consider how we can decrease then eliminate fossil fuels in developed and developing countries (good points here, but in AT1 we want you to refer to the given article. In AT3 we want you to refer to the other articles studied in class. And you have responded the same ideas in the previous paragraph.)

In conclusion, climate change is no longer an issue that can be delayed so we must act immediately. Changing the economic system in the First World does not guarantee it will also change in the Developing and Third World. Climate change is a complex issue because we live in a globally connected world. If we want to bring change, we need to focus on more
local solutions and global cooperation to prevent climate change. (state who can benefit from reading this article?)

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) explains that not only does climate change end with sustainable fuel (grammar hinders understanding-rewrite this part) but instead we need to find different solutions (be specific - what solution does he offer?). First , the author highlights that we need to give up fossil fuels, but leaving those fossil fuels will not be enough for the world to fight against climate because that Hickel (2016) warns that "the 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. "(pg.1) in summaries only concepts can be directly quoted, the relevant information should be paraphrased). Howewer, the author emphasizes that we should revise our economic system because the size of the economic system pushes us to it into extreme fossil use (some of the supporting ideas are missing and the main argument is not fully stated).

Hickel(2016) claims that the world is giving its full attention to fossil fuels to stop global warming.Even though I believe that people who care about global warming and work to stop it do are not just focused on fossil fuels, they are interested in many issues such as plastic pollution, glacial melting, but the author may have thought so because the media and governments generally reflect the news and talk about fossil fuels (you need to explain your reasons for disagreement here). Additionally, Hickel (2016) point outs that the biggest cause of global warming is the economic system, and the biggest problem of this system is too much consumption. I agree with that and think that developed countries do more harm than other countries. In addition, the economic system affects not only in terms of global warming but also in many other social and environmental aspects (you have good points here, but most of them are in the form of overall comments, make sure you explain your reasons).

Too sump up,even though I don't agree with the author's thoughts on focusing solely on fossil fuel, I have embraced his thoughts on the economic system. this article is a good article for the process of change for global warming - rewrite this chunk as the idea is not clearly stated here.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Planet or Plastic”, Parker (2018) warns readers about the negative consequences of plastic pollution and analyzes the reasons for the growth of this pollution. First, the author highlights the amount  number of unrecycled plastic waste and mentions most of this these waste mixes in the ocean and it takes a lot of years to decompose their basic molecules. Second, Parker states that this pollution causes the death of most of the marine animals. He refers from a person, who defines  The author stresses that the plastic problem is less complicated and more tangible than climate change. He continues by stating the solution for the plastic problem is also easier than climate change’s and anyone can be part of this solution. Then the author defines the term “microplastics”, which are smaller pieces of plastics that we can’t see, and warns about their potential to pollute of pollute the oceans by accumulating in there. They can easily pass into fish’s and human’s body. After that Parker underlines the growth of this pollution, so these plastics are everywhere around the world and polluting the water and the sand. The author puts emphasizes the blame of the companies, that are which responsible for the plastic production, and warns about the refers their manufacture numbers of plastic products. After that Parker concentrates on the solution of this pollution and refers to a chemical engineer called Narayan. According to Narayan, the solution of plastic pollution is to go to five specific Asian countries, which have undeveloped garbage collection systems, and try to reduce their mismanaged and uncontrolled waste of plastics. The author supports the development of solid management with another example from Greenpeace and also suggests by reducing promotions of single-use plastics. He finishes his article with a quote, which explains The author concludes that this is the time create an awareness and there is still hope for the solution of plastic pollution (what is the hope the author stresses about?).

Parker tries to convince us of the harms of plastic pollution and encourage us to take a role in the solution. I agree with his claim that the world needs a developed waste management system. Developed countries like America and Europe have already had this system but the other countries need to make progress. But the author and the person, who he referred, are not showing us a way to achieve this (too general, be specific). Parker (2018) and Narayan state that others should help them with  managing with their waste but (do not - full forms only) don’t show how. In my opinion, countries in like America and Europe can help them financially and with their technology. So, they can build their system in to these countries and show this mechanism. But it is also a new argue topic that (you need to rewrite this chunk as the meaning is not clear) to convince these countries to help others for free. The World Bank Group can help the countries financially to build or develop their system as they have invested in the poor countries to build renewable energy sources (Kyte, 2015) as mentioned in the article “World Bank: clean energy is the solution to poverty, not coal” by Rachel Kyte.

Parker (2018) rightly draws attention to the promotions with a quote from Greenpeace’s Abigail Aguilar in his article "Planet or Plastic?" that he states (language hinders meaning) “We believe that the ones producing and promoting the use of single-use plastics have a major role in the whole problem.”(p.2) These plastics are produced because people use and want are using and wanting more. People want are wanting because there are promotions everywhere. If we can break this supply and demand chain, it w,ll would be a huge progress to deal with plastics. We should start with huge companies as Coca Cola, Nestle and Pepsico, which probably are the leaders of the production of the plastics as mentioned in the article (make sure you state your agreement and elaborate your reasons.

To wrap up, the author makes good points with his solutions ideas and with the explanation of the reasons for plastic pollution. He refers from academic and reliable resources and convinces us to take action about this situation like recycling or reduction of purchasing of single-use plastics. This article is suitable for the people, who wants to save do something beneficial to their planet and save the oceans and implicitly their health.

Make sure you explicitly state your agreement or disagreement and explain your reasons for agreement or disagreement.

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article ’clean energy won’t save us - Only a new economic system can’. Hickel (2016) explains that If we are able to switch our us e/usage ing of energy to 100% clean energy, that will not stop the climate catastrophe. Burning of fossil fuels form 70% of greenhouse gas and the remaining 30% comes from industrial production. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down, because we are use it on the same thing, we were use fossil fuels on “our economic system demands endless growth” (do not copy chunks from the text, rewrite them in your own words and do not directly quote information, you can only directly quote "concepts" in summaries). We focused on fossil fuels, but we didn’t focus on our economic system that we are using fossil fuels for to it. “Clean energy won’t save us from this nightmare, but rethinking our economic system might” (do not directly quote information, you can only directly quote "concepts" in summaries), so we need to abandon this economic system now. However, we need to decrease our ecological footprint, that is not difficult because there are is a lot of some countries managed to lower there ecological footprint. Finally, we need to make people more and more aware about that switching to clean energy cannot isn’t the solve for this problem, we should not need to underestimate our economic system and our ecological footprint.

Thank you. Make sure you complete your response. In summaries you need to paraphrase ideas, refer to the writer and use reporting verbs to reflect the author's attitude.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Clean energy won’t save us-only a new economic system”, Jason Hickel (2016) explains that the solution of climate change is not just the reduction of utilization of fossil fuels oils. He advocates that a new economic system is the real and long-term solution for this problem. First, the author mentions and agrees to the common idea that fossil fuels are harmful, but he also defends that stopping the usage of these kinds of energy sources is not enough to stop the climate change. Secondly, he refers that the biggest percentage of greenhouse gases is are from man-made reasons humanity and not fossil fuels. Therefore, changing our energy source is not a big step towards the solution. He emphasizes that the real problem is not the energy source but how we use it. According to the author even if we use clean energy for the similar same purposes the same + singular noun / similar +plural nouns, it will only slow down the harm. After that, Hickel blames our consumption-based economic system for today’s social and environmental issues and suggests changing this economic system based on what? Be specific here. Last but not least he mentions that he is hopeful, and a change is possible as some countries have already achieved this goal.

Hickel (2016) claims that clean energy is not enough to overcome climate change and criticizes the current economic system. Most of the people see clean energy as the biggest and only way to stop climate change and the author wants us to question this idea. Even though I agree with the author, he underestimates the clean energy and ignores this big environmental step because according to scientist Bill Nye, burning fossil fuels have a big role o in climate change. The author makes a point suggesting us to change our consumption style because “…70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind.” (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Building environmentally friendly buildings, trying to make less pollution and reducing industrial agriculture are the beginning of this change. “The tragedy of commons” advocates the idea of reducing overconsumption and sustainable life. This sustainable life will lower our ecological footprint and eventually helps us to overcome climate change (good points here, if you elaborate the idea of sustianable life style that will make your point much stronger). The author states many countries managed to lower their ecological footprints and this shows us there is still hope to change something (make sure you respond to at least two ideas, this will help you build up a more convincing response paper).

To conclude I agree with most of the author’s ideas with minor changes and I suggest the idea of an urgent new economic system. The author’s purpose is to make us think from a different perspective about climate change and create awareness about our consumption style. This article should be read by governments officials and everybody should start to take action about the problem.

Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us-only a new economic system can”, Hickel (2016) stresses that not only consuming clean energy instead of fossil fuels but also changing economic system will not prevent the climate change (he suggests that we should change the economic system). First of all, the author explains that there is a growing awareness about the danger of fossil fuels that are killing people. As the author mentions it (be specific what will not be enough?) won’t be enough in order to save people from climate change. According to author, humanity cannot reach 100% clean energy even if when they stop using fossil fuels. This is because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions and caused by mankind. The remaining 30% comes from another causes. For instance, industrial production, plastic waste are another harmful reasons of climate change. Therefore, it seems impossible in order to reach clean energy 100%. As the author claims the main problem is not energy types which people consume. The main problem is what people do and how people consume these energy types. However, people consume these energy types a lot because of their economic system and endless growth. Therefore, using clean energy instead of fossil fuels is not enough in order to fight with climate change. What people must do to decrease climate change is that this they have to rethink their economic system. They need to abandon this economic system immediately. All in all, as author claims, people can rethink their economic system (based on what? be specific here and also state that some countries have already achieved this.) and become using less fossil fuels.

Make sure you refer to the author and avoid repetition of the same idea. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
Utku Koçak
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us “Hickel( 2016) states that switching our energy source from fossil fuels to clean energy resouces will not save us from climate change or other negative facts . Hickel is thankful  (that people are aware) for people being aware of negative aspects terms of burning fossil fuels and we need to change /switch to clean energy . However he claims that one of the other major problems is with our global economic system.  He stresses that mentions the current economic system is based on “producing more and comsuming more” (Hickel, 2016, p. 1) idea . He supports his idea with examples (not needed) ike industrial agriculture and industrial livestock breed .Hickel also warns the reasders about the fact that adds up with statistical fact such as %70 of green house gasses are produced by burning fossil fuels ,other %30 is  the consenquence of our global economic system .To conclude, Hickel claims that we need to change our energy source and our economic system at the same time otherwise we (will not - full forms only) won’t be safe against our ecological threats. Hickel expects the readers to understand the problem doesn’t end by with changing energy sources from fossil fuels to clean energy .  The author argues that the cause of the problem is more complex than that .The complex part is our current economical system of mass production and consumption . Our economic system is built on a idea ,which is a capitalist one if you ask me ,of constant growth (no personal comments in summary writing) . As a result of this idea we produce more and consume more of our resources . To produce more we use fossil fuels again so we come to starting point again . Over useage of fossil fuels and huge amount of CO2 emmision .To conclude  we have to change our enviro n ment killer/capitalist  destructive economic system for our own good . If people really want to prevent more negative consequences of  climate change we have to put a stop to our economic system . (does the writer suggest ending this system and adapting it? and make sure you state that some nations have already this change. Make sure you avoid repetition of the same idea. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.headline
RESPONSE ESSAY "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US - ONLY A NEW ECONOMİC SYSTEM CAN"      (Orhan Aytuğ Turhan)           

# data[].attributes.subject
RESPONSE ESSAY "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US - ONLY A NEW ECONOMİC SYSTEM CAN"      (Orhan Aytuğ Turhan)           

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”, Hickel (2016) mentions  about the consensus formed around one important fact  that is fossil fuels are bad for us and we urgently need to switch to clean energy. According to the author this awareness is growing but the main problem is being missed. Clean energy is important but it won’t / will not (full forms only in academic writing) save us from climate change even if we do with %100 clean energy because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% . The remaining 30% comes from industrial forms, agriculture and industrial livestock farming. They create tons of dangerous gases compared to than CO2. According to the author switching to clean energy is not going to slow the emission of toxic gases (do not use anything as it is vague and informal). The author states that we focused our attention on fossil fuels and we forgot we are using fossil fuels for economic growth. The author discusses clean energy won’t save us from climate change, but we need to rethink our economic system because social and environmental issues will not /won’t bring us happiness. We need to reduce our ecological footprint. It is not impossible some countries already managed it (make sure you use linkers so that the readers can follow the ideas much better).

Hickel(2016) tries to convince the readers that we need to change our way of thinking about fossil fuels and clean energy. He believes it is possible to prevent climate change but not for a long time, at least not without changing the economic system. Hickel does not support the idea of focusing all our attention on fossil fuels. As stated at the article CO2 from fossil fuels only makes up the  70% of greenhouse gas emission. The remaining 30% comes from a cement, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming. They produce gases more dangerous than CO2. This 30% is directly relevant to our growth based economy. Because of this economic system we always consume and demand more and more. As the author stated clean energy won’t save us. We need to change our perspective for economic system and infinite growth is an illusion because we have limited resources. The author suggests it is time for a new global economy while maximizing well-being, actively lowering ecological footprint. As the author stated some countries already managed this (Orhan, in the response part, I am interested in your ideas, what do you think about these ideas? Can clean energy help? can we change our economic system? state if you agree or disagree and then share your reasons).

To conclude I agree with author’s ideas, he discusses good and accurate points (briefly state what are these points?), we need spare more attention on economic system based on as much as fossil fuel consumption. The article is short and gives delivers a lot of information about different aspects of climate change. It is easy to read and understand because of this reason I would suggest it to freshmen everyone (everuone is too general, be specific).

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us– only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016)  argues that the change of the energy source (will not-full forms onşy) wont save us from the climate change’s consequences, people should change the economic system. At first Hickel states that people think that to prevent climate change they  should stop using fossil fuels. But the results of the data  science tests shows us that it is a false fact. Changing the energy source is not enough to save us from climate change, there are other things;  for example the industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture . But according to the author the most important thing about this topic is the results of what we do with the energy sources. Even if we use %100 clean energy source it is not going to be enough to save us from climate change, it will only slow it down a bit. Then the author states that we made a big mistake on focusing  the  our attention on fossil fuels, when we should have reconsidered our economic system. We should lower our ecological footprint. It is possible as , for example some countries have already done it.

Good job, but make sure you use reporting verbs that reflect the author's attitude in a clear manner.

# data[].attributes.headline
RESPONSE ESSAY - ''CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN'' (Ömer Açıl)

# data[].attributes.subject
RESPONSE ESSAY - ''CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN'' (Ömer Açıl)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Clean energy won't save us-only a new economic system can", Hickel (2016) claims that we should change the economic system instead of using clean energy. He argues climate change is not only affected by the type of energy we are using. Even though we switch to %100 clean energy from fossil fuels it won't be enough to prevent climate disaster. He states that %30 of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind are things that aren't relevant to fossil fuels like industrial production of cement, steel and plastic forms. Hickel states that we made a huge mistake by not reconsidering the economic system but focusing on fossil oils with all of our attention. And then he explains that the problem of our economic system is that it always expects people to consume more and more. Hickel concludes by claiming the only hope is to change or develop the economic system (based on what? and make sure he claims that some countries have achieved this and use linkers to guide the readers).

Hickel's (2016) main purpose in this article to convince the audience that the world needs a specific change in its economic system because the current system is all about consuming  resources / consumption and it affects climate change negatively. In my opinion, Hickel (2016) is right to have worries about the economic systems because as he mentioned "...extreme weather events becoming more commonplace..." (p.1). Then he underlines that "...the 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..." (p.1) which shows us the importance of the economic system change but at the same time also shows us the importance of clean energy usage because %70 is a massive value (good points here, but you need to make clear how are all these numbers related with the economic system? How does the economic system affect all these?). In the article, the author seems like he ignores the positive sides of clean energy usage. He also claims that the current economic system does not satisfy people and it causes social and environmental problems such as debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change (good points here, explain what do you think the positive aspects of clean energy?). And the author strongly recommends abandoning this economic system immediately which is not easy to apply in my opinion. Hickel (2016) believes that a new global economy is not impossible. Even he highlights that several countries have already managed to achieve high levels of human development with very low levels of consumption (the sentence is incomplete / and explain your point here, why is changing the economic system difficult?).

To sum up, I support his struggle to change the current economic system and I also believe that is a must. But he underrated clean energy usage and I don't support that. I think this article would be better if he chose the title "Clean energy and new economic system can save us" and process the subject under this title. Despite all this, the article should be read by governments (briefly explain why?).

Clear stance and good ideas, but you need to explain your reasons.

# data[].attributes.headline
A RESPONSE PAPER TO "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US- ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN" (Mustafa Can ÖGEL) 

# data[].attributes.subject
A RESPONSE PAPER TO "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US- ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN" (Mustafa Can ÖGEL) 

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled "Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can", Hickel (2016) claims that using clean energy will not change world's destiny and will not save us wholly. He mentions  that it is a big mistake to believe that reasoning climate change is caused by only using fossil fuels.That is one of  the reasons but not the only reason.He reflects even we stop using fossil fuels that will not save us (briefly explain why is this the case?). Moreover he claims that discusses to prevent climate catastrophe we have to consider changing  our economic system based on consumption. We are producing much and recycling less.He criticizes  that changing energy will not change anything.We will produce more cement, build more meat farms, and expand industrial agriculture by with using clean energy. Lastly, Hickel mentions  that just using clean energy will not save if we continue living like this. He believes we have to change our attitude, living styles and our economic system to achieve our goals and he reflects there are countries that already achieved their goals so he believes it is not that hard. (make sure you use linkers skilfully so that the readers can follow the ideas much better)

Hickel(2016) tries to satisfy us with the idea that we can avoid climate catastrophe by changing economic system based on production and consumption. Also he claims there is no chance to achieve our goals by just using clean energy . And i think he is right. He is trying to make us look perspectively (your idea is not clear here)  to the situation. When we look roughly the only reason seems like fossil fuels but the case is different as he mentioned "...the 30% of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources is constantly increasing and adding more to the atmosphere each year" (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Mismanaged consumption is a big obstacle for us  to prevent climate catastrophe.%30 is good value but in my opinion to fully change our destiny we (cannot - full forms only) can't ignore using clean energy (you need to explain your reasons about clean energy).So as author discussed using only clean energy will not work yet only changing economic system will not work neither.He believes changing global economic system  based on consumption and production is reasonable.So do i. I support his idea and I am against consumption too (you need to explain your reasons about overconsumption).Moreover he highlights that some countries which achieved  their goals and consuming less.I am a dreamy man (informal use and does not add up to content). I believe that we can change global economic system.We can change our destiny and we can leave liveable world to our children.

To conclude, mostly I agree with author's ideas. and I support his attitude. But he misses the importance of  using clean energy. When you read the article it feels that he ignores the  effects of using clean energy.However if people read that that this article their attitude will change about  and their point of view to the climate catastrophe.So I believe it is an effective article.

Thank you, make sure you explain your reasons in a clear manner.

# data[].attributes.headline
A RESPONSE ESSAY ON "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US - ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN" (Batuhan Berke Ozkaya)

# data[].attributes.subject
A RESPONSE ESSAY ON "CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US - ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN" (Batuhan Berke Ozkaya)

# data[].attributes.body
Hickel (2016), in the article, "Clean energy won't save us - only new economic system can" discusses the economic system's vital role on climate change. He argues that the clean energy will not be enough to save humanity against climate catastrophe because the human race is still causing greenhouse gas emissions and producing industrial wastes. Also, burning fossil fuels or producing cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming is now an important and significant part of global economy. The endless growth of the current economic systems  is the main obstacle with demands on production and consumption which experienced by humankind. So, it shows that switching to clean energy won't be able to save us from the end in the current scenario (make sure you refer to the author and use reporting verbs to reflect his attitude). Hickel concludes by announcing his favorable stance on obstructing climate change with the idea of changing economic system to achieve maximum wellbeing and minimum ecological footprint (need to briefly mention that the author claims that some nations have already achieved that.

Hickel (2016) depicts that it is possible to prevent climate catastrophe by changing the economical  (eonomic (adj.) sth. to do with economics, economical (adj.) sth. that saves money) system which forces humanity to consume and produce more. Due to the article (not commonly used, make sure you refer to the author) 70% of greenhouse gas emissions includes fossil fuels. Therefore, "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) According to this information the non-renewable resources affected more than 70% of the climate. Moreover the author mentions that the connection of the economic systems  connection to fossil fuels by telling ". After all, we’re only using fossil fuels in the first place to fuel the broader goal of the current economic system based on constant growth." (Hickel, 2016, p.?) On the other hand, it is possible to alleviate / get rid of from (informal, adopt a more formal tone) the major facts which drags (informal word) the world to the catastrophe. So, 3 pillars of demand on the economic system should be controlled such as; extraction, production and consumption, to maintain the climate catastrophe and to achieve intended level of clean energy (You cited information, this is good, but you need to make clear if you agree or disagree with the author's ideas and explain your reasons. At most instances ideas are summarized. The last sentence has your voice but you need state your ideas in a clear manner).

All things considered, there are some factors which manages the entire economy. So, handling the catastrophe is not a simple thing (thing is an informal word and the meaning is vague so do not use it in academic writing) by only changing color of the energy, also whole economical system must change to get over it. (make sure you state who would you suggest this article? and why?

# data[].attributes.headline
RESPONSE ESSAY - ''CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN'' (Ceyhun Topal)

# data[].attributes.subject
RESPONSE ESSAY - ''CLEAN ENERGY WON'T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN'' (Ceyhun Topal)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article ‘’Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can’’ by Hickel (2016), current approach to energy use and its indirect connection to climate change is discussed. The author explains (his opinion on) how converting to clean energy sources would be important for a campaign to hinder climate change but inefficient when it comes to fully stopping/eliminating it. He states that there are other factors playing a huge role on global temperatures such as methane gas and dropping fossil fuels would not have any impact on them. The author then criticizes the current economic system, expressing that it endorses non-stoping growth and encourages continuous production and consumption to sustain itself. He believes that this exact attitude is the reason why human activities increase uncontrollably, emitting more greenhouse gas and further warming our planet. Lastly, the author highlights the need to change our approach on economy and adopt a system that prioritizes human wellbeing and cares for our environment. He considers such a change feasible and mentions the countries that have already achieved similar goals.

Hickel (2016) does not support the objective in focus of most climate activists to reduce fossil fuel usage, as he sees it as a temporary solution, and rightly so. As stated in the article CO2 emission caused by burning fossil fuels ‘’only accounts for 70% of greenhouse gas emission’’ (p. 1) and taking into consideration the amount of greenhouse gases emitted annually, the remaining 30% is enough to cause catastrophic results. The author refers to human activities that form this 30%, such as meat farms, cement production and industrial expansion, suggesting that not burning fossil fuels would not have any effects on these activities. In other words, due to today’s economical (economic - related to economics / economical - sth. that saves money) growth, these activities are bound to increase and will soon replace the CO2 emissions. In that case, cutting fossil fuels would be nothing but a postponement of upcoming consequences. He follows up by critisizing the climate movement, which draws unnecessary attention to fossil fuels, when instead it should reassess the economic system that leads to global warming. Because looking at the bigger picture, we only use fossil fuels to meet needs of constant production. The author cleverly highlights the mission of this economic system and explains how it sees us humans as a means to further develop itself, either as a consumer or a worker, ‘’causing all sorts of social and environmental issues’’ (p.1) along the way. By doing so, he concentrates on the human aspect of the problem and makes it easier for the reader to relate to his argument. On top of that, he names some of those issues and urges the readers to leave this economic system. That would be a proper solution, because at today’s conditions and rate of daily production, small adjustments will not suffice to reverse the situation. We need to regulate our behaviours based on their effects on the environment and adopt a system that values human well-being as well as the nature (elaborate your idea here). Hickel (2016) believes that reaching ‘’high levels of human development with very low levels of consumption’’ (p.1) is not a surreal goal to set and even mentions that some countries have reached it. That is true, but what these countries achieved are much smaller than what we need to change globally. It is a hard objective, but indeed necessary and rewarding in the end (you have good points, but you need to elaborate your reasons such as how can we regulate our behaviour? what do you think?  why is reaching high levels of human develpment necessary but difficult to achieve? why do you think this is necessary but difficult? You need to strenghten your voice).

To conclude, I support the author’s opinions on why we should make drastic changes in our production mentality and channel our focus and efforts into creating and adopting new, environment-friendly policies. The article is relevant and useful as it conveys valuable informations Uncountable noun) and shows a different aspect of climate change. It puts forward a new approach on solution and has the potential to inspire its readers to take action (who would you suggest it to read and why?).

Thank you,
MET

# data[].attributes.headline
A RESPONSE PAPER TO “CLEAN ENERGY WON’T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN” (Ceren Gülkokan)

# data[].attributes.subject
A RESPONSE PAPER TO “CLEAN ENERGY WON’T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN” (Ceren Gülkokan)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”, Hickel (2016)  argues that using clean energy only won’t prevent the climate change, humanity  must also change their demanding economic system.  Firstly, the author expresses his gratitude by stating that people are aware of the dangers of the fossil fuels and know that they should switch to the clean energy immediately.  However, he points out that there are other impacts of mankind that increase the gas emissions around the world each year and this would not be ceased even if you use clean energy 100%. He supports his idea with the statistical findings (not needed as it does not add up to the flow of ideas). Furthermore, the author claims we made a mistake by focusing on fossil fuels instead of our economic system since this system focuses on constant growth which would not change the outcome even if we use clean energy. Therefore, he stresses that  we must abandon our consumption based economic system by considering new approaches such that maximizes human welfare and lowers “ecological footprint” (Hickel, 2016).   The author concludes by mentioning that some countries have already achieved their low consumption rates to imply that it is possible change our system.
Good job:)
Hickel (2016) tries to persuade the reader that clean energy sources are not enough to combat climate change, instead we should consider changing our economic system. Even if he rightly argues his point, he seems to have forgotten that before changing our economic system, there is one more  possible solution which is limiting industrial related emissions. As it is stated in the article “the remaining 30% comes from a number of causes such as industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock farming.” (Hickel, 2016, p.1)  which  the 30% should not be underestimated because scrutinizing industrial activities and taking precautions such as having filtered chimneys can prevent some of the dangerous effects of the climate change by decreasing the gas emissions. Hickel (2016), is on the same page that in case of climate change what matters the most is our actions. Therefore, it would be a wise decision of the governments if they encourage industry to be more eco-friendly by implementing policies that would require them to use clean energy sources. It is much easier and quicker to apply than changing the economic system which would need the approval of the relevant parties to carry out.  In addition, Hickel (2016) seems to make an unjustified generalization by claiming that we have consumption based economy which does not satisfy our needs. Unfortunately, he does not provide statistical findings to support his claim. Even if his argument is said to be true, it raises a question: Are people ready for a change, having a low consumption based economic system? (rather than asking questions, state your reasons) Frankly, the current pragmatic mentality of capitalism would not be prone “to abandon this economic system immediately” (Hickel, 2016, p.1) as they profit from the unlimited growth.  For that reason, Hickel (2016)’s suggestion becomes infeasible.

All in all, Hickel’s hopeful approach to the climate change deserves appreciation. Since there are limited possible solutions to/for  on the problem, suggesting to a change in the economic system is a different point of view to consider. However, we must think of other ways before taking this huge step. This article is useful for the governments who are trying to look outside the box to combat climate change.

Good job:) thank you.

# data[].attributes.headline
A RESPONSE PAPER TO “CLEAN ENERGY WON’T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN” (Melike Akal)

# data[].attributes.subject
A RESPONSE PAPER TO “CLEAN ENERGY WON’T SAVE US – ONLY A NEW ECONOMIC SYSTEM CAN” (Melike Akal)

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”, Hickel (2016) argues that clean energy will not save the world from climate change since the economic system is based on consumption. The author believes that people would use %100 clean energy the same way with what they do with fossil fuels. He states that even though it seems like clean energy is the best-case scenario, it wouldn’t be enough to stop a climate catastrophe.  He supports his argument by giving statistics about the factors causing greenhouse gases (not needed as it does not state significant information.). Moreover, he mentions the ways people will use clean energy like producing cement, building meat farms and expanding industrial agriculture. Besides, the author criticizes the fact that the climate movement made an enormous mistake since they focused all the attention on fossil fuels rather than the economic system. He suggests that rethinking (state briefly what goes into this "rethinking" the economic system might prevent the problem. He concludes by expressing his hopeful stance that it’s possible to lower the consumption like other countries to decelerate climate change.

Hickel (2016) tries to convince the readers that climate catastrophe can be prevented by using a global economic model that maximizes human wellbeing while actively lowering the ecological footprint. The author is right to call to action on climate change because, as stated in the article, extreme weather events are becoming more commonplace. (Hickel, 2016) Moreover, the author highlights the damages that fossil fuels have on the environment by saying “… the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind.”  (Hickel, 2016) While it’s true that focusing all the attention on fossil fuels was a mistake and the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it shouldn’t be ignored that clean energy has more benefits compared to with fossil fuels since it does not create greenhouse gases. The author makes a valid point when he supports that the root problem is the current economic system since it is based on consumption; therefore, people are told to consume more and more, causing clean energy to be useless for climate change (you can elaborate this idea and state this is risky for all). In addition, since the author claims that the economic system does not n’t make people happier and its consequences produce social and environmental issues like debt, overwork, inequality and climate change (Hickel, 2016), it seems reasonable for the reader to conclude that the economic system should be rearranged (I am interested in what you think? Is this economic system that harmful?). In this context, the article has the potential to convince people to have the idea that it is possible to prevent climate catastrophe by changing the economic system (you can explain what makes it convincing?).

In conclusion, the writer is right to draw attention to the economic system rather than the benefits of clean energy since the root problem is due to too much consumption. This article seems to be useful and persuasive for governments to be convinced to change the economic system.

Thank you,

MET