# data[].attributes.body
In the article"Clean energy won't save us- only an economic system can" Hickel(2016) argues that clean energy is a good movement to reduce the climate change but the main event people have to focus on economic system.The author suggest that humanity have to let the social and environmental issues the only people need is economic system. First of all, the author claims that what people do with %100 clean energy it has already contain the %30 greenhouse gases; therefore, it is not a solution which they can avoid from climate change. Secondly, the author mentions that there has a solutions such as economic system. The developed countries has already good economic system but it should be in all over the world because climate change cover the all over the world. People have to solve the root problem of the economic system demands such as producing and consuming.

Hickel (2016) claims that %100 clean energy is not a solution to solve the climate change problem people have to pay attention to economic system.However, the author's argument is not convincing. S/He mentions the numbers but he ignores the good points. In nowadays many countries change their manner about climate change problem and they are focusing the clean energy because they believe that they can not spread all over the world  due to the fact that our world manage with capitalism so there is no chance to spread this event.Therefore, many countries give encouragement to encourage the people so that they want to spread and use it.

# data[].attributes.body
Hickel (2016),in his article "Clean energy won't save us - only a new economic system can" claims the major problem of climate change is not only fossil fuels but also our economic system's endless demands. The best solution for it is  a also new economic system . Firstly the author  mentions that changing fossil fuels to clean energy wouldn't solve the climate catastrophe. The author agrees with the statistics about gas emissions and industrial production of stocks and he thinks they are the its reason of climate change. The author also mentions that  people's demands affect negatively changing fossil fuels to renewable sources which is clean energy. Secondly the author discusses current economic system that does not nt help to change using fossil fuels because of social and environmental issues.The author's suggestions are urgently abandoning the current economic system , decreasing e our footprint and consumption.

Hickel (2016) discusses that the current economic system's endless demands and its significant effects of climate change.The author states  " fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast.(this needs to be paraphrased)" I'm agree with the author's idea (informal - his idea is convincing), therefore, clean energy sources are expensive .The author points the statistical findings which is " 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 " (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Man kind affect environment the most so that people should solve the problem which they created.The author also claims " Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down. (this should be paraphrased)".I do not nt agree with the author (informal - his idea is not reliable) this time because there are lots of volunteer groups and associations to impress people and make world better place.There are lots of associations which is GreenPeace,CEA,TEMA.Those associations are trying to raise awarness about climate change (copied this info as it is relelvant).If people listen them and do what they practice (briefly state what they do?)influence climate change's negative effects would be decrease.The author mentions the " The root problem is the fact that our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. (paraphrase this idea)".I agree with this idea because world has same economic system which is like capitalism (explain this idea). The big factories try to produce more but not one of them think about environmental resources / problems.The solution for it is as the author suggests that we should  says" We need to abandon this economic system immediately. " change the economic system which we are using and affects us negatively (explain how and why does it affect all these?).
Briefly, the author's ideas are meaningful to illustrate; " fossil fuels are affect humanity so that we should change it to clean energy " and " our economic system demands endless growth should be going deadly consequences (this needs to be paraphrased)"," We need to left current economic system." He claims our economic system affects world negatively and we must change it .The author also mentions the change fossil fuels to clean energy can't solve the climate change its to late (language hinders meaning).I agree with economic part it should be alternate the new and effective one but ı dissagre with being to late to change (language hinders meaning).If people listen them and do what thThere are lots of associations which is GreenPeace,CEA,TEMA.Those associations are trying to raise awarness about climate change.

In conclusion, this article presents  climate change's reasons are very which are  disctintive it includes economy and environmental pollution etc..The readers who read this article can (language hinders meaning) learn think in lots of way the factors that  affect the world's future negatively or positively. I would advise this article idea because people should see the effects of climate change and find out how to stop it

Go over my feedback.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article 'Clean Energy Won't save us, only an economic system can" Hickel (2016) discusses about clean energy is not a solution to solve climate change. There is a significant problem that is our consumption based economic system. Firstly, he claims that switching to clean energy is not a solution to save the earth from climate change because greenhouses gases are not the only reason for climate change. There are also some reasons that cause to climate change  like methane gas .Let imagine to Switching to %100 clean energy.Yet, it will not won't be enough to solve because of 30% of methane gas.Moreover, the author suggests the best solution is to change economic system as The world is going to consume more and more each day.People must be aware this system accour debt,inequality and overwork.
Hickel (2016) argues that switching to %100 clean energy is not the solution to get protect from climate change. People should focus on consumerism economic system , people should imagine thinking a new way of economic system to abandon from consume .He has a convincing idea , if  clean energy offers appear an oppurtunity to produce and consume more ''clean energy won't save us''.Yet , it can not be ignored that is a huge rate that %70 greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change.It can be understood if people maintain to consume much more is does not mean anything but it can be the best starting to get aware of it.your explanations needed here
Clean energy can not be enough to save us from climate change ,people should be think about how we consume less.Yet , it can not be ignored that can be the best way of starting to get aware of it.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article (Clean Energy Wont Save Us - Only a New Economic System Can) Hickel (2016) claims that  although we stop using e of fossil fuels %100, we cannot stop climate change still. According to the author, we need to change our economic system which requires production and consumption since it causes climate change by the ways other than fossil fuels. Firstly,  while  the use of fossil fuels is about %70 of greenhouse gas emission,%30 of gas emission is associated with man-caused problems (do not go into too much detail) such as industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture. Also,  how we are using the energy is another important point for the author not only  the type of energy. Our economic system is base d s on increasing  consumption and production which raises climate change rapidly .In short, the author  criticizes reducing use of fossil fuel harshly and deny that it is not an effective way to stop climate change as there are other reasons which causes climate change too (briefly state what are the other reasons?). However, he warns about its danger and gives advices what should people do to correct this mistake of them such as changing the economic system like other countries (be specific what does he suggest?).

The author's argument is that stopping use of fossil fuels does not make sense to reduce extreme climate change. While it is true that only stopping fossil fuels is not a valid way merely to slowing down climate change, the aouthor (state the title only in the summary) in the article "Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can" supports that " This is because 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" (p.1) (there is max. 40 words rule in APA, your direct quotation is 44 words. This is accepted as plagiarism.) so he fails to accept that big amount of gas emissions based on use of fossil fuels. I believe (even you erase "I believe" your sentence is still meaningful) that at least stopping it reduces a fair amount of gas emmission so this solution should be implemented (explain briefly why should be implemented).  Today, most of the countries apply the solution "switching to clean energy" (do not use quotation marks if you do not quote or refer to a concept) which helps to decrease climate change since every single day the heat is increasing (explain briefly how can switching to clean energy help?). According to Wattson(2018) "The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1,5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people." (too long to quote and it does not have the page number again, keep the information necessary and make the quote concise). In other words, a little taking small measures to hinder this problem is significant such as reducing fossil fuels (briefly explain why?).
Moreover, he argues quite well that to hinder extreme climate change, we should shift our production and consumption based economic system. I do not agree with his argument (informal instead you can say - the author fails to consider ..., his argument is not convincing ..., his idea is not viable =feasible ...)  since big countries' urgency is to develop themselves itself on industrialisation and globalisation (check grammar). In other words,  the a outhor fails to consider that none of the big countries lean towards to quit of globalization owing to capitalism (NATO) (did this information come from NATO? If not, why this is in parenthesis is not clear). They need to produce and have consumers for enhancing and benefiting what?. Also it is harder that changing economic system than reducing fossil fuels (explain briefly why is this harder?). The consumer countries like Bangladesh, they are suffer more from climate change (explain why? and make clear how is this related with the economic system. Rather presenting ideas one after another, explain these ideas briefly and create links amon them). We need to apply clean energy as there is no solution other than that (why is clean energy necessary and how is this related to the economic change?). According to Kyte (2015) (in AT1, you are expected to cite information from the article you read) in the article "World Bank: clean energy is the solution to poverty, not coal" in some poor countries which are shifted renewable energy changed people's life with low cost solar energy (how does clean energy help poor people?).
In conclusion, stopping or decreasing fossil fuels is a highly substantial point on reducing gas emission and slowing climate  change. I believe that only valid solution is clean energy. I do not advise this article to people since there are numerous conflict (be specific, what are the conflicting ideas and the language is informal, avoid "I" statements) i have.

Please go over my comments.
Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
The article entitled ' clean energy won't save us  -  only a new economic system can ' is written by Hickel (2016). In this article, the author discusses the climate change and how the non renewable resources affect people's life and the environment. He suggests that by managing the economic system, countries will able to decline the ratio of dangerous situation which has an impact on humanity and environment. First of all, the author describes  when the countries replace utilizing the fossil fuels into clean energy, they may not obtain the solution which they can avoid climate catastrophe . In addition, the author attacks the economic system because it affects the humanity and especially environment badly by increasing the production and consumption ,which causes CO2 emissions. In short,  the fossil fuels and poor management of the economy considerably can have an impact on humanity and environment.
Response.
According to Hickel (2016) using clean energy instead of fossil fuels cannot reduce the pollution and other problems which affect on the world. His argument is not persuading because if the governments consider renewable resources, they are able to obtain various opportunities which the companies may benefit form. For example, currently people start using  electric vehicles which are charged by sun or electricity, also electricity is demanded for people's need. In other words, people utilize electricity for everything .Therefore, the fossil fuels became unnecessary for people's needs. Moreover, his second idea is that the management of economy is quite disadvantaged as it lets the harms to increase rapidly and generate environmental issues. Actually, his idea reliable because in modern life every country wants to be the best and they make  immense amount of production (you can mention, they produce to sell more products like cars, clothes, smart phones to make money) that will kill the environment and speed up the climate change (you can explain the link among these briefly by giving examples from your own experience). Consequently, corruption will be widespread in the world.
In conclusion, using clean energy may play big role if the governments depend on it , they will alleviate their issues and the problems will be easy to solve (briefly state how can green energy help?). Also the economic Management have to be solved in order to reduce the problems (you need to explain what do you mean with economic management?).

Good organization and good ideas in the response, but explain some of your ideas more and have a conclusion. Complete it and get feedback.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
İn the article entitled ‘’clean energy won’t save us -only economic system can ‘’ Hickel (2016) highlights that instead of clean energy, if people change their consumerist lifestyle which attach economic system, climate change would slow. Firstly, he states that unless people demand does not change, even if people have %100 clean energy which switch using fossil fuels, companies continue to do same things such as cement, and meat farms. These industrial productions emit methane which is more harmful than CO2 therefore, climate catastrophe level does not decrease, when people change their growing demands which is directly impact world economic system. Finally, the author suggests that if many countries remanaged their economic system and they succeed, rest of countries would change their economic system. Only then climate change reach low level.

Response

The author has a point which is when we stop using fossil fuels and switch %100 clean energy is not adequate for slowing climate change since willingly or unwillingly the earth produce greenhouse gases own self and these are come from using plastics and more cement and steel. Clean energy would not be enough since our economic system establish on producing people’s demands therefore this situation continue until people learn to be happy or enjoy with what they have. For instance, when people want new places for living, qualified and comfortable buildings are built, and this means emitting more greenhouse gas emissions because of cement or steel. Literally switching %100 clean energy, does not enough for slowing climate change moreover, another option which is using wood for building house is worse than other one because trees are most significant effect on clean air which is against to polluting and these are not infinite. Hickel (2016),... the 30% of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources is constantly increasing and adding more to the atmosphere each year. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down. In brief, unless people enjoy they have, earth produce to continue greenhouse gases. However, switching clean energy is the most significant step for reducing climate catastrophe because one of the key factors for living and producing is electricity which produce fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas and the earth resources not only have limit but also when people use them, greenhouses gases like CO2 release on air in an enormous scale which accelerate extreme events about climate. Renewable energy sources such as wind turbine, solar panels and hydroelectrical central precisely produce a lot energy, they are cheaper than fossil fuels and also, they do not release harmful gases. To conclude, when I agree one part to writer about which just only changing economic system which depend on consumering is not enough for good progress in climate change, besides, I think that government should take action for switching clean energy since these are both cheap, and harmless than fossil fuels and they are not limited.

# data[].attributes.body
Hickel(2016), in his article which is entitled named “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” is mainly discussed about the use ing of fossil fuels switches to starting to using clean energy doesn’t block climate change, however, new economic system which is mainly about achieving high levels of human development with very low levels of economic consumption can do it. To begin with, the author discussed that percentages of greenhouse gasses which has bad effects on the climate change mainly comes from humanity. Moreover, the author makes a give point that fundamental economic system should have considered since this economic system demands infinite y growth which means more greenhouse gasses, more consumption. There is an endless circulation between them. The author concludes his article by stating  with that new economic system may create big changes about climate change in the Earth since there are a few countries which reorganize their economic system  according to achieve quality life style for communities and low amount consumption in order to reduce effects of climate change.

Good job, Büşra:) complete the response and conclusion and get feedback.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled "Clean energy won't save us - only a new economic system can" Hickel (2016) discusses about the causes of climate change. He argues that the real problem with the climate change isn't fossil fuel consumption, but the economic system itself. Firstly, he criticizes the fact that %30 of the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from non-fossil fuel sources. He claims, converting to clean energy won't decrease emissions caused by these sources. Then the author suggests to focus our attention on changing the economic system in order to solve climate change. He continues by stating this change will be hard but it is worths the effort. He concludes by recommending to adapt a new economic system, one that maximizes well being of the people and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Hickel (2016) argues that fossil fuels are not the root cause of climate change, but the economic system is. , but (However, ...) this idea, together with the statistics he himself stated; is not convincing. Cutting %70 of greenhouse gas emissions would be more than enough to reduce climate change to desired levels. Also, it is the very system he criticizes, brought technologies like solar panels and wind turbines that can replace fossil fuels. Abandoning this economic system would result in slowdown of technological advancements, ultimately making catastrophes like climate change not manageable. Not to mention the fact that every day, we find new ways to filter and resolve greenhouse gases into harmless particles. Another idea the author falsely believes is, thinking that non-fossil fuel gas emissions will not decrease with the current climate change movement. (be careful as the second idea you react is too similar to the first idea you react).

Please go over my comment.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
Dear all,

Read the article entitled “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can" by Hickel (2016) at Week 7 on LMS.

Write a summary response essay.

Use the summary response checklist on page 34 Writing Workbook.

Good luck,
MET