# data[].attributes.body
Hickel (2016), in this article "Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can" highlights the negative effects of our economic system on the climate change (state the solution he offers). Firstly, he states that people should be aware of about fossil fuels' negative impact and clean energy can change this. However, they miss the main problem because although fossil fuels cause high level of greenhouse gas emission, industrial production also causes greenhouse gas emission. Although people use totally clean energy, they will still damage the environment. He argues that the main problem is the economic system which is based on constant growth. Current economic system tells told us to consume more and more. He is hopeful that economic system can change that will lead to less consumption and more human welfare and this be a solution for climate change.

Hickel(2016) advocates that the economic system can be a solution for climate change. His argument is not convincing because he claims that economic change is possible but people can't stop themselves from about consuming e more. They want to live a better and easy life and they want to consume more and more food (is it only limted with food, you can give more examples like things that are not needs but unnecessary). This change is not easy for people. They think that they have a only one life and they want to taste more food more production (check grammar here). They work hard for consuming, they educate themselves for consuming (good points, but explain a little bit more what do you mean?). It is not possible to change this situation because they are addicted to adapt this life style (explain briefly why are they addicted?). On the other hand Hickel (2016) said that (use stronger reporting verbs) "...burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind."(p.1) so we can change people's consumption style and we protect the biggest part of environment. They can accept consumption in a with different way but people will not select minimalism. they do not want to compromise about their luxuries (then explain how can we create a change in this system. Be specific can we change consumerism and how can we do this?).

(Conclusion should be a separate paragraph) To sum up, Hickel argues that new economic system can be a solution for climate change but (without "I think" the sentence is meaningful)I think that it is not a convincing solution because people  don't want to consume less. Instead of this, people can protect the biggest part of environment with clean energy.

Please, go over my comments.
Best,

# data[].attributes.body
Summary:

In the article entitled ''Clean energy won't save us - only a new economic system can'' published by Hickel (2016) the author informs the readers about the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. The author first mentions that people are more aware of fossil fuels, but the author believes that switching from fossil fuel to clean energy consumption is not enough to save the world. In addition, the author says (use stronger reporting verbs) that global warming will not stop even if fossil fuel consumption is completely abandoned (In summaries you are expexted to rewrite ideas in your own words so paraphrasing is practiced in summaries) (Hickel,p1 , because people produce only 70% of the greenhouse gases effect. The author sees the growth of global production in other words the economic system as the greatest enemy of natural balance and thinks that this should be regulated

Response:

(you have already stated this in the summary) In the article, “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system”, Hickel(2016) highlights that fossil fuels are very harmful to humanity, but clean energy is not enough for the recovery of the ecological system. First, the author says (use stronger reporting verbs) people are more sensitive about the use of clean energy and that awareness increases. On the other hand, Hickel (2016) said that ‘’ But the main problem has been missed. As important as clean energy might be, the science is clear: it won’t save us from climate change.’’ (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Even though the author considers that society's fossil fuel consumption falls, it is not enough to prevent climate change. The author says that fossil fuels create for only 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humanity (Hickel, p.1). The remaining 30% is due to a number of reasons such as industrial cement production, steel, plastic forms, industrial agriculture and industrial livestock. To avoid global warming, it is necessary to work on this 30%. Food consumption of the world is increasing day by day. This increased food need has brought about industrial agriculture. In industrial agriculture, environmentally harmful agricultural drugs and soils are used. These harmful spraying and fertilizing contribute to the greenhouse effect by spreading harmful gases to the atmosphere. The use of clean energy in increasing industrial agriculture will have no benefit. Hickel (2016) thinks that people are paying attention to fossil fuels because the global economy wants it (Hickel, p.1) He also thinks that the global economy is trying to increase people's consumption. The author's argument is  convincing. Due to this endless growth, production is continuously increases and large companies are moving without paying attention to human health to reduce their expenses. The use of clean energy in increasing industrial agriculture will have no benefit. Primarily, this should be avoided by supporting ecological or organic agriculture with fewer drugs and additives. People should be informed about over-consumption by governments and social responsibility organizations (what can they do?). Excessive consumption can be prevented, nature can be protected, obesity can be reduced and diseases such as asthma due to air pollution can be prevented (good points, but you need to state how can governments and non-governmental organization do to alleviate all these problems?).

You need to wrap up your ideas in conclusion paragraph.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
Hickel (2016), in his article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”, highlights the negative effects of our economic system on to the climate change. He

argues that the main problem with our system is the demanding of the increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. He begins by with discussing fossil fuels and their its effects on climate change. Following this, he states that the harmful effects of fossil fuels form only 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions. He also states that people have focused all their attention on fossil fuels, instead of reconsidering the basic logic of our economic system . The writer concludes by mentioning that infinite growth is a dangerous fantasy, he also states that forming a new global economy which maximizes human welfare is not an impossible task.

Hickel(2016), discusses the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy and the effect of it on climate change. He states that this switch will not save us from climate change and points out that reconsidering our economic system is the solution for the climate change problem. In the article he describes the negative sides and the important role of our economic system with this argument “… our economic system demands endless growth. What’s more, 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.4.) (follow APA 40-word rule for each direct quotation). This argument show us that the main problem with the climate change is actually the basic logic of our economic system. Although clean energy is a crucial step to solve the this problem, as Hickel states, it will not save us from climate change. It will only have an impact on the 70 percent of the problems which cause climate change. (this is more a summary, you need to make clear do you agree or disagree with what he states and explain your reasons).

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY: In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”John Hickel (2016) has informed us about how we should use energy when it comes to climate change (what kind of energy does he mention?). He begins by informing us about how it wouldn’t be enough if we used 100% clean energy and he supports this idea with the effect of burning fossils and how they can be more dangerous than CO2. Later on Hickel believes that the climate movement has made an enormous mistake by focusing on fossil fuels when they should have focused on basic logic of the economic system. Hickel thinks that we should abandon this economic system because its consequences produce all sorts of issues such as: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. Hickel concludes the article by describing the new economic system we should adapt.
RESPONSE:

In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) has explained the issues of the economic systems that we have now. I agree with him (informal - he has a convincing argument) on changing our economic system because as he states the one we are using now has more issues than benefits. Hickel (2016) He states that “we are told to consume more and more” (p.1) in order to increase the size of the global economy and that this is dangerous I agree with him on this point because our world has limited resources and space so infinite growth will not won’t be a good solution. (In response you need to explain your reasons why do you think so? how can this be made?)

In conclusion, I mainly agree with Hickel on this article and I thought this was informing (make clear which ideas you find reasonable). I would recommend people to read this article and become more aware of the reasons on why that clean energy only  will not won’t save us, we need to adapt a new economic system.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled ''Clean energy won't save us - only a new economic system can'' published by Hickel (2016) The author informs the readers about  clean energy is not the only way for saving the world, we should build up a new economic system owing to the fact that growing constant is a dangerous way. Firstly the author states that stopping using fossil fuels and change it with clean energy is not the vital step for the right direction. Following this he argues that we should change the economic system which is based on growth and consumption.

Hickel (2016) claims that '' Clean energy won’t save us from this nightmare, but rethinking our economic system might'' (p.1). His idea is reasonable because without stopping growth and consumption which is the wrong economic system, we can not proceed further. Also Hickel believes that  when it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’is what we’are doing with it  his argument is feasible because using fossil fuels or dangerous materials is not the main argument, how much we consume is the problem (you have to explain your reasons, you also need to refer to a second idea) .
To sum up  we should change economic plan stop growing larger (you need to complete the conclusion).

MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system” Hickel (2016) highlights that cutting of the use of fossil fuels is not quite helpful solution to encourage climate change; however, people have to realise that changing economic system is the best solution. First of all, the authors starts by changing of people’s way of thinking about the growing awareness of the dangers of fossil fuels, but he advocates that clean energy will not save us from climate change. Following this, he supports that the use of %100 clean energy will not be enough to deactivate a climate catastrophe. Then, he states that fossil fuels are burned because of industrial production. He mentions that because of industrial production, factories produce tons of methane which man-caused nitrous oxide. People do these activities because of more production, and growing economy. The author suggests that people have to change the economic system which says less production, less consumption. He concludes that a new global economy not a dream. There are many countries have already changed and achieved low levels of consumption. Good summary, but it is wordy.

(you have already stated this in the summary)In the article, “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system”, Hickel(2016) highlights that new global economy can solve weather whether events, cutting of the use of fossil fuels is not a beneficial solution. The author argues that gas emissions increase because of industrial production. The author’s argument is quite convincing because production in industry increases day by day. The current economic system urges us to produce t more and consume more. They produce methane, and methane causes nitrous oxide which is highly dangerous for the earth. Following this, new global economy can be built (this is another summary, you need to explain your reasons and have one direct quotation). Secondly,

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article,''Clean energy won’t save us-only a new economic system can''(Hickel)(2016) claims that lowering the use of fossil fuels is not enough to prevent climate change. The Author first draws the readers' attention to the importance of preventing the climate change and people's exertion for switching fossil fuels to clean energy  but the main point author wants to inform is not about fossil fuels dangers he admits that  they have the biggest effect on climate change but for the author even ıf people switch to  %100 clean energy resources climate change case will not end close because of people's usage of energy. His solution for the climate change is increasing the human development and making a change on the a economic system what it means is that lowering level of consumption these two solution are the best way to  prevent climate change.
Be careful with the punctuation marks and linkers.

Hickel (2016) Defends that switching to clean energy from fossil fuels is not the solution for preventing the climate change we also have to make changes on our economic system and increase the human development, but He Doesn't inform about what changes must be done also making a change on economy may have other consequences and ıt can bring another troubles on us .Personally
trying to lower consumption is nearly impossible because of our huge number of population first we must deal with over population while trying to reduce fossil fuel usage there is no ...

You have a clear response but you need to explain your reasons. You need to respond to a second idea and have a conclusion.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled "Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can" by
Hickel (2016) the author draws the readers' attention to the damage that we are creating by using fossil fuels which is  climate change. People can change this with the us e of clean energy but while people facing this problem they are forgetting about the main problem climate change (this should be expressed earlier before the author's suggestion). The point the author wants to make is using clean energy is not enough to help to climate change to get better. First, the author mentions that people are doing the same things by using fossil fuels or non-fossil fuel sources because of the system we are living with the endless demand, production and consumption. The damage is the same for climate change it is just decreasing the percentage but it is not the actual solution. The author secondly mentions that the root problem is the current economic system based on an infinite growth. People must reconsidered and focused in the current system. Finally, the solution to save us is to give an end to this system. He is hopeful with this solution and this can be done by people, it s not impossible.

Hickel (2016) highlights the effects of the damage world is getting by using fossil fuels. He states that this is not the actual problem because while people are focusing on solving fossil fuels, we are forgetting climate change and the current economic system based on a limitless growth. Using %100 clean energy is a solution to the damage the world are getting from the fossil fuels but its not a powerful solution for climate change. Hickel has a reasonable argument with the point people are doing the same things by using fossil fuels or non-fossil sources because of the system we are living in the endless demand. "Infinite growth is a dangerous illusion. It’s time to imagine a new global economy" (Hickel 2016). Therefore, people need to abandon this system nececarely and with an other system with new rules we can create a visible change. With less consumption and production and carry well what we have in long-term, be thrifty and being aware of sustainability in our system will also save us. These are doable solutions to create a new system. (you need to explain how can we live in a sustainable manner? Use less plastic, use public transportation, use less electricity) you need to respond to a second idea and have the conclusion.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” by Hickel (2016) the author claims that reducing fossil fuels can’t assist the climate change, people should aware of the economic problem to reduce climate change .The author argues that , we are able to stop using fossil fuels and switch to completely clean energy insufficient option because of the fact that using only clean energy reduce this problems only %70. The author says Hickel (2016) “%30 comes from a number of causes such as industrial production of cement, steel, plastic and it is more dangerous than Co2.”(paraphrase this, direct quotations are rare in summaries). The writer convince people that using clean is energy not enough to avoid climate change .  Secondly ,The author mentions that the base problem is our  economic system unless people  reduce their production and consumption, climate change cannot be solved. In other words,  many countries start to educate  and achieved themselves to using less consumption.

Hickel(2016) hihglightes the significance of economy and  decreasing e the use ing of fossiel fuels is are not helpful to reduce climate change. The author's seems to ignore  the use of fossil fuels is not a definite solution, but it will affect the climate change in a positive way.To exemplify,  global worming  decreasing with electric cars (language hinders with meaning). Hickel (2016) states"This is because the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind"(p.1) The writer's ratios and the use of clean energy prove that fossil energy impacts will be greatly reduced (this is not about green energy). All in all, both reducing use off fossiel fuels and changing e economy can assist to climate change(you need to explain your ideas how can they help? why can they help?). You need to respond to another idea and explain your ideas.

All in all, I recommended this article (explain why?), however, the writter can't believe  reducing fossiel fuels is not a good solution , economic statements are very helpful and important.

Best,
MET

# data[].attributes.body
In"Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can" by Hickel(2016) the author informs that even solving fossil fuel problem won't change the climate change in the long run. The author's suggestion is that people need to change economic system of increasing production,consumption and increasing level of demanding. Firstly, the author warns that fossil fuels are significant cause of climate change,but the  industrial production,  agricultural  and industrial life stock farming are the other reasons.Secondly, the author suggests that using clean energy won't change but making another economic system will alter and solve the climate change. The author states that in order to get rid of (informal word instead use the word "alleviate" climate movement economic system need to change.

Hickel(2016) higlights that"Fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy,and fast" (p.?)  Hickel makes a valid point about  the dangers of fossil fuels (no need to repeat the same information that can be paraphrased) "fossil fuels are killing us". In a 10 or 15 years,effect of fossil fuel will be severe and dangerous (you need to explain your reasons).Even now most of African countries are danger of severe drought problem caused by fossil fuel (you need to explain why Africa suffers the most, you also need to explain what can be done?)

The author states that,in order to get rid of climate movement economic system needs to be changed. The author's idea is reasonable. If the economic system is changed, all the problem will be solved. spontaneously because solving economic system in worldwide will solve other problems that cause inequality,greed,vast-consumption (you need to explain what should be changed and how will they help fighting against climate change? You need to explain your ideas).Some countries like Sweden,Norway and Cuba have already started the change their system

Post your conclusion, too.
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

# data[].attributes.body
In the article entitled " Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can " written by Hickel (2016) the writer draws the readers' thinkings to the accident (language hinders meaning)  which are  individuals should be able to  stop using fossil fuels and change it to 100% clean energy is not solution.This is the major step to what they can do for change clean energy (check grammar). However, the author claims that this step is not enough to stop a climate catastrophe properly. Hickel believes that when individuals focus on just fossil fuels consumption, they make an enormous mistake because the base economic system also affects the environment.  For example,

sorts of social and environmental issues: debt, overwork, inequality, and climate change. The author  says (use stronger reporting verbs) that people need to abandon this economic system immediately. At the end he is hopeful about if people try to imagine a new economic system, they can easily solve this issue.

Response
(you have already stated this in the summary) In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) discusses the issues of  economic system and fossil fuel consumption what we have now. His argument is reasonable owing to the fact that when people do not pay more attention to improve and make a new economic system and try to use less fossil fuels , they can not achieve their aim directly. In my opinion his  argument have a good point, our world's resoeurces are limited and it is a good time for people to abandon the system immediately for less fossil fuel consumption and production. To sum up, all of these solutions can be helpful and valuable for the new economic system. (you need to explain how can this change happen? what do you suggest that will have a positive impact on earth? You need to have a conclusion to wrap your ideas.

Best,
MET