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

 

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

Best,
MET 

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

Make sure you explain your reasons.

 

 

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

 

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

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

Thank you.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 Thank you:)

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

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

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