Summary Response Practice 2 by Merve Elbirlik Tülek https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41 Post your summary response essays here en-us 2017-10-24 06:29:14 UTC 2019-04-05 16:01:16 UTC hello@padlet.com merveelbirlik https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/344090632 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]]> 2019-03-22 07:25:39 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/344090632 Hamdi Aydın https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346547743  
In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can”, Hickel (2016) discusses that the impacts of the economic system on the environment is not all about the clean energy it is about consumption. The author's suggestion is changing the economic system to lower the ecological footprint. First, he mentions that growing awareness about danger of the fossil fuels change the world's thinking (sounds Turkish, the point is not clear); however ,it is not the main problem. Even people use 100% clean energy to lowering the greenhouse gasses emissions the remaining problem is increasing. Second, he argues that even we use the clean energy what are we using for that (the sentence is incomplete). The root problem is consumption, the demands with the growth, humankind consume more and more. So he thinks we need to change the system immediately. The end of the topic Hickel  concludes by stating that thinks the consumption will decrease if humankind develop a new economic system. 

 Hickel (2016) rightly draws attention to the fact that even we use clean energy we can’t save the world and we have to change the economic system. Hickel’s bases his argument on consumption because the the needs people have are is increasing and it is not about the fossil fuel and I totally agree with that. So far the world is changes their lifestyle to electrical transport to lower the co2 emissions but there are factories that they are the main issue. We can abandon the fuel and use the electricity it is easy; however, in the industrial areas if we can escape from harmful gasses it doesn’t matter he says. I agree the author’s solution that we need to imagine new economic system that we can lower our ecological footprint. On the whole we are not focusing to big picture and that’s the issue we need to exceed.

You have presented your stance, but you do not explain your reasons. Explain your reasons and cite information from the text you have read.

Best,
MET

]]> 2019-03-29 13:42:28 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346547743 Gizem Tepecik gizem_tepecik https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346548038 In the article, "Clean energy won't save us - only new economic system can",  Hickel (2016) claims that switching to 100% clean energy is not enough in order to have a clean world. The author suggests that people have to change the world's economic system. The author starts by saying that recently the catastrophes are more common in the world because the world's balance is changing with fossil fuels. On the other hand, the author states fossil fuels are is not only responsible for this collapse. He emphasizes that people use fossil fuels to produce more buildings, food, cars... even the things that are not necessary because of the present economic system. According to the author, present economic system causes  overconsumption of to overuse the  world's resources. The author concludes by saying people should not struggle to switch to 100% clean energy they should rethink the world's  limited resources and future generations. Nevertheless, the author is hopeful because some of the countries reshape their wrong present economic system and the new economic system is based on people's welfare and less consumption.
  Hickel (2016) draws the readers attention to the present economic system. He claims that present economic system has endless demands such as growthing. The author makes an acceptable point by stating the present economic system's wrong sides. In today's world, people have to use energy which are based on fossil fuels to maintain their daily life; however,  they do not use the energy only for their needs. People use more fossil fuels to produce more products or construct new buildings. Hickel asks questions which are about these productions or buildings is it really a necessity to continue people's life?(do not ask questions, state your ideas) Of course not, because there is excessive consumption of the world's resources. To illustrate, people destroy the forests to built man-made human areas, stream's natural flow balance are changed to construct new dams. Finally, the present economic system's demands are the main problem for future generations. People should pass the new economic system which its demands more fair (the sentence is incomplete, you need to repond to a second idea and cite information from the text).
In conclusion, the author emphasizes that the really important point; however, actually, he does not offer any solution (he advises a new economic model. If you state this suggestion is not feasible, explain this briefly.). That is why, I do not advise to my friends in order to read the article.

Thank you,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 13:43:04 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346548038 Mohamed https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346549825 Hickel (2016) in his the article "Clean energy wont save us - only a new economic system can" argues that switching to clean energy is not a sufficient solution to save the world from climate change. The author suggested to focus more on economic system rather than fossil fuels. Firstly, the author triesy to convince the reader by giving his reasons which is the burning of fossil fuels account 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, the remaining 30% is due to industrial production. The author comments on the usage of the clean energy as it' is being used as much same as fossil fuel producing the gas emissions which will be constantly increasing (language hinders with meaning). Following this,  the author mentions that the world has made a mistake for focusing on fossil fuel while the economic system is the real solution. The author concludes with the  hope  that it's time to imagine a new global economy and it is not impossible as some countries have already done it.


Hickel (2016) claims that switching to clean energy is not the solution and focusing on new economic system is the best. The author seem to have strong points and is quite reasonable because the world is using the clean energy as nuch same as the fossil fuels producing the same gas emissions (check meaning here). The Author argues that even using clean energy can increase the industrial production since the burning of fossil fuels account 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, the remaining 30% is due to industrial production. The author's idea seems convincing because people think that while using clean power as alternative to fossil fuel does not harm the nature but they actually do. A study reveals that 8 million metric tons is entering the ocean every year (cite the resource by following APA) which is enormous number but can be reduced easily with some sense of responsibility. To illustrate, using a glass bottle can be perfect alternative since it can be reused as much as the person needs instead of one use plastic bottle. in order to create plastic bottle it needs fossil fuels for the factory machine which produces thousands of plastic bottles. When people start using alternative materials, the amount of  fossil fuel used will be reduced and as a result less gas emissions will be produced. One more point The other factor is that the plastic that people consume cannot be totally destroyed / cannot get lost in nature but it turns into so small pieces called micro plastic because we cant see it with bare eyes. This these micro plastic goes inside the plants and the animals eats it. As a result, it goes inside the human body and causes him heath issues. Following this, the author states that the real solution is a new economic system that should be applied. He seems to have a weak points because couldn't convince us because even the author his self couldn't mention any details about it due to its difficulty because the economy system need a lot of work and researches (he actually has a suggestion - a system that reduces consumption and  increases human welfare, you need to be specific with your reasons. Avoid overall comments, why is it difficult to change the economic system and what needs to be done?

All in all, the author thinks that only clean energy cannot save the world, but we need also a new economic system. I highly recommend others to study it in order to raise awareness about the global environmental risks and opportunities.

Sorry for being late. No worries:) ]]> 2019-03-29 13:46:14 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346549825 Zeynep Köken zeynep_koken https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550329 İn the article,"Clean Energy Won't Save Us" ,Hickel (2016) discusses that fossil fuels are the reason behind global warming and the solution is not the clean energy as people suppose it's the shifting the of current economic system.The author starts by stating that people no longer deny global warming and the hazardous effects of global warming. And clean energy use / useage ing even if it's in 100%, it will not (no short form) won't be sufficient to hinder the global warming as burning fossil fuels' 70% caused by mankind and the rest of it are by ecosystem.Moreover, the author states that vital problem is in the economic system which is based on consumption ing. Later on the author concludes that solution is in changing our economic system  with a more sustainable one which will minimize humans' ecological footprint and at the same time indecreases their well-being.

Hickel (2016) argues that the solution is not using clean energy as it won't be sufficient to inhibit global warming. So the author comes with the idea of changing the current economic system which is based on consuming less. However, he fails to consider his own nature and his basic instincts which 

so far it is good, complete it and get it feedback.

Best,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 13:47:22 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550329 Berkay https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550508 In the article entitled as "Clean energy won't save us - only new economic system can",Hickel (2016) explains that turning into using %100 clean energy is not sufficient to save us from climate change but reimagining the economic system can.The author argues that burning fossil fuels only cause a fraction of climate change.The remaining factors cause the majority of greenhouse gases. Afterwards the author draws the reader's attention to the solution he poses which is redesigning and reimagining the economic system that is doable by  changing its basic logic which is to altering the consumer behaviour. The author concludes by stating that infinite growth is dangerous and it' is time to act to make changes. Hickel is positive that this is feasible because some of the countries have achieved a high level of development while consuming less.

Hickel (2016) stresses that  the focus of climate change is wrong.We should focus on the economic system not the fossil fuels. In my opinion Hickel's point has no solid base. He fails to consider that most of the emission of greenhouses gases are caused by fossil fuels. Switching to renewable or nuclear sources of energy would immensely affect the climate change (how will this switch create a such a change? You need to explain your reasons). However, he makes a valid point that we should change our way of thinking about consuming.Many people are buying things they do not don't want to impress the people they do not don't like.However, his point is not entirely justified. In my view we should not focus on consuming less but doing it responsibly (explain and give examples).The innovation is at an incredible pace. This rapid evolution also has downsides as well as upsides.We should alter the people's mindset (which mindset and how can it be changed?) because other than that there's only one way left which is the state intervention. Free market economy is the most natural system we have in the world. Sanctions imposed by government only harms people's wellbeing and overall the economy.As it's been proved by communist countries in the marxist eras.The outcomes are fascism,starvation and death of masses that don't comply with the state's ideology (so you need to explain how can state intervention help?).

Have the conclusion and finish the paper and get feedback.

Best,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 13:47:44 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550508 Kerem kerem_elender https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550905 In the article "Energy Won't Save Us - Only New Economic System Can" by Hickel (2016) mainly argues that unlike the general knowledge reducing the usage of fossil energies is not a big solution for the enormous problems that we have been facing for years now. Hickle basically says that switching to renewable energies is only postponing the problem but not solving it. The fossil oils harm is %70. It may sound like a huge number but it is not enough; at least for Hickle. He believes that as long as %30 that we are talking do not go away the problem will remain and it will cause the same problems eventually. And that %30 is caused by the capitalist economy system that planet is under the effect of. According to Hickle; if we get rid of the idea of growing every second every day the climate change will not leave us.
So long story short; Yes, meanwhile reducing the usage of fuel oils is significantly important but it is not enough and the society of our day must also focus on the economic behavior as well if they want to solve the is issue permanently.

You need to use reporting verbs and linkers to guide the readers and the summary is wordy at some instances.

The arguments that the author defends are pretty acceptable in my concern and they must bu applied to our system as soon as possible. Be specific, choose one idea and respond to it.

Best,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 13:48:34 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346550905 Beril beril_dost https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346552757 In the article,  'Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can' , Hickel (2016) discusses the damage of fossil fuels and that to switch to clean energy is not enough to prevent this damage. Firstly, he mentions that there is a growing awareness about dangers of fossil fuels , besides he says (use stronger reporting verbs) that people can not gain something only with awareness or only by getting 100% clean energy. Because fossil fuel is not alone to damage the balance of the world, the industrial productions work with fossil fuel and they spread to world critical gases which one of them is more dangerous than CO2. Secondly, Hickel argues what the main problem is that persons' economic system which demands continual growth. Also, what people made as a mistake is to focuse on fossil fuels. In contrast,  what people should do is to work on the basic logic of the economic system. Although, people always offer to stand by consumption, people can abandon the up-level economic system by decreasing their consunption excise. Finally, Hickel wants to stress say is that people need to imagine a new global economy and minimize their consumption as some of countries have already achieved these goals, so it is possible.  Good summary, but it is wordy, try expressing your ideas in a concise manner.

Hickel (2016) properly warns that draws whether people get the clean energy is not enough to slow climate change down, yes there must have be another routing. When the author says '' 
The problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it ''(p.?), that fossil fuel's usage is not the importing part of climate change problem is can be verified.  
He defends what can be effective for this purpose is to get rid of the overconsumption but the suspect pro is (language hinders meaning) whether people want stop eating how much they want, buying what they want to dress up or use, no they might not accept it. At the same time, to be realistic, that people can overcome climate change only with low-level consumption is can not mentioned (language hinders meaning) (you need to make clear if you agree or disagree with the writer and explain is it possible to lower consumption). Finally, the author is realistic and there are is some points which he is right about what persons People should focuse on is wrong but he does still not tender enough solution to achieve these goals, it's impossible to heal current injury which built up over years. (the writer offerd his solutions: economic change and less consumption. Are they realistic? Why? Why not? and explain your reasons.

Best,
MET
]]> 2019-03-29 13:52:34 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346552757 Alp https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346553368 In the article of,  ''Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can'', Hickel (2016) The author explains that about, the greenhouse gases that are caused by the mankind is the significant reason of Global Warming in general. He strongly claims that mankind is causing %30 percent (or 70%? check the text) of Global Warming, which shows us that even if entire world starts to use ''clean energy'', it would not be sufficient for the world, but it is only going to settle and slow down the process. The authors support the idea that the world mistakenly focused all of their attention on one topic, and that is '' fossil fuels''. He genuinely provides information about, why mankind created fossil fuels in first place, to produce more goods, to be able to go furthermore in order to produce more. He suggests that usage of %100 clean energy isn't going to be the savior of the world, however, changing the economic system entirely is the key to success against Global Warming. To end the topic Hickel argues on / concludes by stating that mankind should focus on more changing and developing a new economic system and solving the issue from the root of it.

Hickel(2016) suggests the idea of, that humans should focus on changing the economic system entirely instead of focusing on solving of fossil fuels issue. ''When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it's what we're doing with it'' (Hickel, 2016, p.4). The author clearly gives enough information of the cause of the issue. By mentioning the reason for the problem that we are facing. The main reason which is sensible for society is that mankind is the main reason.(avoid questions) Why? People are the cause of it by contributing to causing and producing (check grammar here) in order to produce more. The only focus of the society is to sustain themselves, and develop more without considering the consequences that could occur in the future (you repeat the same idea without expressing your reasons, why is this system faulty? waht are our impacts and what should be done?). The root of the problem which Hickle (2016) mentions, is  are the lack of attention on ourselves instead of blaming an issue which everyone, can be aware of which still not be solveding for many years, considering the entire world is aware of it. (what is the problem? and how can it be solved?) However, the author ignoreslacks out the fact of ''sociology'' which society would not be able to accept their change and process it. Even though the author ideas would be significantly beneficial for the world and society. How many countries are going to contribute to blockage of agriculture, industrial, livestock farming, steel, and plastic forms of production (Hickle, 2016), It's unknown how society would react to this curfew, and how are they going to adapt to it (explain why this is not possible? explain your reasons. The ideas you present are generic.) The author suggestions are eligible, however, not sufficient for the centuries or countries to put in enforcement. 

The idea of the author could be a life-changing the differentiable (does this word exist?) fact that would make the world a better place. Although, it' is not sufficient and enough information in order to put into action work (this sentence is incomplete). This article must be read seen by the young college students and academics teachers, in order to adopt the perspective of changing the economic system.

Go over my comments please.

Best,
MET

]]> 2019-03-29 13:53:45 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346553368 Aysara Özenç https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346554009 In the article "Clean Energy Won't Save Us- Only A New Economic System Can" Hickel (2016) argues that climate change's leading reason is people's  economic system, not using fossil fuels and the solution towards it by lowering humankinds' ecological footprint. First, Hickle claims that exchanging fossil fuels to the clean energy completely might seem like a good way, however, more than half of the damage is due to humanbeings' released gas such as nitrous oxide. Second, he discusses that how people use the energy is the main problem, not the type of it due to core thinking of the World's economic system which is always demanding growth and consumption. Third, he makes one point more clear that the enormous problem is about people's demands through growth, they just extract, produce and consume. Besides these claims, he comes up with a conclusion by highlighting that people must leave this economic style based on consumption and start to diminish theirs ecological footprint that some countries have already approached this goal.
Hickel (2016) argues that clean energy is not a solution to handle climate change. The economic system which should be modified again will save us from bad scenarios related with warming and greenhouse gas emissions. The author's argument towards clean energy seems illogical due to most of the scientists' surveys. As most of the scientists' search, stopping the global catastrophes are feasible and if people begin stopping the usage of fossil fuels, the World may gain a chance through both balancing the temperature in balance about %66 and if people maintain this attitude towards the usage of fossil fuels constantly and deliberately this rate of chance may be just about %33 (Nature Communication, 2019). As it is said by most knowledged (check this word) experts, it seems convincing due to clean energies' such as sun, wind and etc being sustainable, free-paid and harmless. However, the author is in a sensible manner in which he discusses world's economic system based on over-consumption and over-production. According to a report Coca Cola company manufacture 128 billion plastic bottles a year. Moreover, such  companies like this do the same thing (Parker, n.d, Plastic or Planet) Likewise, in the textile sector and marketing. Every year two different models are produced in telephone sector. Although the new generation does not have any vital differences, people are deliberately buys them every year, in every new model. Of course, people think the world's prosperity that it is better the more we produce, the more new work areas are opened, but while people always think about themselves, the environment, the nature we obliged to are ignored every time. Under this capitalist system, every second, the planet is polluted one more. The gases that factories release, damage to the atmosphere, process of the nature, ozone layer, thereby, temperature balance. People need to minimize the damage they cause that some countries already have succeeded while they develop their country and their circumstances, they diminish the level of consumption (Hickel, 2016paragraph 8)
In conclusion, along with being in different opinion because of believing the power of the clean energy, in the second argument related with capitalist economic system, Hickel's view is clearly understood and approachable (briefly explain this?).

Good job.
MEt

]]> 2019-03-29 13:54:50 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346554009 Senanur https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346569566 In “Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can” Hickel (2016) discusses the remedy for climate change is a new economic system instead of clean energy. The author suggests the idea of changing the global economy into a new one which cares humanity and also reduces people’s harm to earth. Initially, the writer states the fact that switching fossil fuels to clean energy will not be adequate in order to stop climate catastrophe because the real problem is what we are doing with it. Furthermore, the author claims the core reason is the economic system which is offering  more extraction, production and consumption due to the fact that even non-fossil fuel sources are adding 30% of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Moreover, Hickel mentions the current economic system produces all sorts of social and environmental issues such as debt, overwork, inequality and finally climate change (the sentences resemble the writer's sentences). The author concludes by stating that rethinking our economic system is the best way in order to save humanity and nature.

Hickel (2016) draws the readers' attention to the global economy structures for especially climate change instead of only focusing fossil fuels. The author makes a valid point by highlighting the economic system's harm because whether it comes from clean or fossil energy the way we use it based on our wishes willings not needs. Hence, we over produce and consume without rethinking if it is okay to the nature we live in. The data which "... the burning of fossil fuels only accounts for about 70% of greenhouse gas emissions caused by mankind. (p.30)" demonstrates the harm we cause and following this, the author states the remaining 30% comes from industrial production. Therefore, it is obvious that we and our system which is based on consuming non-stop are the prime impacts. If we stop being addicted to overconsumptioning and hesitate to think whether we need this luxury for our life, it can be satisfying for both humanity and nature (you can give some examples how we can live in a more sustainable way). However, Hickel has a weak argument for presenting his new economy suggestion because it is not actually convincing without giving details about how it should be. If the author thinks that we must change it, then he should suggest relevant one or at least search for a sensible one out there. Otherwise, the idea he wanted to highlight seems floating for readers (you need to explain why changing economy is difficult, you need to explain your reasons here).

In conclusion, Hickel highlights underrated aspect of the climate problem which is economic system and this is why I would recommend the article to the people. Although it does not give considerable solution, the idea in the article should be acknowledged by relevant partiesevery humanbeing

Go over my comments.
Best,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 14:26:22 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346569566 Ceylin https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346580262 In the article " Clean energy won't save us-only new economic system can" by Hickel (2016) the author tries to raise an awareness on people about climate change which can be reduced by changing the current economic system based on over consumption. The author emphasizes that as being a crowded population we focus on the wrong roof problem as considering too much on consumption of fossil fuels. Hickel indicates that 70% of air pollution exists because of fossil fuels. However the remaininged percentage belongs to industrial products such as increasing levels of meat farms and industrial agricultures. The author says that we should spend minimum energy on the idea that switching fossil fuels to clean energy. We should spend our actual energy on considering how we can move to a new economic system which is not at all depends on industrial income.

Good summary, but you need to use linkers and reporting verbs.

Best,
MET]]> 2019-03-29 14:48:39 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346580262 https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346686696 In the article,  'Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can' , Hickel (2016) discusses the damage of fossil fuels and that to switch to clean energy is not enough to prevent this damage. Firstly he mentions that there is a growing awareness about dangers of fossil fuels , besides he says that people can not gain something only with awareness or only by getting 100% clean energy. Because fossil fuel is not alone to damage the balance of the world, the industrial productions work with fossil fuel and they spread to world critical gases which one of them is more dangerous than CO2. Secondly, Hickel argues what the main problem is that persons' economic system demands continual growth. Also, what people made as a mistake is to focuse on fossil fuels. In contrast,  what people should do is to work on the basic logic of the economic system. Although, people always offer to stand by consumption, people can abandon the up-level economic system by decreasing their excise. Finally, Hickel wants to say is people need to imagine a new global economy and minimize their consumption as some of countries have already achieved these goals, so it is possible.

Hickel (2016) properly draws whether people get the clean energy is not enough to slow climate change down, yes there must have be another routing. When the author says ''
The problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it’s what we’re doing with it '', that fossil fuel's usage is not the importing part of climate change problem is can be verified. 
He defends what can be effective for this purpose is to get rid of the overconsumption but the suspect pro is whether people want stop eating how much they want, buying what they want to dress up or use, no they might not accept it. At the same time, to be realistic, that people can overcome climate change only with low-level consumption is can not mentioned. Finally, the author is realistic and there are is some points which he is right about what persons People should  focuse on is wrong but he does still not tender enough solution to achieve goals , it's impossible to heal current injury which built up over years. 
Alp
Alp
In the article of,  ''Clean energy won't save us- only a new economic system can'', Hickel (2016) The author explains about, the greenhouse gases that are caused by the mankind is the significant reason of Global Warming in general. He strongly claims that mankind is causing %30 percent of Global Warming, which shows us that even if entire world starts to use ''clean energy'', it would not be sufficient for the world, but it is only going to settle and slow down the process. The authors support the idea that the world mistakenly focused all of their attention on one topic, and that is '' fossil fuels''. He genuinely provides information about, why mankind created fossil fuels in first place, to produce more goods, to be able to go furthermore in order to produce more. He suggests that usage of %100 clean energy isn't going to be the savior of the world, however, changing the economic system entirely is the key to success against Global Warming. To end the topic Hickel argues on, that mankind should focus on more changing and developing a new economic system and solving the issue from the root of it.

Hickel(2016) suggests the idea of, that humans should focus on changing the economic system entirely instead of focusing on solving of fossil fuels issue. ''When it comes to climate change, the problem is not just the type of energy we are using, it's what we're doing with it'' 2016, Hickel, p.4, The author clearly gives enough information of the cause of the issue. By mentioning the reason for the problem that we are facing. The main reason which is sensible for society is that mankind is the main reason. Why? People are the cause of it by contributing to causing and producing in order to produce more. The only focus of the society is to sustain themselves, and develop more without considering the consequences that could occur in the future. The root of the problem which Hickle(2016) mentions, are the lack of attention on ourselves instead of blaming an issue which everyone, can be aware of. Which still not be solving for many years, considering the entire world is aware of it. However, the author lacks out the fact of ''sociology''. Which society would not be able to accept their change and process it. Even though the author ideas would be significantly beneficial for the world and society. How many countries are going to contribute to blockage of agriculture, industrial, livestock farming, steel, and plastic forms of production (Hickle 2016), It's unknown how society would react to this curfew, and how are they going to adapt to it. The author suggestions are eligible, however not sufficient for the centuries to put in enforcement. 

The idea of the author could be a life-changing the differentiable fact that would make the world a better place. Although, it's not sufficient and enough information in order to put in work. This article must be seen by the young college students and academic teachers, in order to adopt the perspective of changing the economic system. 

]]> 2019-03-29 19:26:11 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/346686696 https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/347136957 Ceylin's response

Hickel (2016) states the  importance of new economic system which will save the world from climate change as can be understood from his unrealistic words. As he also mentioned the economic routine that we use today affects the climate only 30%. Yes, it is not a very small amount of percentage but it should not be forgoetten that we earn very well on it (this economic system is a profit maximizing tool) you need to make clear what do you mean with we earned it?). As he thinks of that harm actually  there is the most biggest one that he ignores to see. We call it as fossil fuel. More, it covers 70% of air pollution. As the contemporary (research is an uncountable noun) reasearches shows that over usage levels of fossil fuels have damaged the climate so much that about the cause a catastrophe called climate change. Thus the first step to taken is to stopping the usage of fossil fuels for having an environment full of fresh air (What is the damage caused? and what is the step taken?  Be specific here.).
The author dreams of a word with very low levels of consumption. However, it is not really possible because humans want more and more to have a better life standardts and for having more money (our demads are limitless, but our resources are limited - think about it). Moreover, sadly there is a truth that if you want to achieve to something you need to sacrifice something else. Here is the sacrifice ial, environment, which will take its revenge as climate change.

In conclusion definitely the current economic system should be reviewed but not yet because as the  first step we should find a way to stop over consumption of fossil fuels as it contains the 70% of air pollution. (explain what your suggestions are?).



MET
So sorry sending it so late. No worries:)

]]> 2019-04-01 12:48:06 UTC https://padlet.com/merveelbirlik/2y8mto1w4k41/wish/347136957