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

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

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). 

  

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.

 

 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.

Hickel(2016) is aimsed 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 haves 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 ...