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

 

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 producet 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

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  decreasinge the useing 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 changinge 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

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

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

 

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