Hickel (2016),in his article "Clean energy won't save us - only a new economic system can" claims the major problem of climate change is not only fossil fuels but also our economic system's endless demands. The best solution for it is  aalso new economic system . Firstly the author  mentions that changing fossil fuels to clean energy wouldn't solve the climate catastrophe. The author agrees with the statistics about gas emissions and industrial production of stocks and he thinks they are the its reason of climate change. The author also mentions that  people's demands affect negatively changing fossil fuels to renewable sources which is clean energy. Secondly the author discusses current economic system that does not nt help to change using fossil fuels because of social and environmental issues.The author's suggestions are urgently abandoning the current economic system , decreasinge our footprint and consumption.

Hickel (2016) discusses that the current economic system's endless demands and its significant effects of climate change.The author states  " fossil fuels are killing us. We need to switch to clean energy, and fast.(this needs to be paraphrased)" I'm agree with the author's idea (informal - his idea is convincing), therefore, clean energy sources are expensive .The author points the statistical findings which is " 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 " (Hickel, 2016, p.1). Man kind affect environment the most so that people should solve the problem which they created.The author also claims " Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down. (this should be paraphrased)".I do not nt agree with the author (informal - his idea is not reliable) this time because there are lots of volunteer groups and associations to impress people and make world better place.There are lots of associations which is GreenPeace,CEA,TEMA.Those associations are trying to raise awarness about climate change (copied this info as it is relelvant).If people listen them and do what they practice (briefly state what they do?)influence climate change's negative effects would be decrease.The author mentions the " The root problem is the fact that our economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption. (paraphrase this idea)".I agree with this idea because world has same economic system which is like capitalism (explain this idea). The big factories try to produce more but not one of them think about environmental resources / problems.The solution for it is as the author suggests that we should  says" We need to abandon this economic system immediately. " change the economic system which we are using and affects us negatively (explain how and why does it affect all these?).
Briefly, the author's ideas are meaningful to illustrate; " fossil fuels are affect humanity so that we should change it to clean energy " and " our economic system demands endless growth should be going deadly consequences (this needs to be paraphrased)"," We need to left current economic system." He claims our economic system affects world negatively and we must change it .The author also mentions the change fossil fuels to clean energy can't solve the climate change its to late (language hinders meaning).I agree with economic part it should be alternate the new and effective one but ı dissagre with being to late to change (language hinders meaning).If people listen them and do what thThere are lots of associations which is GreenPeace,CEA,TEMA.Those associations are trying to raise awarness about climate change.

In conclusion, this article presents  climate change's reasons are very which are  disctintive it includes economy and environmental pollution etc..The readers who read this article can (language hinders meaning) learn think in lots of way the factors that  affect the world's future negatively or positively. I would advise this article idea because people should see the effects of climate change and find out how to stop it 

Go over my feedback.

Best,
MET

The author's argument is that stopping use of fossil fuels does not make sense to reduce extreme climate change. While it is true that only stopping fossil fuels is not a valid way merely to slowing down climate change, the aouthor (state the title only in the summary) in the article "Clean energy won’t save us – only a new economic system can" supports that " This is because the 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) (there is max. 40 words rule in APA, your direct quotation is 44 words. This is accepted as plagiarism.) so he fails to accept that big amount of gas emissions based on use of fossil fuels. I believe (even you erase "I believe" your sentence is still meaningful) that at least stopping it reduces a fair amount of gas emmission so this solution should be implemented (explain briefly why should be implemented).  Today, most of the countries apply the solution "switching to clean energy" (do not use quotation marks if you do not quote or refer to a concept) which helps to decrease climate change since every single day the heat is increasing (explain briefly how can switching to clean energy help?). According to Wattson(2018) "The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1,5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people." (too long to quote and it does not have the page number again, keep the information necessary and make the quote concise). In other words, a little taking small measures to hinder this problem is significant such as reducing fossil fuels (briefly explain why?).
Moreover, he argues quite well that to hinder extreme climate change, we should shift our production and consumption based economic system. I do not agree with his argument (informal instead you can say - the author fails to consider ..., his argument is not convincing ..., his idea is not viable =feasible ...)  since big countries' urgency is to develop themselves itself on industrialisation and globalisation (check grammar). In other words,  the aouthor fails to consider that none of the big countries lean towards to quit of globalization owing to capitalism (NATO) (did this information come from NATO? If not, why this is in parenthesis is not clear). They need to produce and have consumers for enhancing and benefiting what?. Also it is harder that changing economic system than reducing fossil fuels (explain briefly why is this harder?). The consumer countries like Bangladesh, they are suffer more from climate change (explain why? and make clear how is this related with the economic system. Rather presenting ideas one after another, explain these ideas briefly and create links amon them). We need to apply clean energy as there is no solution other than that (why is clean energy necessary and how is this related to the economic change?). According to Kyte (2015) (in AT1, you are expected to cite information from the article you read) in the article "World Bank: clean energy is the solution to poverty, not coal" in some poor countries which are shifted renewable energy changed people's life with low cost solar energy (how does clean energy help poor people?).
In conclusion, stopping or decreasing fossil fuels is a highly substantial point on reducing gas emission and slowing climate  change. I believe that only valid solution is clean energy. I do not advise this article to people since there are numerous conflict (be specific, what are the conflicting ideas and the language is informal, avoid "I" statements) i have.

Please go over my comments.
Best,
MET

Response

The author has a point which is when we stop using fossil fuels and switch %100 clean energy is not adequate for slowing climate change since willingly or unwillingly the earth produce greenhouse gases own self and these are come from using plastics and more cement and steel. Clean energy would not be enough since our economic system establish on producing people’s demands therefore this situation continue until people learn to be happy or enjoy with what they have. For instance, when people want new places for living, qualified and comfortable buildings are built, and this means emitting more greenhouse gas emissions because of cement or steel. Literally switching %100 clean energy, does not enough for slowing climate change moreover, another option which is using wood for building house is worse than other one because trees are most significant effect on clean air which is against to polluting and these are not infinite. Hickel (2016),... the 30% of greenhouse gases that comes from non-fossil fuel sources is constantly increasing and adding more to the atmosphere each year. Switching to clean energy will do nothing to slow this down. In brief, unless people enjoy they have, earth produce to continue greenhouse gases. However, switching clean energy is the most significant step for reducing climate catastrophe because one of the key factors for living and producing is electricity which produce fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas and the earth resources not only have limit but also when people use them, greenhouses gases like CO2 release on air in an enormous scale which accelerate extreme events about climate. Renewable energy sources such as wind turbine, solar panels and hydroelectrical central precisely produce a lot energy, they are cheaper than fossil fuels and also, they do not release harmful gases. To conclude, when I agree one part to writer about which just only changing economic system which depend on consumering is not enough for good progress in climate change, besides, I think that government should take action for switching clean energy since these are both cheap, and harmless than fossil fuels and they are not limited.