In short, with Hickel, I believe that we should change our economic system into ans environmentally friendly one in order to fix climate change problem.The only viable solutions is the economic system changes (state who would you suggest this article? and why?.

 

Hickel (2016) indicates that the use of fossil fuels should be reduced and replaced with clean energy.The writer is right when he indicates his opinion because fossil fuels harm are damaging us and the environment so switching to clean energy will be beneficial to everyone in general.The writer's thoughts are enable people to approach clean energy positively (explain why do you think these ideas will make the readers friendly with clean energy?).The writer also points out that clean energy can be used like fossil fuels.The writer indicates that it is ‘’produce more cement,build more meat farms and expand industrial agriculture’’ (Hickel, 2016, p.4) can be done with clean energy (you need to explain your ideas here why clean energy will not work?).Hickel (2016) states that the economic system needs to be rethought.The writer indicates that if the economic system does not change there will be some environmental issues like ‘’dept,overwork,inequality and climate change’’ (Hickel, 2016, p.7).The writer pushes people to rethink tries to get people into clean energy and rethink the economy with this article.

Şelale, I am more interested in what you think: Do you think we can change the economic system? Is it possible? Will it be helpful? Can clean energy be enough? Do you agree or disagree with the writer?

 

To conclude,the writer tried to teach people something useful and to change the lives of all people in general in a positive way (be specific what was useful for you in this article?.The writer gave information that would be useful to a lot of people in the article (be specific for which group of people will this information be useful: freshmen, decision makers?.

insensivity. They throw away plastic bottles and these bottles not only never mixed with soil (goes into our soil) but also harmful for environment. Parker (2018) tries to convince the readers by giving examples that in 1950 2.3 million tons plastic bottles produced but in 1993 it grew up 162 million tons plastic bottles. Also 162 million tons waste (do not go into details in summary - plastic production has grown dramatically). The writer also highlights that people know how to throw plastic bottles into garbage but they do not do this. The author uses various scientist comments  and solutions to increase readers knowledge about plastic material’s problems (avoid generic statements like this. Supporting ideas are missing and the main argument is missing)

 

Parker (2018) argues that people (do not - full forms only) don’t  see plastic material’s' exact harms. Even though I think we will see big and insoluble harms in future, we already suffer from Plastic material’s' harms today. Nowadays (avoid generic expressios like this, be specific) as the author mentioned plastic materials are useding in diverse (more academic way of saying a lot of) a lot of fields such as food and car industry. And still people are not don’t aware of plastic material’s harms negative effects of plastic or they aware but don’t want to take action because of economic issues (these two sentences do not support each other. Fist you mention the benefits then you state that people are not aware of its negative impacts). According to the research 350 million plastic bottles are produced in 2018 in food industry (cite your resource here, where does this information come from?)). These bottles are directly arrive people’s used by people. So people haven’t got enough information about the harm of plastic bottles harms and when they use their products which in plastic materials, they throw away these materials. Then these materials fissure become tiny shivers. These shivers mixed go into everything such as water, food and so these shivers cause cancer which people suffer from or animals drink water with plastic shivers and because of chemicals which plastic materials include become animals patient and they may suffer from diseases and even will die. And I think plastic materials already damage our lives in significant ways rousingly. Furthermore, Parker (2018) didn’t present proof that plastic material’s harms in current days (check grammar here. She only deals with future harms (doesn't she state what is happening today?!) You need to make sure you state the author's idea then explain your reasons in a clear manner and make sure you do not change the author's idea. Please work on it and then get feedback again.

 

To wrap up, although the author wants to highlight the risks of solve plastic bottles harms, I do not agree with the idea of taking action in the near future his perspective which want to take action for future. Some actions have to be taken rapidly because many people person and animals suffer from plastic related issues die because of plastic material’s harms. This article could be interesting for readers who are  interested in plastic materials and who want to learn more gain information about the harm of plastic bottle’s harms. 

Please go over my feedback. Proofread and edit your work and get feedback again.

 

Hickel (2016) urges that economic system change is more important than fossil fuels.  In the first paragraph he start by with criticizing fossil fuels and he mentioned that fossil fuels are killing us so we need to stop using them immediately. Writer goal was take people attention for climate change after he supported his own thought (this does not add up to meaning). He highlights that the economic system is causing a big environmental problem, “What would we do with 100% clean energy? Exactly what we’re doing with fossil fuels”(pg.3). How are they related: economic system and clean energy?)  He supported himself that if people will have %100 percentage clean energy again they will use it for industrial production of cement, steel, plastic forms (do nor use etc. in academic writing etc. )He explained that what type of source is not important; people are using the source for what is important (language hinders understanding). This economic system requires  wants infinitive growth and consumptioning. He mentioned that climate movement is making a mistake by for focusing on fossil fuels instead of economic system. He concludes the article with by giving message that about there is still a chance for saving the world. Instead of maximizing human wellbeing, lowering ecological footprint is right way and there are is some countries which are doing this (you need to explain if you agree or disagree with the writer's ideas and why?  this is more a summary but not a response).

 

I think Hickel is right about the logic of infinite economic growth and consumptioning is very important. All countries should consider turn their face to these effective solutions (also state who can benefit from reading this article?),
Thank you.