Young Writers Society

Home » Literary works » Article / Essay » General

E - Everyone

Response essay to the MacLean's article from 2008

by Liberty


-

Summary

For a small price, you can help solve global warming. Problem is, you actually can not. Most of the scientists’ goal is that 50% of the global warming problems will be solved by 2050. There’s a lot of things to do to make the world a better place. People have multiple ideas and plants, but there is not much hope because of economical, political, and environmental obstacles.

On Saturday, March 29, Earth Hour will occur, where everyone in the US turns off their light bulbs for an hour. This hour exists to raise awareness for climate change. Raising awareness is good, yes, but it’s not useful because global warming has enough awareness as it is, they need to take action now. Realistically, self-control isn’t going to make much of a difference.

The International Energy Agency says that if the current trends continue, energy-use worldwide will rise more than 50% by 2030, and China and India will be 45% of the problem.

There is good news: the planet's not beyond saving because of the growing awareness. The more people that care and find out, the more chances there are that the world will be healthy again. But the question is, how are they supposed to make carbon dioxide emissions expensive, but also reduce the cost of alternative energy, for example, solar energy.

The premier of British Columbia, Finlayson, started taxing carbon emissions like gasoline. The premier was applauded for that. Apparently putting taxes on carbon emissions is an enormous step towards solving global warming.

Considering the current situation and prediction, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said global emissions from fossil fuels will double in 21 years, not 53, like they predicted.

NASA scientist James Hansen says the safe limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. The current concentration: over 380 parts per million. Harvard Law and Policy Review have agreed that carbon tax systems may be the only solution to the problem because their point is that if carbon gets expensive, then fewer people will buy it or use it. But then again, alternative solutions like solar energy for example are insanely expensive.

Thomas Homer-Dixon has said that we have to put the money we have in things like nuclear power, carbon capture/storage, where carbon dioxide from industrial sources is all pumped underground, where it will be safer for the Earth’s atmosphere.

There is a risk that the panic over global warming will sooner or later start getting boring. Recent polls in Britain and the US show that there is in fact awareness about how urgent global warming is, but people are slowly losing the enthusiasm they once had and some are even questioning what’s happening.

Parts I Agree With

I agree with a couple of points in the summary here. I agree with China and some other countries being in the wrong, as they continue to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Second, I agree that the more awareness there is about global warming, the more chances there are that people will take action. I’m not in favor of the opinion that the only chance of ending global warming is raising as much awareness as possible. As long as you have a good amount of influence and authority with the group of people you have supporting the fight against global warming.

Lastly, I agree with Homer-Dixon that we have to put money into nuclear power, carbon capture/storage, where carbon dioxide from industrial sources is underground, where it will be better for the environment.

Parts I Disagree With

There is not much that I do not agree with, but something from the article caught my eye: the ex-premier of British Columbia who started taxing carbon emissions. I do not support that. People do so many different things to get around taxes, and to steal gas. Putting extra money on something to stop it? I don’t think it is that simple.

Another thing that was brought up in the article was how expensive alternative energies, like solar energies, are. Not everyone can afford that, which might not even make that much of a difference to the world, if you think about it. If it is made cheaper or given for free or on a discount to people who can not afford it, for the sake of saving our planet, then there is a chance that we could get somewhere.

Significant Improvements

Some significant improvements that people have made in the past many years: Firstly, after so many polar bears and penguins have been slowly getting endangered, and many other marine animals, people have started working on a solution. They started protecting endangered species and cleaning the oceans, seas, lakes, and more. Other than that, people start recycling more to make sure plastic does not end up in the wrong place, and have started growing their own, fresh vegetables and plants, that don not have a bad effect on the environment. All of these things were outstandingly beneficial for Earth.

What I Think It Will Take To Stop Global Warming

If we are talking about the moral aspects of this problem and the solution to it, then first of all, I think everyone, political leaders included, need to open their eyes and realise that this is supposed to be a world-wide effort to end global warming. Our planet will start melting sooner or later if we do not realize the severity of this problem. If a bunch of people start practicing Earth Hour every year, let's be honest and realistic, how much of a change is it going to make? Not that much. There are countries that are pumping carbon dioxide on pretty much an hourly basis. Yes, I agree that there will be some economical issues to deal with, but keeping in mind the future generations, will provide hope, because we will know that they will not suffer the way we are now, but much worse.

Let’s consider the political leaders and everyone have come to a common point: global warming must end as soon as possible. Governments should provide people with free or discounted alternative energy sources, for example, solar panels. Governments should then make sure that all of the carbon dioxide from industrial sources is pumped underground. Or at least, as many as possible. Car manufacturers should do their best to discontinue advertising mechanical cars that need gas and start advertising hybrid cars instead and selling more of those. Basic things like not using up so much electricity can also make a difference. 

-

Response essay to:

-

a/n: pls dont take any of this to offense if you think differently about any of this thank you this was for school and i wanted to share it bc i did good and i want to perfect it and somehow throw it into the newspaper ahh. idk what i'm looking for in the review if you decide to leave me one, but if it isn't grammar/punctuation related, i'd be thankful haha.


Note: You are not logged in, but you can still leave a comment or review. Before it shows up, a moderator will need to approve your comment (this is only a safeguard against spambots). Leave your email if you would like to be notified when your message is approved.







Is this a review?


  

Comments



User avatar
130 Reviews


Points: 6713
Reviews: 130

Donate
Fri Jan 28, 2022 8:12 pm
View Likes
Stellarjay wrote a review...



Hello Liberty,
I hope you are having a lovely day or night.

Roses

This was a well structured article. The way you separated the sections helped me follow along very easily. You touched base on a lot of different issues concerning climate change, I think you did really well with that. This is a very difficult and complex topic to approach, so kudos to you!

Buds

Sorry in advance for this section, it's very disjointed. I hope you are able to follow along XD
ideas and plants,

Just a small typo here. Plants should be plans.

The premier of British Columbia, Finlayson,

I don’t know where you got this information from, but Finlayson was on the Business Council of B.C. The premier at the time was Gordon Campbell and he was the one who implemented the Carbon Tax. Also I would suggest putting the time he was in office, because BC has a new premier now.

Who is Thomas Homer-Dixon? What does he do?

I think the last sections of your article could be enhanced with some additional research. How are different countries approaching these issues? What are the stats, (how much is the carbon tax, how much does clean energy cost.)

fresh vegetables and plants, that don not have a bad effect

Another small typo.

Another issue I think you should address is how is poverty affecting carbon emissions? How does this play into the overall equation?

global warming must end as soon as possible.


I just wanted to point out that global warming will always happen, it’s actually a very natural process that happens very slowly over the course of millions of years. The issue right now is that it’s happening very quickly, such that ecosystems around the world aren’t able to evolve to adapt to these changes.

Another thing I think could aid your article is making references to the original article. This adds context and helps the reader follow along.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overall I enjoyed the article very much! There were a few inaccuracies in the article, also some additional research could’ve been used. Other than that, you did really well! I hope this review was helpful. Keep on writing and have a great rest of your day!
Stellarjay




Liberty says...


Omg lol the plants thing xD I find it funny how that typo happened, and somehow it seems as if it works out either way!

Ah thanks for pointing out the premier/Thomas stuff, I didn't think about that rip. Thanks so much for your review, I'll defo fix up the rest of it. Thanks again! <3



Stellarjay says...


I'm glad it was helpful! I get pretty passionate about this kind of stuff, so I got a little carried away lol.



Liberty says...


I appreciate your thoughts so much! c:



User avatar
1189 Reviews


Points: 118290
Reviews: 1189

Donate
Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:12 pm
View Likes
MailicedeNamedy wrote a review...



Hi Liberty,

Mailice here with a short review! :D

First off, I try to review it in some sense of structure I guess, and give also my opinion in certain parts. My first impression is very curious and interesting to see where this leads. In some way it´s a mix between an article and an essay and I´m really intrigued by the structure.

So let´s begin. In terms of structure, I was a little surprised at the beginning that the summary is much larger than I had actually thought. It takes up about a third of the entire text and I think that for a topic like global warming you have kept it short and to the point. Above all, I think it's good that you write here as if your readers already had prior experience of global warming, and you got straight to the point. I think in many parts you made good arguments and presented them strongly, but at the same time (and this is just my impression), I had the feeling that the summary was not always written with a neutral touch. I think that belongs in the next parts rather than right here, because you are still trying to draw the reader's attention to some things in your summary.

I think your main part (up to Significant Improvements) has a good structure. (I'll add my pepper core here that I would have gone into the "Disagree" first, rather than the "Agree", but I guess that depends on one's perspective). Again, I like that you keep it short and sweet, but sometimes it's too short. I think in order to form an opinion, you need a better argument in some places, where you go into more detail about why. Here, for example:

There is not much that I do not agree with, but something from the article caught my eye: the ex-premier of British Columbia who started taxing carbon emissions. I do not support that. People do so many different things to get around taxes, and to steal gas. Putting extra money on something to stop it? I don’t think it is that simple.


First of all, here it says "ex-premier" where in the "summary" part it is premier. (Sorry for the nitpick.) Right here, I think you could write so much more than just a question at the end and then the answer so indirectly. I would expand on the fact that in some cases it would even be economically damaging for low-income earners, people who depend on it, etc.... Because I think you kind of got out of the way of your argument with this. :D

I really like your conclusion here and as mentioned twice before, it's short and to the point. You also incorporate your opinion here more effectively after we've read it before, giving the reader a good insight. I like how you have also described the issue of global warming from a larger point of view here, were you still a bit more focused on the USA / North America in the summary and then it developed there. Here you see an invisible thread that opens up with each new section and I thought that was well done for the final part.

Sorry for the next nitpick: :D

People have multiple ideas and plants, but there is not much hope because of economical, political, and environmental obstacles.

I guess here´s a tiny typo at “plants” but I still like that the sentence could also be read in this way. :D

I actually found the article very good. There were a few things here and there that I found a little less good, but I also go there more with one eye, as I learned at school/university, so what I wrote can also be total nonsense.

Have fun writing!

Mailice




Liberty says...


Ahh thank you so much! So glad you enjoyed it! Will definitely take note of everything you pointed out. : ) Thanks so much again for your input. <3



Liberty says...


Also lowkey the plants thing I feel works really well with the topic soooo you never know I could just end up keeping it ;) xD




If all pulled in one direction, the world would keel over.
— Yiddish proverb