Comment on Senlin's comment (done by Sue Ben)

Thanks for the comment Senlin. Regarding the contradiction you mentioned, I was trying to bring out the difficulties in carrying them out, notably the political impasse and difficulties in execution. They are susposed to act like a counter point. Perhaps that acted as a distraction, I will cancel them out.
You are right regarding the structure, my first point is its effectiveness and second is its practicality. As for the part about repetition of effectiveness, it is partly due to the difficulty in seperating the two concepts, as practicality justifies the expectation for its effectiveness. Perhaps I can make it clearer.
Thats all, Thanks for the comment!

By Sue Ben

comment on Ben's WA1 by senlin(2)

Hi handsome Ben, after I went through your essay, I admit that your idea is clear and the structure is complete. It is very good as a whole.
At the beginning, you gave a very specific thesis statement, which is “the authors are calling for an integrated approach to see climate change as one problem for both nature and people”. And then you wrote “In this article, I will discuss two reasons the authors give in support of their case.” Just from this, I can already get your main idea and your structures easily and clearly.
For the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, you discussed the two reasons separately. The first reason, I think, should be the high effectiveness of this method. To support this, you cited many datas and gave enough examples, so I believe it is convincing. The second reason you wrote is that it is practical. However, in your argument, I see you are still talking about the effectiveness, so I feel you repeated your 1st reason to some extent without consciousness.
In your 4th paragraph you wrote that there is no practical means now, which seems to contradict your 2nd reason. So I think it is no good pointing out this fact and you may just delete it.
For your conclusion, you reaffirmed the benefit and feasibility of the integrated method, and this can be a good summary of your essay.
As for your language, there is nearly no grammar mistakes and your vocabulary is quite abundant. Your essay is easy to understand, however, to be honest, I found this essay is more like the summary of your reference article after I read it carefully.
(hope that my review can help you)

Comment on Utshash Das's WA1

By Tan Sue Ben
The essay gives a good general understanding of the credentials required as an effective leader to steer the global discussion on global warming. It also underlines the impasse that had plagued previous conferences, the difficulty of reaching a common consensus due to different expectations and demands from various countries. I totally agree with the commitment part, and believe that it should be one of the crucial criteria considered in choosing global leaders in handling this thorny issue.

It would be good, however, to point out that the success of the negotiator will be closely tied to the agreements member countries have signed. You mentioned the importance of forceful approaches to push non-popular measures forward, and this depends on the power given to the negotiator to bargain. The recent non-legally binding Copenhagen accord will no doubt fall short in this aspect. It would be interesting if this part can be elaborated more.

Lastly, the general flow of the essay is good. Just some minor grammatical errors.

Comment sanjeet singh's summary on the article A force to fight global warming by Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009),

Dear Sanjeet Singh,
You did a great job on summarising the article that you used on your writing assignment 1. I will be commenting on your summary paragraph by paragraph.
In 2nd paragraph, you summarised what the first argument put forth by the authors essentially. But you just wrote that "2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation." I feel you should have added in the extra point on how much passenger vehicles emit just to show that the 2 gigatonnes of carbon is a significant amount.
For paragraph 3, I felt you could have added in the point that the restoration of ecosystems have the potential to remain as our only viable option to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the decades to come on a large scale basis.
As for your 4th paragraph, you wrote "Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes". I believe it should be written as restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals to regain destroyed homes. A missing word can destroy what would be a good sentence. For the example you cited in this paragraph, i felt you should have talked about how something as minute as a crustacean can be so beneficial to mankind, what more larger organisms.
As for your final paragraph, I feel this paragraph does enough to sum up what the authors in the article is writing. Good job sanjeet.

Comment on sanjeet singh's peer review by nicodemus yu

Dearest Sanjeet Singh
I have read your comments and agree with you completely. The reason why my essay is unclear is due to the fact that i did not understand what the question was asking for and what the article was about. Now that i have a deeper understanding of what is required of me, coupled with your advice, I will be able to get my final draft done. I will go on to use 2 completely different arguments. With my newfound knowledge of the article, I can use the correct arguments and justify why the authors say so. Firstly is that ecosystems have the ability to remove carbon from the environment and that it is easier, less expensive and least dangerous by using ecosystems to reduce carbon. With these 2 arguments, my new look essay will be able to answer what the question is asking for. Thank you very much for the advice and review. I will work on my final draft.

Summary of A force to fight global warming Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009) by Sanjeet Singh POSTING 4

In the article, A force to fight global warming Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009), the authors call for greater use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity “to slow climate change and lessen its effects on people”. One example the authors used is the initiative to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The article sees climate change as one problem for both nature and people.
Firstly, the authors say that protection of our ecosystems and reforestation efforts should be made around the world to reduce the existing amount of carbon in the air. It states that 2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation. Restoration of degraded land to their original state also reduces carbon emissions.
Secondly, the article talks about preserving the natural ecosystems and biodiversity as a cheap and easy way as it will not pose as a financial difficulty as not much technology is required in the process. Degraded land is readily available for reforestation. Thus, this is one of the cheapest, safest and easiest solutions available. ) The cost of losing our natural environment is much more compared to the cost of restoring them.
Thirdly, Conserving ecosystems and biodiversity is more than just a fight to prevent global warming. It saves our livelihood too. The impact of natural disasters can be reduced by conserving mangrove forests and coral reefs that would act as a buffer against the storms. Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes and improve the water quality in that region. Unexplored biodiversity can aid in our livelihood too. For example, discovery of an enzyme from the gut of a marine crustacean is able to break down agricultural waste products for biofuels without compromising agricultural land and natural habitats.
Hence, ecosystems are vital for our survival and will help to protect us in times natural disasters. When people help to protect the environment, we reduce carbon emission which is a serious cause of global warming and climate change.

Comment on Nico's Peer Review For WA1 by Sanjeet POSTING 3

DEAR Nicodemus, I have read your comment on my essay and I find it to be unique. I agree with you that the issues discussed are in line with what the authors are writing in the article. The sentence that you are unable to understand is actually a mistake of mine in the essay. That sentence was actually a fragment hence you could not understand it. There is in fact no link between India and the USA in this example. They are actually two separate examples. I apologize for the confusion caused. I believe that your point about giving a rough idea about the points discussed in the essay is a good and valid point. Hence I would be roughly stating my points of argument in the final draft.
I disagree with you about not discussing the gist about the authors arguments as I have stated my points clearly before stating all the examples I have used. I agree that I have used many examples in this essay and the reason being I was doing research to get more in touch about what the article is talking about.
Thank you very much for your comments and I will use them to work on my final draft.

Comment on Nico's Writing Assignment 1(First Draft) by Sanjeet POSTING 2

DEAR Nicodemus, looking at your essay I would firstly like to say that your structure of the essay is unclear and not really answering the question. The essay question requires you to state and explain the two arguments the writers of the article used to support their case. The case that the question is talking about is to call for greater use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity to slow climate change and its effect on people. However, your essay does not answer this question to a large extent. Your first argument states that it is cheaper to maintain REDD than to actually try to achieve what REDD by going around it. This is a valid point but not clearly explained. You should have stated why it’s cheaper and easier to maintain the REDD so that it is then a good argument on slowing down climate change. Your second argument states that if biodiversity and natural ecosystems disappear, eons of natural innovation that could yield breakthroughs will disappear too. However you did not state how this point will have any effect on people.
In conclusion, I would advise you to plan your essay properly into two of these three points. They are that maintaining the natural ecosystem is cheap and easy, the natural ecosystems provide protection for the livelihood of people and that the natural ecosystems can store carbon emissions in them. Lastly your language, grammar and citations were splendid. Good luck on your final draft.

comment on sanjeet singh's Writing Assignment 1 by nicodemus yu

Dearest Sanjeet Singh,
The content of your essay, in my opinion, is that substantial and issues discussed are in line with what the authors of the article are writing. Although, there is a sentence which i am unable to make heads or tails of. You wrote, "Furthermore, Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) belonging to USA to plant 125 million trees." So are the trees going to be planted in the USA or in India? I being clearer on this point. As for your organisation, i feel that it would be better if you are able to give the readers a rough idea of what are the main points you will be discussing in your essay in the introduction. Sentence coherency was good which allowed for easy reading. Ideas are put across well in the paragraphs, though i felt its was more of listing examples than discussing the geist behind the authors arguments. Also, paragraph 4 is not really needed as only 2 arguments were required of you. Other than that, language use was good. The style of your writing makes for easy reading. Another area I feel you could improve on is the length of your essay. It is to lengthy even though it is easily read. The question only requires half of the length you wrote.

Comment on SenLin's summary by Utshash Das

Dear SenLin, the summary of the lecture given by Mr. Benjamin K. Sovacool that you posted is quite interesting. His talk was indeed mostly on how to cut down the emission of greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide, Nitrous oxides, Methane and CFCs, most of which are released in the atmosphere as a result of human actions. You have mentioned that burning of fossil fuels and agriculture constitutes up to 76% of the emissions but you forgot to mention the emission of Chlorofluorocarbons and Hexa-fluorocarbons, which have the most devastating effect on the environment.

The speaker talked about the changes the Government and we, as individuals, can make to reduce the emissions. As you wrote, the Government can apply tax on cars and invest more on public transportations, and impose subsidies to help in agricultural sectors. The easier and more important issue is individual response and how everyone should be aware of the dangerous climate change. People can recycle stuff instead of buying new products.

Finally, I'll like to mention that you missed out one major point of the talk. As the World Bank data shows, countries with higher income per capita emits more greenhouse gases than countries with low income and that Asian countries contribute to the gases more than other countries. Government and individuals must become aware of it and act to make sure that Global Warming doesn't bring an end to life-forms on earth.

Comments on Senlin's entry by Nicodemus Yu

With regards to your entry, what i feel is generally you are just listing out the examples. What is lacking is the ideas which are being supported by the examples. For instances, you wrote that, "for energy supply, reduction of fossil fuels and application of renewable energy can be helpful". It is not preceded by or followed up with a general idea behind such actions. In my opinion, what should precede this sentence should be, "Institutes and industrial entities can help ease global warming by taking actions within themselves." Something along these lines. Generally, i feel your entry is blatant listing of what was written in the provided lecture slides. What i suggest is that when you summarize Dr. Sovacool's lecture, instead of listing what he said, grasp the underlying idea behind his lecture first. After which it would be exponentially easier for you to summarize his lecture.

Comment on Sue Ben's by Sanjeet POSTING 1

Dear sue Ben, in your summary you stated that Dr Sovacool lecture was about ways of “Institutional and Individual Response to Climate Change Issue”. I agree that his whole lecture was about ways institutes and individuals can help to overcome the environmental problems. You mentioned some of the greenhouses gases Dr Sovacool mention in his lecture but you missed out nitrogen oxides and chlorofluorocarbons (CF Cs). It is true that all the greenhouse gases were converted to carbon dioxide to measure the percentage change in carbon dioxide emissions in various countries. It was stated in the lecture that majority of the greenhouse emissions were contributed by ASIA. It is true that a country’s emissions level is generally proportional to their GDP. For example, countries like Germany and Hungary have experienced economic downfall when they reduce their emission of greenhouse gases.
Dr Sovacool also mentioned that there were four not three major sectors that contributed the most to greenhouse emissions. They are energy supply, agriculture forestry and transportation.
He mentioned institutional actions for climate stabilization by citing some examples. For example, limiting the number of driving days in Mexico City would target the transportation sector. Dr Sovacool also said that the agriculture and waste management sector were very much neglected.
Lastly, when Dr Sovacool mentioned about the importance of individual effort in climate stabilization, he cited some examples. One of the examples was about the most expensive home in the world which is located in Mumbai. He mentioned that ‘too much and too little can be very disruptive for the environment’.
He ended by saying that we should start as individuals by making a difference to the environment.

senlin's summary

Summary on “institutional and individual response to climate change and issues ”

As he pointed out, the global temperature is increasing rapidly, and the great emission of greenhouse gas is the main reason. As for the share of emissions by greenhouse gas, co2 from fossil fuels and other sources takes up 59.4%, following by deforestation and agriculture, which emit s 17.3% of the total gas. It is obvious that the human behaviors contribute most to the global warming, so the institutional and individual actions should play the major role in maintaining climate stabilization.

Here are some institutional actions. For energy supply, reduction of fossil fuels and application of renewable energy can be helpful; for transport, government can increases the tax and fees on vehicle purchase, and limit the number of driving days; for agriculture, farmers may get financial support for ecosystem service…

However, the individual actions are much easier and more important. One can educate himself and others, or try to become a vegetarian for one year, or alter lifestyle by walking and cycling more, or buy environmental friendly foods, or reuse and recycle some of the old things…Every one of us can make a difference by a small action.

In conclusion, global warming is mainly a result of human activities, so it is everyone’s duty to take actions to remedy our own mistakes before too late…

Ben's Summary

Sue Ben
Summary (Second speaker)
The second speaker, Benjamin K. Sovacool talked about “Institutional and Individual Response to Climate Change Issue”. He mentioned that there were a variety of gases classified as greenhouse gases, notably CO2, CH4, and N2O, but to facilitate measurement, they were all converted to CO2 and with weight proportional to their degree of impact on the environment. He then pointed out the three major sectors that contributed the most to greenhouse gas emission, energy supply, forestry and agriculture.
Most countries had done little in the past to cut emissions, with their emissions level generally proportional to their GDP. Sovacool also mentioned briefly some of the institutional actions for climate stabilization, with the majority promoting the use of stricter regulations and subsidies targeting sectors such as energy supply, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management.
Then the speaker moved on to stress the importance of individual effort in climate stabilization. He encouraged the use of sustainable electricity, food, homes and technology, and elaborated on how conserving resources will have huge impact on not just the environment but also our health. Lastly, he ended by reiterating that these challenges can be solved with everyone’s effort, and urged us to make a difference starting today.

BLOG IS UP

Alright guys, the blog is up. Do share your opinions and views if you have them.
Ben.