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.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)