Reading Response 1

Slow Steaming and the Supposed Limits to Growth

      This article presents a very strong idea for the reader to hold onto: this “unholy alliance” between anti-environmentalist conservatives, anti-capitalists, and hard scientists, in regards to the proposition that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is incompatible with growing real GDP (Krugman, 1) and environmental pessimism. We get a clear explanation as to why each of these parties feels the way do and why their attitudes benefit their work. Some like it because it means they don’t have to take action, and others like it because it gives them more to research and study (the scientists).

      I think the article does a good job on outlining slow steaming for us and introducing how it works, but I believe it could use a little more explanation and detail. For example, it would helpful to know more about why ships going to China and back decided to reduce their speed. What does this mean according to the scientific standpoint and why should we care? There is no clear definition or explanation of some of the ideas in this piece. Actually talking about what slow steaming means or what the GDP would really benefit this article.

      There isn’t any quantitative or mathematical information, which is something that I think this article could really use. The author clearly does a good job on “telling” us about the issue and provides some facts, but with a lack of numerical data to back it up, it’s definitely losing its strength and would be better if the author would “show” us more of the issue. Besides not really having any numerical evidence or data, I don’t think this article does the best job in explaining. Readers are learning every time they read, so it’s important to make sure your audience is comfortable reading something you wrote rather than them having trouble following your thoughts and sentences. With a clearer explanation of what the problem truly is, it’s much more beneficial to the audience.

      I think it would be helpful if there was more evidence of an actual issue that is arising on our planet to connect us with how the people stated previously are responding. It’s always important to present two starts in an article so the reader can follow with them. With clear defined examples, followed by a reason for limited growth, the article would become much more substantial, and I believe, more informative. This is a topic that people clearly need to be more informed about. With clearer examples and some numerical evidence, this article would be in better shape.

This entry was posted in Student Writing. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply