A Critique of 205 Easy Ways to Save the Earth

A criticism of 205 Easy Ways to provided the Earth by Thomas Friedman alien affairs columnist for the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, is a man who wants to chasten to change the world by trying to convince tribe to go commonality. But, he is convinced that going sensation thousand is not as easily as e trulyone makes it sound. His article 205 Easy Ways to Save the Earth, first produce in 2007, presents several arguments attempting to convince people that while going thousand is difficult, it is possible.The author first discusses how we, as Americans, be not as grand as we search to be at first glance. He notes that we seem to only follow the slatternly way to go green and do not do nearly as much as we could for our planet. furthermore he states that there are no uncomplicated ways to go green and that this word should never even be associated with the topic. Friedman points out that executives of oversize fuel companies are the only people who talk truthfully cl ose the situation and that they take a guilty pleasure in know there is nothing we can really do slightly it.From what the chief executive officer of electric company Chevron, David OReilly says, it could take decades for any change to occur, and at that time there will be even more people than what we are trying to meet the power demands for now. Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, two professors at Princeton, are attempting to design scalable solutions to fix these fusss. These two developed a pie chart, in which if eight of fifteen parts were completed, we would be on the right stinger for reducing our carbon emissions.Unfortunately, completing just one piece of the pie whitethorn be impossible with the way things seem to be going. Another individual, Nate Lewis a chemist at California Institute of Technology, claims that if we started trying to fix this problem right now, we would have to make as much clean energy as the energy we are currently consuming. With all of this b eing say even taking the first step towards a green whirling seems nearly impossible. Friedman starts his argument on this subject in a alternatively sarcastic way.He states Who knew saving the Earth could be so easyand in just under a minute (290). While this does convey his eyeshot well, there are better ways of getting your point across. general though, the effectiveness of his entire argument is pretty well put together. He uses the phrase green revolution to describe this situation, and in using this term, he raises a good point. He goes on to say A green revolution? Have you ever seen a revolution where no one got hurt? (291). This is a very good way to put what he is trying to get across and what he is saying here is very true.To put it in simpler terms, he is saying that sacrifices will have to be made in order for any changes to take effect. Friedman also does a great job of laying out and breaking down what a systemic green strategy would look like into three easy pa rts that make things seem so simple. The author gets this information not from what the books he read say but rather what he says is leftover unsaid by these books (293) Friedman then starts citing other authors kit and caboodle to help his own ideas seem more plausible and convincing set about with Maniates.Freidman uses this authors work to help support his own by showing that he agrees with Freidmans idea that there are no easy was to go green and as soon as we seduce this, the better (293). Freidman then goes on to compare how he explained the carapace of the problem, in terms of weighing yourself (293), to Socolow and Pacalas scale. The way that those two illustrate the scale of the problem definitely helps Friedman get his point across. He finishes by comparability his options to hard facts, Lewis calculations.Freidman says his approach is useful in conveying the challenge (297). It is hence helpful, but it can at some points be confusing when he goes deep into the calcu lations and statistics. Friedman has a natural writing style and he conveys what he is trying to say to the reader in a great way. His ideas about going green are inventive and, for the most part, are easy to comprehend. He is correct in what he says and his opinions are very agreeable. tone ending green is not easy and Friedman makes this very clear.Even though he does shine straight out and say this, he backs himself up by providing duple solutions to the situation. After considering what the author has to say, and looking at all the input that he provides on the situation, we can definitely agree with Thomas Friedman that going green is difficult but possible. Works Cited Friedman, Thomas L. 205 Easy Ways to Save the Earth. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. New York Longman, 2010. 289-99. Print.