Summary on SRM

Solar radiation management (SRM) introduces a geo-engineering method of reducing Earth’s absorption of solar energy by adding light-scattering aerosols to the stratosphere or lengthening the lifetime and reflectivity of the low-lying clouds. However, scientists have been debating against the research on SRM, as it will reduce the political resolve to reduce emissions of greenhouse-gas. SRM is cheap, fast and imperfect, it is estimated that it can reduce the global average rise of temperature at least 100 times more cheaply than emissions cuts. These qualities make it a promising tool against climate change, but it would result in less precipitation and less evaporation. Certain areas would have greater protection than others, hence some countries would be left vulnerable. Furthermore, SRM could weaken monsoon rains and winds, and introduces risks like delaying the recovery of the ozone hole.
With millions of dollars at stake, and the risk it poses, thorough field testing is required. We have to understand the risks involved and from there work out whether it is worth to be implemented and come up with better solutions. A vigilant climate strategy requires adaptation and deep cuts in emissions. A good management SRM carefully in such a way that while managing the associated environmental and political risks, such cuts are not compromised.

Comment on Weber's WA1

Hey Weber, generally you have done a good job in highlighting the points of the question. However, I feel there are a few points you may want to take note. First, the transitions between the paragraphs are not flowing well. You started off with "firstly" but there wasn't a "secondly" or so forth in your essay. Besides that, the example that you have quoted of china in your essay does not have a reference to it. Some figures are needed to support your arguments and convince your audience. Furthermore, I noticed that the conclusion you made concludes something what you have not mentioned in the body paragraphs. This may make your audience confused. Keep working hard, and we all can do better in WA2!

Cheers,

peng chen

Summary of SpringBoard Reading << Nuclear power's new dawn>>

The article i am summarizing on is on the new generation of Nuclear power plants to provide for the rising energy needs of the world and to fight global warming.The article starts the ball kicking by describing a scene at a nuclear power plant in the near future 2035. Describing how the nuclear power plant is run at high operating temperature of 900C and that not a meltdown emergency. Due to the high temperature, it generate hydrogen fuel while active as a power plant. This is a vision of the future from Generation IV International Forum, which is a group of ten nations that is planning nuclear reactors of tomorrow. They envision high efficiency plants, and simple safety feature that prevents any accident from happening. In short, 'meltdown proof'- deliberate actions to cause a disaster is futile, thus making nuclear reactors less of a terrorist target.
As, nuclear power do not produce carbon dioxide as a by-product,it has become alternative as a energy source amidst the rising global temperature. Mainly a few obstacles that have to be overcome to build 'envisioned reactor' are cost, efficiency , feasibility and technological constraint like coolant used in the reactors. Only after these obstacles are overcome, then nuclear power can be considered as the fuel for the future.
The most advance concept is the VHTR( Very High Temperature Reactor) which Japan's Atomic Energy Research Institute already operated a test reactor that reach operating goal of 950 C. At high operating temperature, hydrogen fuel can be obtain from water in turn could replace the dependent on oil for energy needs.
The final section of the article covers on the technical aspect of how the radioactive fuel is fed into the reactor and what designs could make it be accident-proof. Lastly , it is concluded that the current technology is still far from the envision design and considering the current cost of nuclear energy, much improvements/researches are needed. As seen from a comment made by Alain Bugat , who head the France's Atomic Commission, " if we have a working demo of some design by 2030 we will be doing well", the gap of technology to cover before VHTR can be realized is huge.

Peer review on PC WA1

PC started his essay with a general background information about climate change as a global issue then focus onto the need for a good negotiator to chair conference and traits that make a good negotiator. Very informative introduction as it set the reader to the body of the essay.

Next, he move on to mention the basic role of a negotiator and the need for certain positive attributes for him to well established and has sufficiently supported his elaboration with evidences / quotes from article. However, he ended the conclusion with "In my opinion" which should be avoid as mention in the previous eg class video as it weaken the the points a writer trying to bring across to the reader.

Overall, he made little grammatical and vocabulary mistakes, allowing the reader to read the passage with ease. Keep up the good work.

Cheers,
WeiBai

Comments on Tey Jun Hong's WA1 essay.

Rendy's opened his essay with the rough idea of what he was going to touch on in the later paragraghs and elaborated further in the introduction paragraph (1st paragrah) to re-emphasize what the question's main points.

In his body paragraphs, each of them were opened with a thesis statement, which accurately summed up what would be talked about in the paragraphs. On top of that he clearly brought up his points in an orderly and fluent manner. There were no awkward pauses as conjuctions and the links were good between sentences.

He gave his personal feelings and stated the differences between developed and developing coutries, and gave solutions and ideas on what could be done to mitigate the situation. This gives readers a better picture on the differences and ideas on what could be and should be done.

Overall this essay is well-written, with little grammar mistakes and fluent writing style, except for the a few minor errors.

Comment on Jianlong WA1

Jianlong's essay touches on the first question of writing assignment 1 which is about comparison and contrast between the developing and developed countries' role in the climate treaty. Writing assignment 1 also requires the writer to cite deciding factors of a new treaty. Jianlong has presented his ideas in a systematic manners. In the opening paragraph, he gives the readers a insight of what his essay is going to be about, by highlighting the key points in the essay. He decides to break the body of the essay and tackle the political, economical, social and environmental issues surrounding the topic. This is a clear and systematic way of presenting ideas. However, he failed to understand what the question is asking for and thus the scope of the thesis is not quite right.
He went on to present his ideas in the following paragraphs and they sound fine. The main point of each paragraph is clear to the reader as his style of opening each paragraph is easy for reader to comprehend such as "Firstly i will touch on the economical factor.". The flow of ideas in the paragraph is also easy to follow. However, probably due to the above mention point about understanding of the question, his essay is merely providing the solutions from his point of views. Instead, he should compare and contrast between the two parties(developed and developing countries) and offer solutions based on the views of the two parties. His revised essay will be a better one if he can understand the topic and present his ideas like what he did in this one, the systematic way. =)