To the Editor:
Re: “White House to Relax Energy Efficiency Rules for Lightbulbs” Published Sep 4
As a student who studies the earth sciences and climatology, I was disgusted to read that the Trump Administration means to set back the entire world in a losing war to human waste and pollution by implementing a decades old approach of light sources, the incandescent bulb. Our planet is currently fighting one of its largest battles in the last 65 million years. As a singular species, we have pushed our world into the sixth mass extinction event in all recorded life ever. Every effort to be done to counteract this event should be taken no matter how miniscule it may seem. The Trump administration, however, is handling this crisis as poorly as I hope we will ever see.
This recent publication mentions how they are taking more actions as simple as using more efficient light bulbs and getting rid of them for cheaper, more environmentally acrimonious light bulbs. Legislation has been set for years dating back before the Obama administration to lessen the use of bulbs such as the over-a-century year old incandescents. If lights were all replaced with the more energy efficient LEDs, it would equate to the use of “25 large power plants, enough to power all homes in New Jersey and Pennsylvania”.
As a child growing up I always looked up to the president and the White House as our country’s leaders. If we cannot start here in introducing cleaner energy, where will that bring us in the future? As a society, regardless as to what the Trump Administration does to weaken environmental policies, we must do all we can to protect the world around us, not only for our lives, but of our children and grandchildren. In the following election I hope we all can make the right decision and pick a leader who will help save what is left to save here on Planet Earth.
Yours truly,
drpaleontology
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Hi Professor,
I have made a couple changes here and there when compared to my last draft. I separated the giant paragraph into a couple, and fixed some grammatical errors that were persistent throughout. I also revised how these paragraphs were broken up, so if you could give me any more feedback I would be very appreciative.
Thanks,
drpaleontology
LikeLike
Luckily, I did a survey of everybody’s LTE for Portfolio this evening to see who was requesting and who was not requesting feedback. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have known you had left me this request, Doc. Regular comments get buried by the hundred or so that we generate every class day with responses to the Agenda and In Class exercises.
The better way to get Feedback is to place your post in the Feedback Please category. I’ve done that for you now, and you’ll come up in the queue when I return to the feedback process.
LikeLike
Hey, Doc.
This is a strong draft that names its objection, lays out its argument, and drops in both evidence and rhetoric at key places.It also demonstrates a zest for language that I want to encourage but also direct. I could strike and replace the overwritten or skewed phrases that confuse this reader, and you’d get the point of every substitution, I’m sure. But you’re a good enough writer that I want to share the workload with you as a challenge. Let me try a few examples and see how it goes.
1. As a student who studies the earth sciences and climatology, I was disgusted to read that the Trump Administration means to set back the entire world in a losing war to human waste and pollution by implementing a decades old approach of light sources, the incandescent bulb.
— Efforts can be “set back,” but it’s hard to picture how a world can be. The concept is clear: bad bulbs will reverse progress, but that’s setting back the progress, not the world.
—”a losing war to human waste” doesn’t identify waste as the enemy. I think you mean the world is fighting a war AGAINST waste. The phrase you’re using here would be appropriate if one combatant were losing the war TO ineptitude, for example, meaning BECAUSE of ineptitude. Which is your meaning?
—”implementing a decades old approach of light sources, the incandescent bulb” confuses in a couple of ways. We can implement bulbs by using them. We can implement an approach to lighting SURFACES (and bulbs could be such an approach). But bulbs ARE light sources. Too many threads to pull. Can you simplify?
2. Our planet is currently fighting one of its largest battles in the last 65 million years. As a singular species, we have pushed our world into the sixth mass extinction event in all recorded life ever.
—Probably you mean that the sixth mass extinction is one of the largest battles, but that’s not as clear as it could be: punctuation could help.
—The shift in perspective from the planet to our species is jarring. The planet IS FIGHTING because the planet HAS BEEN PUSHED. Or WE ARE WAGING because WE HAVE PUSHED. Stick with one perspective.
—Our species BY ITSELF is a SINGLE species. Our “unique in history” species would be a SINGULAR species.
3. Every effort to be done to counteract this event should be taken no matter how minuscule it may seem.
—Another perspective shift. I’m not recommending actual language, but if WE ARE WAGING, and WE HAVE PUSHED, then WE MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT.
—Events can’t be counteracted. Trends can be. Future events can be prevented. We can intervene.
4. The Trump administration, however, is handling this crisis as poorly as I hope we will ever see.
—This is just overwriting. You (and I) are always on the edge of overstatement. Our hopes are irrelevant to the president’s ineptitude. He’s handling the problem poorly. Unimaginably poorly, maybe. Asking the reader to imagine how much his ineptitude exceeds the amount we hope we’ll ever encounter from an administration in a similar situation, though, is not productive.
If this is helpful, Doc, we can proceed several ways. My preference would be for you to take a hard look at your phrasing, weed out your own inventions when they create confusion or require re-readings, and ask for another review. You’re good. You’re more than capable of clarifying your own language without eradicating your own style.
LikeLike