The Irreversible Effects of Climate Change
Is this the future we want for our country? In recent years, the negative effects of climate change have impacted the United States in a number of ways. Human are one of the main causes to the slow decline of the planet we live on. Recently, a massive iceberg, named D38 has detached from the ice shelf in Antarctica. This specific iceberg was the size of a whole city. This causes concern because it is not only a rare occurrence, it signals climate change.
Glaciers naturally break off ice to balance the weight, known as ice calving. This acts as as natural barrier for the ice shelf, but if to much is shed off of the shelf, it can collapse from being unstable. D28 is not the largest iceberg to separate from an ice shelf, and fortunately did not cause a collapse. Even though it is not the biggest, it still harms our ecosystems and shows the detrimental effects of climate change. For many animals, the icebergs are there home and are needed for hunting purposes. Recently, a polar bear was seen swimming frantically into a pod of whales because they no longer have the ice to rely on as a platform.
The cause for the detachment has to do with the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from burning fossil fuels, which have been proven to cause the melting. In recent studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declared that America has lost over 219 billion tons of ice in the time span of 4 years. Around two-thirds of CO2 emissions released into the troposphere by human activity can be traced back to industrial government run companies. This is a a concerning number for a short period of time and that number will only continue to grow. Rising and shifts in temperature puts food production at risk as well as rising sea levels that heightens the risk of catastrophic flooding. There are several ways to reduce personal emissions of greenhouse gases in small ways by recycling, using renewable energy, and using less heating and air conditioning.
Climate change has to be a more recognized issue for people around the United States. Rising sea levels and temperatures put the country at risk and the climate change occuring is slowly approaching a point of no return. Using clean and renewable energy is a great start in the right direction to reduce rising temperatures. It seems like a small task, but anything could help at this point in time. This overall would have people less reliant on coal and other fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases and a chance to revive our dying planet.
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 
This is capable work, Rose, but it’s a shame you didn’t make time for another round of revisions after December 10. There’s plenty more we could have done to improve it.
LikeLike
Can I receive feedback on clarifying my statements and ideas?
LikeLike
Your focus is odd, Roses.
You start with vague statements about “our country” and spend most of your essay on an Antarctic glacier. Let’s look at the structure first.
Sentence 1. Vague question about the US future.
Sentence 2. Impact of climate change on the US.
Sentence 3. Humans are responsible for planetary decline.
Sentence 4. An iceberg detached in Antarctica.
Sentence 5. Big iceberg.
Sentence 6. Rare occurrence: must be climate change.
See what I mean? Readers can’t follow that. Guide them.
Sentence 1. Recently an iceberg the size of a city detached from the ice shelf in Antarctica, signaling a catastrophic rise in global temperatures with implications for the entire planet, including the United States, the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions per person.
See the difference? The iceberg is the subject that drives the anecdote, but we not only indicate that it’s dangerous for the US, we also claim the blame for causing it. Etc. Everything connects; readers are guided to follow the dots.
The polar bear is the “iceberg” of your second paragraph. If you follow the accusation in P1 that we’re responsible for global warming, then the frantic bear is our fault and we’ll feel it as soon as you mention it. First sentence would be best.
Then you can follow with how that bear got dislocated. The bergs breaking off disrupts habitat. No need to mention D28 is not the largest. Say that when bergs the size of D28 calve, they often DO cause instability and collapse. Emphasize the danger; don’t minimize it.
Simple, robust verbs and actions are the way to demand attention, Roses. Your topic is deadly serious; you don’t have to apologize for being dramatic. Watch this transformation!
The point is not to be poetic or flowery. It’s to dramatize very real consequences in vivid terms that readers can see and feel in their guts.
Helpful?
LikeLike
Roses, I’m going to ask one more time.
Is this your Editorial or your Op-Ed?
What sort of feedback do you want?
LikeLike
I’m sorry professor, this is my op-ed. I made a mistake and posted it to my editorial draft. I fixed the original mistakes from the first round of feedback you gave and will be making the other revisions shortly. I’m sorry for the mistake and will be posting my editorial into this post.
LikeLike
Thank you for clearing that up, Roses. I was starting to feel like a very annoying nag. I’m taking this post out of Feedback Please for now. Put it back into the Feedback Please cateogory when you’ve posted your editorial here, and leave a Reply to ask for specific feedback. Glad we’re back on track.
LikeLike
Roses, please.
This is in Feedback Please without explanation although I have asked you to explain whether it’s your Editorial or your Op-Ed.
I don’t know what else to do besides ignore your request for feedback until you help me out.
I want to help; I just don’t know how.
LikeLike
I’m very confused, Roses.
This Editorial for Portfolio looks like your Op-Ed Draft.
I left substantial feedback on your Op-Ed Draft post, which I will copy below.
But whatever this is, I’ve critiqued it.
Please let me know you’ve figured out which is which and that you’ll have two different arguments for your portfolio (an Editorial and an Op-Ed on different topics).
YOU’LL ALSO FIND THIS FEEDBACK ON YOUR POST “OP-ED DRAFT”
Roses, you’ve left some key observations out of your introduction.
—Why would doctors prescribe an “extremely addictive drug” to anyone?
—If they knowingly did so, is the DEA responsible for that?
—If they innocently prescribed needed drugs and their patients abused them, how is that the responsibility of the DEA?
—How would the DEA have intervened if doctors were correctly prescribing, pharmacies were correctly dispensing, and patients were over-using the drugs, become addicted?
Obviously, I don’t expect you to argue your entire case in your introduction; I’m merely suggesting that unless you’re prepared to blame the DEA for the entire problem, you’ll be setting yourself a difficult task. You might want to write your introduction LAST, after you decide whatever thesis you can reasonably support.
As you suggest here, doctors are “handing out prescriptions.” But what exactly does that mean? That one doctor per patient is casually over-prescribing more drugs than needed to the same patient again and again? Or does it mean that doctors somehow BENEFIT from over-prescribing?Or that patients are visiting multiple doctors to get prescriptions from several?
And you suggest that “pharmaceutical companies are making more of it.” But what does that mean? That they offered a safe drug for sale that turned out to be immensely useful and therefore popular beyond their expectations? Or does it mean that they fraudulently marketed the drugs as SAFE while knowing how addictive they were and hoping to profit from the addictions?
Not in this paragraph, but in another you also suggest that “distribution was not regulated.” But what does that mean? That nobody tracked how many drugs were being shipped to pharmacies? Or does it mean that distributors deliberately ignored overuse and pumped tens of thousands of pills into towns of just a few hundred people, willfully contributing to the fraudulent distribution of way too many pills? And did they do so with the active compliance of pharmacists who had to have known that the same few people could not possibly be filling legitimate prescriptions for thousands of pills?
In other words, how did the 11-year-old, who got his first pills from a legitimate prescription, turn into an addict shortly after and manage to keep himself stocked with pills until his death at 21? Was he doctor-shopping? Was he forging prescriptions? Was he buying from bootleg suppliers? What was the distribution chain that kept him supplied, and how much of it can you lay at the feet of the DEA?
Here’s your answer: The DEA was “ill-equipped to effectively monitor ordering patterns for all pharmaceutical opioids, which could enable the diversion of these prescription drugs and compromise public safety.” You know what I’m going to say now, right? But what does that mean?
“The DEA allowed large quantities of the drug to be produced” is an odd argument. What does it mean? The mere quantity is only problematic if it is funneled to an abusive distribution stream. So, at what point did it become obvious that too many drugs were being funneled out to the public?
“[The drugs] were also being distributed to thousands of pharmaceutical companies across the United States.” What does this mean? The drugs are PRODUCED BY the pharmaceutical manufacturers. They are shipped out to DISTRIBUTORS who distribute them to drug store chains or smaller local distributors or individual pharmacies. Is this where the DEA should have noticed gross over-fulfillment?
You’re completely correct that ending abuse is very difficult when a substance is essential and therapeutic for millions of patients. And certainly, now that the epidemic has gained national attention, our natural inclination is to blame the government for neglecting a serious health risk.
You may be COMPLETELY CORRECT to blame the DEA entirely for the suffering of addicts and the tragic loss of lives, but TO BE PERSUASIVE you have to have enough command of the material to keep your readers from asking that nagging and annoying question, “But what does that mean?”
I hope that was helpful and not just distressing, Roses. You have good instincts, you’re developing a reasonable narrative, and you have organized your material to guide readers along a path to your conclusion. It’s just that along the way you’re taking too much for granted. Critical readers will not follow you over shaky ground.
LikeLike