Joshua Paetkau
(0722422)
Today we live in a society that strives towards creating and building a healthier future. Our dream of a cleaner environment is made a reality through our growing number of green technology. Our more popular energy machinery includes windmills, solar panels and water turbines. Together these and various other machines work constantly in effort to lower emissions and enhance the atmosphere we live in. Unfortunately, having these apparatus’ does not fix everything and make our world well, in fact “current research technologies are not enough to reduce carbon emissions” (Hoffert). Although there are mass amounts of energy technologies constructed throughout lakes, river and open fields, the issue of carbon emissions is still ongoing at an unfriendly rate. The following paper will compare and contrast the ideas outlined in both secondary and primary articles surrounding how efficient modern day energy technology.
Within in the two articles it is evident that there are many differences and this is partially due to the fact that the secondary may not include all the information that the primary source acquires, therefore the issue of limitations exists. A primary source is a document that was created for the first time and is based upon the writer’s own studies. The written information is from a first hand perspective and is produced by people directly involved in an event. Where as secondary sources are composed of ideas derived from primary literature and are not written by someone who took part or witnessed the original study. The data and statistics that make up a secondary source are filtered by the writer’s personal analysis and as a result the writer will pick and choose what information he or she desires in order to portray his opinion. In this particular case this issue is apparent throughout the secondary article, as the author fails to include crucial details dealing with the solution to sufficiently reducing carbon emissions. The articles both explain, to their own extent how challenging a change to carbon- neutral power sources will be in the future. The secondary source presents all the same ideas on what needs to be done; however the author does fall short in explaining how difficult it will be to accomplish this goal of limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The author is very pessimistic and hopeful of future advancements as he fails to stress the situations restrictions and simply states “investments will be crucial in enabling basic research findings to develop into applied commercial technologies” (Hoffert). The secondary article only briefly touches upon why we are unable to make progress on the crucial issue of limiting atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The primary however writes, “we are in no position to make this energy transition now, and that it will take decades of hard work” (Hoffert). The primary source does not shy away from the truth in saying this and is much stronger in stating how “enormous a challenge of making the transition to carbon-neutral power sources” (Hoffert) will be. There are many important statements throughout the primary article that do not exist within the secondary source; the absence of these details is a flaw in the secondary source as they underline the reality of how out of reach this transition is. Therefore by unsuccessfully informing the public entirely this secondary article limits the readers and audiences overall understanding of the crucial issue among us.
The above windmills are an example of clean energy technology.
Furthermore, the discrepancies between the two articles are again apparent as they speak out to separate audiences. Primary and secondary pieces of literature serve their own individual purposes and are created with the intention to inform the public about ongoing matters that surround our lives. A primary source is the closest piece of formal literature to the event and with this information gathered from the study the author is determined to produce a piece of writing which illustrates all that was discovered and witnessed at that event. At a quick glance of the two articles it is evident how the primary source possess much more text and content then that of the secondary. This is because the primary author goes much more in depth with his paper, as he must produce all his research onto this paper. The reasoning behind this is to create a lasting impression on his desired audience. This desired audience is often a group or individual who will support the author financially in pursuing further research in this particular field. As well this article is formatted and intended for those who are well informed scientifically as it has detailed information surrounding the science of energy and carbon-neutral power sources. On the other hand there is the secondary source witch discusses and relates information outlined in the primary source. Although the article will noticeably have many quotes that are derived from the primary source, the author will format the quotes and pick and choose specific details in order to voice his or her own option. For this reason the secondary source can often be clouded by the writer’s opinion as they are able to filter and interpret the information to their personal view. The secondary choice is from science daily, which tells us that readers do have an understanding of science but often do not have the extensive science background hat readers of the primary source do. The secondary source is slightly a water-downed form of the primary and is extremely beneficial for those who look for a brief overview and insight on certain situations. Without a doubt both articles are share the same topic but are ultimately intended to inform two different intellectual classes of people.
When looking at the differences of the two methods of presenting science research its clear that the same research can be presented in complete different ways and offer the readers multiple ways of interpreting the information. The audiences vary between the two articles and as well because of the different formats of primary and secondary limitations exist.
Works Cited
Lewis, Neil. “Energy Technologies Not Enough to Sufficiently Reduce Carbon Emissions, Expert Concludes.” Sept 9, 2010. ScienceDaily. Sept 20, 2010. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909141525.htm
Hoffert, Martin. “Farewell to Fossil Fuels.” . Climate Change. Sept 20, 2010. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/329/5997/1292
No comments:
Post a Comment