Purposeful Summaries- Justheretopass

Does Using Paper Take CO2 out of the Environment?

It seems counterintuitive that using paper takes CO2 out of the environment, however we keep cutting down trees. 

16.7 million tons of carbon was sequestered in wood products and landfills, which is the permanent removal of carbon in the atmosphere. When you cut a tree down it still holds on to carbon. This is why 16.7 million tons of carbon still lies in the landfills. In total, about 61.1 million tons of carbon dioxide is floating in the atmosphere which is equivalent to the emissions of 10.7 million cars. The best solution to help keep carbon out of the environment, is to stop cutting down trees and continue planting more. 

Trees are able use photosynthesis to take in water, carbon dioxide and release oxygen as a waste product. Trees will be able to naturally turn CO2 into O2 which will be beneficial to the environment because it will give more oxygen to the humans and take away some carbon in the atmosphere. 

Google’s Earth 

It seems counterintuitive that google is one of the most accessible sites, but it has a much more negative impact on us than we realize.

Google is accessible from anywhere in the world at any time we need it. Some people ask google for ideas about dinner, movie and food ideas. Others use google to talk and find out what’s going on in the world. Google will know what we want before we know what we want. Through our devices, google is listening to every conversation to gather information on what we want to see and hear. 

Google has surveillance on us which is why they always know what option to pick when we ask a question, or always has a pop up ad on what we were talking about 2 days ago. Google has grown and become very powerful but how much is too much? We spend hours on google without us even realizing time is passing. Google has done so much research on each person and has a web of everything you researched all time.  

Young people are the most active on social media platforms. They are exposing their private life and letting anyone see it. If google was the slightest bit concerned they would put restrictions on children at a young age. “If you’re not paying for it, you are the product.” 

Gun Control

It seems counterintuitive that a mentally unstable man was able to purchase a handgun yet wasn’t able to attend school. 

Guns have grown in popularity in America. There are about 85 guns per 100 people in America. That is a crazy number which will probably get bigger unfortunately. Everyday about 80 people die from guns and several are injured. 

States that have less gun laws which equals more guns have a higher suicude rate and homicides than states that have strict gun laws. Children in America are 11 times more likely to die in a gun accident than in other developed countries. 

To help reduce gun deaths and injuries we can limit the gun purchase for how many guns a person can buy at a time to once a month. The government can also get tougher retailers who sell guns and make it harder for traffickers to try and get an abundant amount at once. Lastly to have stricter and more in depth background checks on people before giving them the gun. 

This entry was posted in justheretopass, Purposeful Summaries. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Purposeful Summaries- Justheretopass

  1. davidbdale says:

    Before we take a longer look at your first example, JHTP, I want to mention that there’s nothing the least bit counterintuitive about this claim: “google is one of the most accessible sites that anyone can use for anything.” I don’t know why that should sound counterintuitive, but if it is, you need to share the reason with your readers. Otherwise, they’ll start disagreeing with you WAYYY too early in the game.

    Now, let’s spend some time on paper.

    It seems counterintuitive that using paper takes CO2 out of the environment.

    It doesn’t seem counterintuitive to me. It seems incorrect. So maybe we have a different understanding of the situation. Your job in the first sentence is to firmly establish that something everybody believes to be true or reasonable is in fact untrue (or the opposite). To do that here, you’d probably have to put paper into context; for example, as an alternative to plastic. Most people faced with the choice would declare that killing a tree to make paper bags destroys the environment by eliminating a natural CONSUMER of carbon dioxide. A TREE actually does TAKE CO2 out of the environment. Paper doesn’t. So we start out confused about your premise.

    Paper is probably the most present and usable source of recycling.

    You might mean it’s the most-often-recycled product. But that doesn’t make it a SOURCE of recycling.

    Paper is a renewable source, so if you cut a tree down you can just plant another one.

    Again, your use of the word SOURCE is confusing. TREES are renewable since we can plant one or more for every one we cut down.

    Is that a problem or is that beneficial for the environment?

    You’re supposed to be ANSWERING that question, not asking it. The Purposeful Summary is your chance to shape the material AS YOU SEE IT. Don’t give your reader a chance to answer wrong.

    16.7 million tons of carbon was isolated in the woods on landfills last year according to the EPA.

    I don’t understand. “In the woods” usually means in the forest. But you must mean carbon is isolated in wood products (which would include paper) that are in landfills. Isolated carbon is a good thing. But the fact that it’s in landfills doesn’t seem to matter to your argument. Even more carbon is isolated in the beams and flooring and cladding of houses.

    That is about 61.1 million tons of carbon dioxide floating in the atmosphere which is equivalent to the emissions of 10.7 million cars.

    Again, I don’t understand. WHAT is 61 million tons of CO2? How did 16.7 million tons become 61.1 million tons? And how long do those 10.7 million cars have to be running to emit the equivalent amount of carbon?

    Paper isn’t the best way to store carbon but it can store it for two to three years which is better than nothing.

    It’s odd that you mention this. Plastic takes a LOT longer to break down than paper. Wouldn’t it be better to isolate the carbon for 1000 years in a plastic bag than for 3 years in a paper bag?

    The market for waste paper has grown rapidly as the Chinese need more paper to make cardboard boxes to package toys and electronics back to us.

    That’s a fact, but it doesn’t seem to contribute to your argument.

    The United States exported about 17 million tons of paper to China due to their lack of recycling culture.

    Also factual, but what’s the value of this bit of evidence?

    That was a rough bit of criticism, JHTP, but I hope it was helpful to see broken down sentence by sentence that you haven’t decided on a clear argument to pursue with your Summary. What I think you’re getting at is something like this:

    Faced with the choice of paper or plastic, it seems counterintuitive that cutting down trees to produce paper bags could actually be the smarter way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere. The best solution to carbon pollution would be to plant trees and never cut any down. They naturally scrub CO2 from the air, and they’re completely renewable. Also beneficial would be leaving oil in the ground forever and never drilling it again. It’s already “captured” and should stay there.

    Etc. Does the original article support that point of view? Do you see that the “Faced with the choice” version sets up the counterintuitivity of your solution? If this is helpful, you may revise your post for up to a week and request a regrade by placing it into the Regrade Please category.


  2. davidbdale says:

    You’ve made significant improvements, JHTP, but not enough for a radical regrade. About half a letter grade. I’m still very confused about your environmental claims. You didn’t make Google sound all that detrimental considering that was your thesis. And I don’t notice any changes to the gun summary. I do appreciate the work you did and hope you’ll be encouraged to request and respond to feedback.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s