We need to rely less on Arab oil and fossil fuels in general, reduce carbon emissions, weatherproof our homes, drive cars that get better gas mileage or better yet, buy a hybrid, take the bus, carpool. That is the politically correct standpoint that individuals take all the time around school. Gallagher and Randall have suggested that in order to change individual behavior, and allocate all the money that is spent at the federal level and learn how to buy a hybrid or even use less air conditioning. In the article entitled, "What makes U.S. Energy Consumers Tick?," Gallagher and Randell are trying to communicate that rather than concentrating on technological advances to reduce carbon emissions, government agencies should be concentrating on sociological and behavioral aspects of what makes consumers want to participate in this effort. The article is very dried out; it only provides the reader with statistics and examples, which makes it hard for the audience to want to be more proactive. However, this article lacks emotional resonance, making it hard for the reader to relate and become proactive.
From reading this article, Gallagher and Randell integrate a few well-known organizations, which lend very good credibility.
Se below
Top: Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ...
English: A colour version of previous map, ranking..."Cash for Clunkers" was created chiefly as an "economic stimulus measure." That meaning ? (Explain some argument?) Questions remain about Cash for Clunkers achieving its policy goals in a cost effective way. Questions should be answered so people have an idea of what to expect in the future regarding costs of energy. When talking about the questions remaining it goes into say that "participation was easy, since car dealers handled most of the paperwork, and the product was of known quality," that is making the author get the impression that some people want someone to do the work for them but...