E-Portfolio 6: Grammar Mistakes

The entry for the week is to identify common grammatical mistakes that I commit in my essays and comprehensions. Reviewing upon draft 2 of writing assignment 2 and past exercises, I have identified grammatical mistakes that I tend to commit occasionally. Such mistakes include wrong verb tenses, misuse of articles and the semicolon.
Common verb tenses mistakes that I commit are with has, had and have. For example, “… the Singapore government had set aside incentives for industries…” is wrong, and should be corrected to “… the Singapore government have set aside incentives for industries…” since the event happened and is still ongoing, present perfect tense ‘have’ should be used.
In my writing assignment 2, I frequently make article mistakes such as, “… not only for ourselves but also to gain the support of the Asian countries as well.” Should be corrected to, “… not only for ourselves but also to gain the support of Asian countries as well.” since ‘Asian’ is a proper noun and does not require ‘the’. Another article mistake is, “…industries in Singapore would be open to any future expansion plans into the market as …” should be corrected to “…industries in Singapore would be open to any future expansion plans into the global market as …” with the use of ‘global’.
Finally, I have made several mistakes before with the use of the semi colon. The semi colon ‘;’ can be used at the end of a sentence if the following sentence have a similar meaning to it. A simple example such as “He did not go out today; it was raining since morning.” shows how a semi colon can be used for similar sentences. A mistake I made in the sentence, “…the Singapore government have set aside incentives for industries willing to convert to energy efficient equipment; up to 50% capital expenditures.” Should be changed to, “…set aside incentives for industries; up to 50% capital expenditures.”
This are the few mistakes that I tend to make, but I believe I may have made others as well. However, it may take several practices more before I can improve upon all the mistakes I have made since improving on one’s language is not about memorizing formulas but of frequent practice and usage.

Week 8 : Round Table Discussion

Group 1: Biodiesel: Potential and usage in transportation
Biodiesel is made from crops such as soya beans and as of late, it has become an important source of energy in renewable energy sources. With a mixture of 20% biodiesel to normal gasoline or diesel fuel, it provides an equivalent energy power source for vehicles of various engine types and at an even cheaper price!
The main point of using biodiesel is that it produces lesser carbon dioxide output than normal gasoline, which helps to reduce green house gases. Besides this, it is a form of renewable energy source in which, unlike fossil fuels, can be created in a matter of days.
However, concerns such as biodiesel being unable to perform well in cold countries as it would clog the vehicle system due to its higher freezing point than normal gasoline, are one of the concerns that biodiesel may not be an appropriate replacement for gasoline.
Besides this, if biodiesel becomes an immediate replacement for gasoline, there would be concerns that food crops might be affected. Farms and plantations might change to growing soya beans for example. Instead of food crops due to the money factor. This might bring about a major change in the food economy and the oil industry.
Prices for food crops that were abandoned because of the better prospect in growing soya beans would increase exponentially due to the decreased output but stagnant number of demand. A solution that the supporting group suggested was to regulate the land usage by the farmers; by controlling what type of food was to be grown.
It is noteworthy to know that biodiesel may become a replacement for fossil fuels in the future. With continued research and development to improvise the chemical components in biodiesel, some day 100% biodiesel may be on par with gasoline or diesel fuels.

Group 3: Genetic engineering
Genetic engineering presently has its limits, with oppositions from ethnical to activists and even religious groups. It has offered a major breakthrough to altering who we really are. In this discussion, the group talks about the question on whether genetic engineering should be allowed.
Altering a baby’s gender before his/her birth, a situation that people in the past wished they could have made, a choice that parents can make , a future the baby could not decide. The issues regarding this topic are controversial as there does not seem to be a right or wrong answer to it. Issue of sex imbalance around the world such as preference of having more male babies than females is one of such problems that might exists.
On a lighter note, genetic engineering could be restricted to help in minimizing child defects instead of gender changing, a benefit that would be more welcomed then the latter. Creating a stronger baby who could be athletically better when he/she grows up or more disease resilient child. Such are ‘improvements’ that could be implemented into the babies of tomorrow.
However, there will be the debates on whether such babies would be allowed to participate in sporting events where ‘normal’ people compete with each another. This was a not a choice the child had made before he was born, but a burden he/she have to carry for their remaining life.
Genetic engineering is a statement of what we are really capable of. Playing with nature’s rule, we have outdone what other species could never do. Genetic engineering can make us perfect, but what does being perfect really means to us, being beautiful, stronger or smarter? In the end it all comes down to who we really are to the people around us.

Group 4: Implementing carbon capture storage
Carbon capture storage method to reduce the carbon dioxide output from industries is an expensive but effective method to reduce carbon dioxide output into the environment. In the discussion by Group 4, they pointed out their views on whether citizen groups should support, promote or oppose such technology.
Carbon capture storage is a promising technology, but it is costly and not every country could afford to divert their funds on such a big project. However, it is interesting to know that the major carbon dioxide producers are from developed and rich countries.
Undeveloped countries or usually the poorer countries, does not have the financial capabilities to construct carbon capture storage methods. The group members stated out that the UN should provide financial support to them since global warming is a global problem for everyone. Yet again, we should understand that undeveloped countries would not be producing as much carbon dioxide as they should, but more of an average or safe amount thus a contradicting statement when the major carbon dioxide producers should be the ones who need to reduce their carbon dioxide output.
A last but important point mentioned is that carbon capture storage is not suitable for us now but perhaps in the near future. Countries have to consider the available resources they have and the priorities of other important that they have in their hands besides global warming. Problems such as the economic recession, war and poverty are just a handful of problems that we people around the world are facing now.
I agree to a certain extend that carbon capture storage should be withheld for the time being. It is an option we should not ignore and we should try to accept it as the only solution that would really make an impact on the fight against global warming.