2

I wrote this but it really doesn't read nicely. How could the following paragraph be improved?

With the increasing green movement, subsidies for energy produced by solar panels installed on households and the possibility of a carbon tax will mean that a wider range of households will be able to invest in solar power technology and that heavy polluters may have little choice but to cover their buildings in cheap organic solar power technology.

1
  • Critique questions here need to include specific questions about the writing, as required by this site's critique guidelines. I'm closing this for now, but please feel free to edit this question so we can consider re-opening it. May 2 '12 at 6:58
4

The three key points for me are:

  • "increasing green movement" doesn't make sense to me. It sounds like "green" is moving around more. Also, it's not clear what exactly they're responsible for.
  • Split the long sentence up into two or more sentences.
  • The subsidy has made it cheaper and encourages adoption, but the penalty (tax) affects heavy polluters, so make that distinction clearer.

A possible suggestion:

The growth of the green movement has meant the introduction of a number of measures to encourage household investment in solar power. In particular, subsidies for energy produced by solar panels installed on households have made it more affordable, and the possibility of a carbon tax means that heavy polluters may have little choice but to cover their buildings in cheap organic solar power technology.

0

First, I'd break it into more sentences. It is very difficult to read and understand that four-lines sentence.

Second, how can an imminent carbon tax increase someone's ability to spend more money? It deserves more specific explanation.

0

My revision isn't great, but I think it make things clearer by splitting the effects of subsidies and taxes into separate sentences:

The increasing green movement will create subsidies for energy produced by solar panels installed on households, and may lead to a carbon tax. The subsidies will allow a wider range of households to invest in solar power technology. The tax would leave heavy polluters little choice but to cover their buildings in cheap, organic solar power technology.

There are a few things I don't understand:

  • Did you mean that the green movement will lead to subsides for the energy produced by solar panels? Or that it will lead to subsides for installing solar panels?
  • Why would the tax lead polluters to choose solar power technology that is organic?

Perhaps these questions are answered elsewhere in the article.

2
  • Ahh sorry, I meant becuase of the green movement governments have introduced subsides for solar power.
    – user1655
    Mar 28 '11 at 9:05
  • And also the organic panels would be cheaper, its explained eailier on the page. And I think instead of polluters I mean secondary producers who use a lot of power (currently non-renuable).
    – user1655
    Mar 28 '11 at 9:07
0

I don't know that polluters wrapping their buildings in cheap solar has a place in this paragraph; and there's more solar stuff than just panels. But, as the OP makes clear, homeowners must invest in solar for two reasons:

  1. more subsidies
  2. more carbon taxes

So is this a possibility?

The increasing acceptance that we must finally go green means a growing carbon tax on polluters and their customers and, at the same time, greater subsidies for home solar. No homeowner can refuse ever-cheaper solar technology in the face of these tidal forces.

-- pete