I thought it was very factual and objective, but lacked depth and sourcing.

The writer remained objective and gave a rounded account of the environment. I thought it was different because it gave a positive outlook on the progress we have made. This is more effective then the usual scare tactics since it shows growth and hope for the future.

The article was to the point and factual, the writing was not over elaborate or too detailed. I thought it was very relevant to our current resource issues.

I thought the subject was relevant, but I don't trust this publication very much. It was well sourced and it needed more explanation on the affects, how does this effect the air quality?

I thought it was one sided and didn't have enough facts. For instance the writer often said things like the numbers have grown over the past years, but then didn't give the numbers or statics that seemed reliable. I did think it was a passionate article and that it drew attention and equally passionate responses.

I found the article very interesting, but I wasn't sure where all the information was coming from. The data was intriguing and very relevant to the issues of the present day

I thought this article was interesting because it was more of a news analysis which gave both sides without being biases.

I think the article gave a well arounded article but I found it to be commercial and little bit off center in some areas