Responding to Kyle's response

            There is not one way someone can help to protect our environment as Kyle Madsen has so eloquently stated in his response paper to my article “Why Bother?” He explains my angle of vision as “too dominant and intense for some readers” and therefore some of my readers may be left out. However, I believe my angle of vision actually helps my article capture readers who would have not read it originally. Going “green” seems to be a popular staple for many companies, such as Starbucks as Madsen has already told us. Therefore, many readers may be more opposed to reading another article which has the same message as the movie which was used to scare people about the “climate change”: An Inconvenient Truth. By using more intense writing, I try to not only relate with my audience but I also do so with a persuasive and knowledgeable affect.

            My constant regard to gardening is just another way that I try to show my audience how easy helping our planet can be. Madsen does not realize that just because I strongly believe that gardening has multiple advantages does not mean that I have not included other ways to save our environment including: “forsake the clothes dryer for a laundry line across the yard, trade in the station wagon for a hybrid…” By reiterating the idea of using gardening as a solution, I try to show my readers that just because it is a way for us to help our planet does not mean that there are not other benefits. Not only does gardening “reduce your carbon footprint” but it also is a way to move your dependence from foreign companies to your own backyard. As a whole, Madsen’s response was a very strong way to suggest “realistic alternatives” and  to “learn to bother for yourself.”