Reading texts: comprehension & opinion
Text 1: “The seed of the energy crisis lies in tomatoes – Economists miss the fact that
gas prices aff ect everything, not just fuel bills”
1. Title & subtitle
First, the title contains a play on words, as "the seed" here stands for ‘the seeds of tomatoes,’ but
also to ‘the cause of the energy crisis’. This title says a lot about the content of the text. The
cultivation of tomatoes is closely related to the energy crisis, and this is often forgotten. For instance,
when calculating the consumption basket adjusted for inflation, economists do not count tomatoes
as energy products. This is a big mistake, since tomato inflation is higher than the general rate of
inflation. This is also what Conway means by the subtitle of the article. Greenhouses use nitrogenrich
fertiliser to help the plants grow and almost all of the world's nitrogen-based fertilizer is made from
natural gas. Thus, it is clear that tomato cultivation has a major impact on the energy crisis, but also
energy prices have a major impact on tomatoes and a lot of other things. The author Ed Conway says
this is something economists don’t realise enough, which follows in a wrong approach to solve the
energy crisis.
2. Topic sentence(s)
“Energy costs are not just a sub-category of inflation, they are everywhere.”
Economists do not quite realize what energy is all about. The author gives the example of tomatoes
in greenhouses, whose fertiliser is made from natural gas, but there are endless things that are
entangled (connected) with energy. We recognize this too little, according to the author. We must
first realize this, then try to make our lives less dependent on fossil fuels and only then can we solve
the big energy problem.
“But you can’t really substitute for energy: you go cold or you do nothing.”
Economists still assume that everything is replaceable, but this is absolutely not the case with energy.
We can find other types of energy instead of fossil fuels, but we cannot suddenly live without it. In
the long run, energy is always exhaustible, so we will just have to learn to use less.
3. Difficult words
Word(s) in text Definition/synonym Context
Utterly entangled Completely enmeshed = Our lives with natural gas
independent of …
Odd Weird My mind turns to tomatoes
At extraordinary expense At extremely high costs Bills of natural gas
Indulge me Let me enjoy The thought of good tomatoes
Greenhouse Conservatory Where the tomatoes from the
supermarket grow
,Domestic crop The harvest (oogst) grown Most of this grows in greenhouses
inland
Sprouting from Pop out = bud out The roots drenched in water and
nitrogenrich fertiliser
Nitrogenrich fertiliser Compost that is rich of The roots are drenched in water &
nitrogen (stikstof) nitrogenrich fertiliser
Artificially enriched with CO2 is added by humans The air in the greenhouse
carbon dioxide
(To) yield (To) produce Greenhouse vs typical field
Hydroponics Hydroculture = aquaculture = Most of our tomatoes, cucumbers,
growing plants in water, to peppers,… are grown this way
which the necessary nutrients
have been added
More forensic More socially correct = Hydroponics helps to be more forensic
targeted with a specific with your fertiliser (meststof)
approach
Barely budged Hardly moved = did not really Price of British tomatoes in supermarket
change
Fuelled by Powered by = driven by Boilers of the greenhouses
To aid To enhance = to foster Photosynthesis
Captured from the boiler’s flue The stack from the boiler The CO2 being pumped in
collects (all the CO2)
A fossil fuel (product) (A product that belongs to) de The tomato
fossiele brandstoffen
Are struck by Are affected by = are surprised How little of the basket of goods is
from categorised as energy
To account for Are good for Energy prices account for 10%
A suspicion Something you suspect = a Why FT missed the recent build-up of
guess inflation
Pondering Overthinking = thinking about Tomatoes
Conventional economics The old-fashioned economics = The bug (= error in the system) at the very
economics how we are used to heart of conventional economics
know it (traditional)
Blithely presumes Cheerful assumes The bug presumes
Were heading for Were on the way to An economic cliff-edge
Intervention Involvement Until last week’s intervention
Free-marketeers Entrepeneurs who join the free In an energy crisis, there are no free-
market anytime and anyway marketeers
they want (without limits)
Prevent Avoid (voorkómen) A recession
Which infuriated … Which made … furious The City’s economists
Attempting to Trying to = in an effort to To put a number on it
The biggest peacetime splurge It will disturb the peace totally Liz Truss’s energy guarantee
Frankly Honestly = to be honest Frankly no one has the foggiest
No one has the foggiest No one has any clue Frankly no one has the foggiest
To cut that supply off Will no longer deliver The Russian gas
Lack of detail There are no details About how the energy guarantee will
work
Forthcoming Next Global gas projects
Solvency Whether an organization is The energy guarantee could threaten the
, able to meet its (re)payment solvency of the nation (Europe)
obligations on the ST & LT
Prudent to think Wise to think How we could use a bit less of energy
Be harder to come by Be harder to find Cherry tomatoes
Smack bang in Lower In the gas prices (to hurt Putin)
To disentangle To be less dependent (reliant) The million ways we live vs fossil fuels
A mere appetiser Only a taste = just a preview Tomatoes, in the great industry transition
4. Authors stand & matching key words
The author Ed Conway believes we are trying to solve the energy crisis in the wrong way. First of all,
he wants to make clear why tomatoes should count as energy products. Conway states that most of
our tomatoes are grown in greenhouses and those places use water and nitrogenrich fertiliser, which
is made from natural gas. The author even thinks economists missed the recent build-up of inflation
due to the fact tomatoes don’t count as energy products. So, he says this is the first thing the world
does wrong in relation to the energy crisis. The second thing we do wrong is assuming that we can
find a substitute (alternative product) for energy. Energy is everywhere and we can’t replace it. These
two things, according to Conway, result in an economic cliff-edge. There’s only 1 thing that gives
hope and that’s Liz Truss’s energy guarantee, which might prevent (avoid) the upcoming recession.
No one really knows how it works, nor do people know how many it will cost. Conway thinks there
are two other problems with Truss’s intervention. It doesn’t consider a solution to use less energy in
the future, which is necessary in the long run. Besides, the model doesn’t consider the long run at all,
because it presumes the energy crisis will be over in a couple of years. Concluding, Ed Conway uses
tomatoes in his article to show how wrong we are about the energy problem. We’ll first have to find
a way to be less dependent on fossil fuels before we can even try to solve the big problem.
5. Personal opinion
I agree with the author. We use energy everywhere and we certainly cannot replace it. I do believe
that ways can be sought to replace fossil fuels with wind power, solar power or other new
inventions. In the first place, of course, as the author also says, we must use less energy, because
with only wind or solar energy we can never meet our current energy needs. However, many people
already have solar panels, and research has already confirmed that this makes a big difference.
Unfortunately, this is unaffordable for many people. So, energy must become cheaper, because, as
the text says, Liz Truss's energy guarantee will be a very expensive subsidy that can be dangerous for
the solvency of Europe. Conway also says that Putin benefits from gas prices being so high and this is
another reason why I think we need to find ways to offer a different kind of energy in a cheaper way
in Europe. I think the text contains strong arguments (for example, why tomatoes should be counted
as energy products or why Truss’s energy guarantee is not the only thing we should count on) and
can therefore follow the author completely.
Text 2: “Have South Africans lost the ability to be off ended or must we be intolerant of
intolerance?”
1. Title & intertitles
, The title immediately sets the tone for Harrison's argument. At the end of her argument, she
concludes that the damage caused by hate speech should no longer be tolerated. She thus believes,
like Karl Popper, that South Africans must be intolerant of intolerance. By this she means there must
be a clear line between free speech and hate speech and everything that’s hate speech is absolutely
not-done. This is because hate speech can very quickly harm a person or a group of people. The
Constitution prohibits hate speech, yet it is often not followed. She wonders in the title whether
South Africans can no longer be offended, since so far not many actions have been taken against hate
speech.
Intertitle 1: “There is no right not to be offended”
This contains 1 paragraph on Karl Popper's famous writing. By reading the full text, it is clear that
Harrison follows Popper's point of view. In that regard, it is also smart to make this a subtitle to
support her position. The subtitle refers to the right not to tolerate intolerance. Popper believes that
one must claim this right, because there is no right that says you cannot be offended. Otherwise,
according to him, we will end up in a situation where tolerance will disappear.
Intertitle 2: “How do we weigh competing rights in contemporary South Africa?”
This intertitle refers to the competing interests of society and those of the individual. The interests of
society are still harshly influenced by South Africa's historical past, so ideas of hatred and violence
are still too often supported in society. On the other side are the interests of the victims of this
hatred and violence. They include women who are raped by people with racist, misogynist beliefs.
But many other citizens also feel the damage of hate speech and this, according to Harrison, should
absolutely not be tolerated anymore.
2. Topic sentence(s)
“At this time, however, the harm done by hate speech is too great to be tolerated.”
I chose the very last sentence of Harrison's argument, since this is what she wants to make clear.
First, she explains that hate speech can cause harm in several ways. Then she makes it clear that
while she thinks the right to free speech is important, there should be a clear line between free
speech and hate speech. Then she clarifies Popper's position and compares it to the situation in her
country: hate speech is a form of showing intolerance, but it should not be tolerated just like that, or
else tolerance will eventually no longer exist. In the final paragraphs she clarifies why hate speech is
a very big problem in South Africa, only to conclude that this country needs it to become intolerant
of intolerance.
3. Difficult words
Word(s) in text Definition/synonym Context
The ability The competence To be offended (title)
Derisive Ridiculous Language
Dehumanising Denying the humanity of a Language
person or group
