Critique of the “Not So Green” report

The following is a quick critique of the “Not So Green” report.

I could have been more rigorous and checked more thoroughly into the
sources etc, but the point is just to give a slightly sceptical view of a quick
pass through the document to see if this changes the perception of the piece.

Introduction:
 In the opening paragraph they state that they “draw on Evidence” to
challenge government and industry claims. Do they do this later on? This
is a big commitment on their part
 Where are the citations in the intro? Why are there no references given
for any of their statements?
 They mention Food Harvest 2020 specifically, it will be interesting to see
if they come back to this later on.
 Summary: lots of bold statements made with no citations or direct
evidence. Hopefully these statements will be revisited and supported in
the rest of the article.

Section 1:
 Where are the claims they are addressing?? They give a list of points, but
no where do they refer to the original list. How are we supposed to see
if they are addressing all the claims of the original government/industry
claims if they don’t list them? How can we judge if they are being biased
and only addressing the ones they have support for?
 The citations are better than the intro, but there are still a lot missing.
Particularly in the biodiversity section
 Some of the paragraphs are not relevant to the topic
 The bullet point layout is good, it clearly divides between points being
made. Easy to follow.
 Graphs… why are they there if they are not going to refer to them in the
text?
Section 2:
 The conveying of information is much less clear than in the first section,
especially when they start listing percentages on page 8/9
 There are still a lot of citations missing
 Why are there no figures?
 Overall, the points made seem valid. The conveying of information is
clearer because they don’t have a missing list of claims for this part.

Conclusions:
 They say they “rebut” claims, still with no specification of these nebulous
“claims”
 On the whole, the conclusion is a fair representation of what they
discussed in the main text.
 Good points are made

Figures:
 Why so small? Why no descriptions?
 Why is only one of them referred to in the text.
 They do have the source given, which is the only good thing I can find to
say about them.

References:
 No self-citation which is OK (or at least, not as “stop climate chaos”).
 Sneaky double citations all over the place
 13 citations listed twice
 That’s a 9.23% inflation of the number of sources

Authors:
 Lobby groups and NGOs
 “Environmental Pillar” is more environmentally based. “Stop climate
chaos” has more groups that have a religious basis, or community based.
 Definitely not an authorship that will be likely to give praise to the
government for a job well done