Trying to finish this assignment but can't done by my self!

I read this editorial more than ten times but I can't make more progress and I need help. Can you help me with this one please? thanks.

Editorial

"Waiting to Fight Climate Change not a Viable Option"
David Suzuki
June 9, 2002
Scientists and environmental groups often paint grim pictures of a world with a substantially
altered climate. One where rising sea levels inundate agricultural land and lowlying
areas, creating millions of "climate refugees;" one where many species are unable
to adapt to rapid warming, causing extinction and loss of biodiversity; one where air pollution
becomes much worse and water becomes scarce in many regions. The scenarios
aren't pretty.
But the fact is, even if we start reducing our emissions today, we can't stop global warming
in its tracks because the warming has already begun and it will take centuries before
some effects, such as sea level rise, stop entirely. This leads to a common complaint
some critics raise against the Kyoto Protocol, the only international framework set up to
reduce the emissions that cause climate change. Alone, it will do little to curb the problem,
so what's the point?
The point is that the immediate goal is not to completely stop or reverse climate change.
That may prove impossible. Instead, the goal, according to the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, is to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse
gases at levels to "avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate - a
phrase that's hard to say and even harder to define. Dangerous according to whom?

Two scientists explore this question in a recent edition of the journal Science. The researchers,
from Brown and Princeton Universities, define "dangerous" as either warming
that puts unique and valuable ecosystems at risk or warming that risks "large-scale
discontinuities in the climate system" - in other words, warming that severely disrupts
our current environment.
The authors look at coral reefs as a good example of a valuable ecosystem under serious
threat from climate change. These reefs are extremely important for tourism, fishing,
and the incredible life diversity they house. But these ecosystems also exist in a
precarious balance, close to their "upper thermal limits." This means that any increases
in water temperature can be fatal, as has been seen during recent El Nino events,
which caused widespread coral bleaching and death.
Over the past 100 years humans have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide,
the most important heat-trapping gas, in our atmosphere by about 30 per cent, from 280
English – ENG4C Unit 1 – Lesson 3
Copyright © 2004, Durham Continuing Education Page 48 of 88
parts per million (ppm) to 365 ppm. This increase has pushed up global temperatures,
which will continue to rise unless emissions are stabilized and reduced.
Looking at coral reefs, the authors say that preventing severe damage will require a
long term target of temperatures no more than 1 degree C above 1990 levels. According
to the authors, a realistic goal in terms of carbon dioxide concentration is 450 ppm,
which will still result in temperature increases of between 1.2 and 2.3 degrees C over
the next 100 years. Although this goal will not fully protect reefs and other ecosystems,
the authors point out that it may prevent whole-scale disruption of the climate system,
which could result from the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (this alone
would raise sea levels by an astonishing four to six metres), or the shut-down of density-driven
ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream.
How does Kyoto fit into all of this? Well, the authors look at the chances of meeting a
450 ppm target using both the Kyoto emission reduction scenario and a delayed scenario,
where we wait until better technologies are available to reduce emissions faster
later on. They conclude that waiting a decade before starting to make significant reductions
will make it very difficult and prohibitively costly to reach a 450 ppm target. In contrast,
"the scenario consistent with the Kyoto targets in 2010 requires challenging, but
substantially lower reduction rates."
Kyoto, it seems, is more than just one choice in an array of possibilities to "prevent dangerous
anthropogentic interference" with our climate. Given the length of time it takes
to create these complex international treaties and the speed with which emissions continue
to increase, it is actually our only realistic option.

Questions

1. What is the topic of David Suzuki's editorial? (1 mark)
2. What is the author's opinion on the topic? (1 mark)
3. What is the purpose of this editorial? (1 mark)
4a. This editorial relates an opposing point of view or criticism of its claim. What
is that criticism? Quote from the editorial in your answer. (2 marks)
b. How does David Suzuki respond to this criticism? Quote from the editorial in your answer. (2 marks)
5. Relate two pieces of evidence Suzuki uses to support his arguments. (2 marks)

6. Discuss the effectiveness of Suzuki's concluding paragraph. Is this an
effective conclusion? On the whole, is this an effective editorial? Explain your answer.
(6 marks)