Tone is important when looking at the way in which Desi Lydic tries to use points from the other side to delegitimize naysayers. Desi’s tone is very satirical when both explaining the problem and interviewing people. She includes questions in the simplest of terms in order to indicate how straightforward the answer is. While interviewing Tim Estep, an environmental lawyer, she asks questions as to why would an oil plant built not build next to a charter school and instead a public school only miles away. Tim Estep then explains the intersectional and institutional factors regarding race and socioeconomic status that are most likely the reason that this is happening to which Desi replies “I could be crazy, but this might have something to do with race,” (3:34). The satirical tone that she uses alludes to the fact that the root of the issue is something that is very obvious yet people like her who could see these injustices happen are considered crazy. She is using an almost reverse ethos in which she is diminishing her credibility as a journalist by assuming this conservative ideology in order to create credibility around the person she is interviewing.
John Oliver is a British stand-up comedian who is well known for analyzing the viewpoint on political issues. He has covered topics such as vaccines, impeachment, and the Green New Deal. John Oliver begins his skit on Mount Everest uses parallelism and comedy to demonstrate how often Mount Everest is compared to other versions of seemingly impossible tasks. He uses several example of large portions of food, through video clips, such as the “The Mount Everest of ice cream Sundays” and the “Everest of bar foods” to demonstrate the parallelism. Further, into the skit, he uses imagery of the line at Trader Joes in comparison to the traffic near the peak of the mountain. He then moves on to the environmental issue with Everest, which is the trash and human waste. At one point in the skit, he referenced that with the warming temperatures of the planet, “Everest is a fecal time bomb”. In his comedic fashion, he then used an analogy of a baby to show that they too are “fecal time bomb”. The main convincing tactic he uses in his argument is his comedic talent. This draws people to listen and pay more attention to the skit that they are watching.
Additionally, the tone he used in this article also helps him attract the audience’s emotion. In the article, he used “limply”, “lean muscle”, and “bony” to describe these hungry bears. It is easy to arouse strong feelings of public sympathy for polar bears. Rather than saying polar bears are not good at walking, the author beautifies the image of polar bears by stating that “bears aren’t made for walking” and “they’re not efficient walkers”. These detailed phrases and vocabularies can also be good transitions to other paragraphs. For instance, “female bears lost the nursing cub that had started the journey with her.” (Leahy, 2018) Leahy likens bears’ life to a family trip, which can easily to elicit sympathy from some young readers. It also raises public awareness of wildlife conservation. Besides that, as a professional journalist, the author analyzed the tragedy from a neutral perspective without adding any personal attitude. At the end of the article, he uses ethos to remind people to focus on what we can do in the present moment. He cited a sentence from a famous American zoologist who studies polar bears for a long time and also is the 2012 recipient of the Indianapolis Prize, “I don’t know if that poor bear in that video was starving. I do know that the only solution for the long-term survival of the polar bear is to address climate change” (Amstrup, n.d.)
The article “Don’t Let Climate Change Stop You from Becoming a Parent,” which wrote by Gracy Olmstead. He used many pathos and logos to convince his audiences that climate change is not the problem to avoid people having babies and becoming parents. For example, he used logos to argue that human’s consumption is a small part that impacting climate change, “70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that was throwing into the air, comes from three industries, building and construction, electric power, and oil” (Olmstead, 2019). From this sentence, he used the data to represent that human consumption will cause far less pollution than the industries did. In this way, Olmstead argued that having children does not mean to cause pollution. Furthermore, he explained his idea by using pathos to persuasive the readers that people should have more children to lead the world moving forward. For instance, the author demonstrated, “value and goodness inherent in things themselves, and how creation encourages stewardship and responsibility” (Olmstead, 2019). He used pathos in this sentence to support his idea that the world needs children to teach them ideas about protecting the environment and to teach them to know the responsibility that they should take in the future. In this article, the target audience should be parents who confused about whether to have babies or not because of the climate change problem. Olmstead believed the climate change problem could not be solved if all the parents chose not to have babies in the future. Therefore, he used pathos to appeal to the readers and use logos to support the ideas to convince people do not choose to not bring children because of the climate change problem.
Olmstead, G. (2019, September 19). Don’t Let Climate Change Stop You From Becoming a Parent. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/children-climate-change.html.
In the February 13 2019 of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, she discusses the Green New Deal and the Republican response to it. One of the rhetorical devices that she uses are an overall liberal tone that is critical of Republicans. Bee uses this tone throughout the duration of the Green New Deal segement. Bee says this in the first thirty seconds of her show: “There is another terrifying thing that is tearing America apart: The Green New Deal, introduced by Republicans wet nightmare, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” (Bee). This sarcastic tone and rhetoric shows an overall liberal bias. Bee’s overall purpose is to entartain a younger liberal audiance. She accomplishes this goal by making a crude and sarcastic comment relating to the Republican reaction to the Green New Deal.
In her Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article, science fiction writer Usha Lee McFarling explains the extremity of the deterioration of coral reef habitats and how our quick reactions to save them might not be as beneficial as we think. She immediately starts the article with pathos. The first sentence of the article, “The Great Barrier Reef is bleached and dying,” (McFarling 2019) uses a short and curt sentence to invoke emotion in the reader. By starting the article off with a sentence like this one, McFarling immediately catches the readers attention and indicates that the topic of the article is important and dire. McFarling, then, backs up her extreme claim with the statement, “nearly all of the world’s corals are projected to be dead by 2050,” (McFarling 2019). She also uses logos to explain the process of how the ocean’s warming negatively affects coral reef habitats. She describes the race to save coral reefs as “revolutionary” and the various methods introduced to save them as “Hail Mary’s” and “heroic,” to emphasize just how important it is that we save the coral reefs. However, she also states that it is important for us to be cautious so that our efforts don’t “backfire” on us in the process. The goal, is to reverse the harm we’ve done, not cause more harm.
On an episode of Trevor Noah’s The Daily Show, comedian and actress Desi Lydic traveled to a city in Colorado to investigate an incident of environmental racism. In Greeley, Colorado, an oil and gas company had made the decision to start fracking – drilling to extract oil and gas from underground – a quarter of a mile away from an elementary school. In the episode, Lydic utilizes a mix of pathos and logos. Upon realizing just how close the drilling site is to the playground of the school, Bella Romero Academy, Lydic says “That’s fracked,” a humorous play on words. This lightens up the very serious topic that’s being discussed and allows some of the viewers to relax. She then goes on to say “Colorado, I love how chill you are, but with this, you’re being way too chill.” Lydic then sits down to talk with a lawyer who is suing Colorado for allowing the drilling to take place. The lawyer lists out all of the side effects of living near a fracking site as being “asthma, nosebleeds, headaches, congenital heart defects, leukemia, low birth weights, [and] cancer” (Noah). The consequences of living next to this drilling site is a use of logos. The audience is capable of seeing, clearly, why allowing this fracking to take place 1,000 feet from an elementary school is a bad idea and harmful to the students. It is then established that Extraction Oil & Gas, the company doing the drilling, was originally supposed to start fracking near Frontier Academy, 6 miles away from Bella Romero Academy, but the parents of Frontier Academy pushed them out. Frontier Academy is 77% white whereas Bella Romero Academy is 83% Hispanic and 90% of the school qualifies for free or reduced lunch. Lydic, switching back to pathos and humor, says “I could be crazy, but this might have something to do with race” (Noah).
Rhetorical analysis: has brexit delayed the fight against climate change?
Has brexit made a difference in the fight against climate change? Britain has become the first major economy in the world to pass a law ending its contribution to global warming by 2050. The target would require the UK to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.The process of improving climate change has been delayed by brexit. The author USES.. The technique. Brexit has nothing to do with slowing down the fight against climate change, as this article will demonstrate through a rhetorical analysis.
Dave Keating: “brexit casts a deep shadow over the European Union”. He began with a list of the serious effects of brexit on the continent, citing the delays in signing a treaty on climate change. Dave Keating, who is the current President of the free speech institute (formerly the center for competitive politics), a former executive director of the black money group club for growth, a former member of the board of directors of the national taxpayers union, and the inventor of the super pac. writing on Forbes magazine’s official website, insisted that Britain’s decision to leave the eu had created problems and delayed progress in the fight against climate change. It all began with the failure of European countries to agree on how to tackle climate change at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, in June. Poland refused to sign the agreement because it was considered detrimental to their national interests. Poland’s decision to reject the treaty disappointed campaigners. The failure to agree means the eu’s special UN summit on climate change in New York last month came away empty-handed. It had been hoped that the eu’s increased climate targets would prompt others to do the same. But in the end, none of the major economies made new commitments to follow through on the commitments they made at the New York summit under the Paris Agreement. European Union countries plan to achieve full decarbonization by 2050, A strong evidence is that brexit has seriously affected international relations and politics on the European continent. The crisis caused by brexit has not been effectively solved since 2016. It says eu leaders hold four summits a year in Brussels. So their next chance to approve the 2050 plan came at last week’s October summit. But as the brexit crisis continues, climate talks will have to be postponed again. The impact of brexit itself on global climate goals is unclear. The British government has pledged to adopt a carbon policy that matches the eu after the UK leaves the bloc, even though they may start to diverge on environmental standards. The bigger impact, however, is that brexit has derailed the eu’s progress on climate change and slowed negotiations on the global Paris agreement.In the article, the author pointed out that the work schedule had to be postponed due to Poland’s failure to join, but he did not make clear the logical relationship between brexit and Poland’s refusal to join, which would easily cause great confusion to readers. The author puts all the weight of public opinion on brexit, arguing that none of this would have happened without it. He also severely criticized the negative impact of brexit. For example, a diplomat from an eastern European country pointed out that brexit had made it necessary to delay the original smooth plan again and again, and the British parliament repeatedly asked for the date of signing the agreement to be postponed.On
Every day we watch, listen too, and see people always trying to convince of something. This can vary from buying the newest shampoo that Dove comes up with to Doctors telling you that vaccines may cause your child to have autism. Every person, though, may have different methods to convincing you of their opinion. They may use humor, facts, personal opinions, past experiences, and so much more to make you believe what they are saying and come to their conclusion. Have you ever stopped, though, and think about how someone just convinced you of an idea, a product, or any daily activity? In this essay, we are going to look into different videos, articles, and advertisements, and dive deep into how these specific presenters or authors convince their viewers and what methods they use. We are going to discuss a tv episode by the Political Comedian, John Oliver, which explains the New Green Deal. Oliver is known for his quick humor on US Politics, while still giving a genuine drawn opinion. Next, we will look at an article written by the New York Times, which will discuss how the Democratic Party in the USA can pass a globally friendly deal and if they actually can. Finally, we will look into the work of companies who are pledging their company’s progress towards environmentally friendly methods.
One of the biggest problems by the technology developing is resource depletion. For example, petrochemical industry is one of the most important industries in the world, almost everything we could get is produced under this industry, but the origin source of this industry—oil is not a renewable source, once the oil getting into depletion, the modern social system would receive a serious damage, to avoid this happened, the scientists around the world are doing the research about the man-made petroleum. One of the oldest ways of getting man-made petroleum is the Fischer-Tropsch process in 1923, which is also one of the most useful ways to get man-made petroleum and still being used. During World War II, German scientists and technicians used this method to achieve the annual effort to supply 1 million tons of synthetic oil to Nazi Germany. In 1955, this method was introduced to South Africa, which helps South Africa’s synthetic capacity reached 6.5 million tons per year. As picking fruit cannot meet the needs of human survival, human beings have entered the agricultural society, people start to grow their own food, nowadays, as people cannot get enough source for all humanity to have a good life, making alternatives with cheap materials has also become a trend.