My argument surrounds the topic of tourism. I want to argue for the middle ground or finding a middle ground. I do not feel strongly for either side but I do feel strongly that in finding solutions for preserving our planet, they must be reasonable and achievable or they will never happen. I also feel strongly that it is much more important for many to be imperfectly sustainable rather than a few do it perfectly. As mentioned by Hassan Minaj, cruise ship creates massive amounts of waste, even when it is broken down into individual amounts of waste. On the other hand, refusing to fly as Greta Thunberg is also not reasonable within reasonable means. When traveling to the United States, she sailed from Europe. Most average citizens can neither afford the money or the time needed to use boats to travel across continents. My purpose would be to find a middle ground between the two extremes or creating lots of waste while traveling, or creating next to none. I am still unsure of who I would be convincing and my audience. My plan was to talk with people in the Zero Waste Club at AU and see where they stand or how they have chosen to bring sustainability into their lives, especially in regards to travel and tourism or possibly study abroad and move from there.
During our period in writing 101 courses, we have been focused on the Anthropocene. Inside and out of the class, we have been able to explore different pieces of this catastrophe, and we were able to form our own opinions. During the course, I was also able to gather ideas from many different people from very different and similar backgrounds. With all of this discussion and research, I was able to come out with my views on the Anthropecene. Like most people around the world, I believe it is one of the most significant issues this generation will be faced with, and we will see the ripple effect beginning to take shape in the ages to come. We must’ve t begin to act now in saving what little we have left of our environment, and all that inhabits it. Unfortunately, politicians have been lacking to pass laws to help this issue. The governments around the world are the overarching bodies that control all people for the better. Even though they are the ones who control the people, they’ve been still controlled by big business and support only short-term goals for the benefit of our economy in five years. Many politicians say they are for the people, but they only look at the time they are in office, not towards the future. I don’t think this issue should be party-based, but people-based. We must use science and statistics to show what is happening and what will, and then act on this research to better our future and prevent destruction and death to our world.
I want to argue that although people find it easy to turn to businesses and the government to fix climate change people also have to hold themselves accountable. We cannot simply blame the government and businesses for climate change because regular individuals add to climate change through consumerism and consumer culture. People usually do not recognize the role they play in causing climate change and do not understand that their actions influence businesses and government officials. Unfortunately, we rarely consider the role of consumerism in climate change. According to Grist.org, “A new study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that the stuff we consume — from food to knick-knacks — is responsible for up to 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and between 50 and 80 percent of total land, material, and water use.” It’s clear that the things that we buy and use add to emissions and pollution in the atmosphere. We fail to realize that businesses were built to serve the people. If we do not demand the products we use, businesses have no reason to supply them. Therefore, regular individuals are as much to blame as businesses and government officials. So, we must begin to take measures that we are not as comfortable with. Instead of simply recycling, we need to also stop buying and using cars. We cannot keep believing that our individual actions will do nothing and then give up. Instead, we have to keep working to make bigger institutions bend to our will.
I feel strongly about this topic because the UN’s climate report of the 2040 deadline is very alarming. In 2040, many people could lose their lives. My generation will live to see this year but older generations may not. This is why my audience consists of American University’s young liberal students, who are subscribed to AWOL Magazine, the venue in which I would be posting my article. I want to convince these young liberal students to start doing more to reduce their carbon footprint because I believe younger people are more radical and willing to act than older audiences. In addition, I believe that young progressives will care more about this issue because they believe climate change is a real problem that directly impacts the younger generation.
In Essay 3, I want to argue that environmental racism is a dangerous phenomenon and stopping it is a key element that must be considered in solving the climate crisis. I believe that environmental racism is not being acknowledged heavily enough and that it must be addressed when we talk about climate change. I feel really strongly about this because I am a black person who has been directly affected by environmental racism. In my home state, Mississippi, environmental racism is taking place in several communities, including my own. I live on the predominantly black side of town and several plants and oil refineries are based within 5 miles of us. On my side of town, the number of people who have campus is incredibly high and my family has chronic sinus and ear infections due the toxic air.
I would want to argue this position for the environmental groups on campus. This includes Tree Huggers AU, Fossil Free AU, Sustainable Ocean Alliance AU Chapter, etc. They are already aware of the climate crisis; however, they may not be addressing the ways that its uniquely affecting people of color. My purpose as a speaker is to persuade them to push for action on environmental racism and to center environmental justice in their work. It is important to convince them because they are already doing work on the climate crisis and they already have a reputation that carries a lot of weight.
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.