Arctic National Wildlife Refuge : Seasons Of Life And Land

Although Leopold’s love of great expanses of wilderness is readily apparent, his book does not cry out in defense of particular tracts of land about to go under the axe or plow, but rather deals with the minutiae, the details, of often unnoticed plants and animals, all the little things that, in our ignorance, we have left out of our managed acreages but which must be present to add up to balanced ecosystems and a sense of quality and wholeness in the landscape.

By using Pathos, Carter makes a strong emotional argument for the preservation of the wildlife refuge. Carter first uses fear of loss to motivate his audience. Carter even says, “I was saddened to think of the tragedy that might occur if this great wilderness was consumed by a web of roads and pipelines… ” (Carter 4). Carter uses imagery and speaks of the tragedy of a world where the wildlife refuge was lost. However, Carter also makes an emotional argument for the promise of gain. Throughout the article Carter refers to the refuge in many ways such as a “special birthplace” (Carter 3), “America’s Serengeti” (Carter 3), and “America’s last truly great wilderness” (Carter 1). Jimmy Carter explains, “It would be a grand triumph for America if we can preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge… To leave this extraordinary land alone would be the greatest gift we can pass on to future generations.” Carter clearly aims to instill a sense that much will be gained emotionally by keeping the refuge

“Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land” is written by Former President Jimmy Carter in his response about the Arctic National Wild Refuge being preserved and kept safe. Carter is most definitely able to backup his point about this subject by using different forms of rhetorical devices such as logos, ethos, and pathos.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been the center of a strident controversy and national debate that has raged for over 40 years. The question raising so much contention is whether the federal government should allow drilling for oil and natural gas with the levels of contention paralleling the rise and fall of gas prices. The National Democratic and Republican Parties have taken opposing positions in their national political platforms, with the debate emerging and re-emerging in Congress as a significant issue. The Republican are proponents of drilling whereas the Democrats are opposed. With Sen. Lisa Murkowski ascending to the top post of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee many observers believe that the Republicans will renew their push for drilling in the ANWR in the upcoming 114th Congress. This paper will explore the different arguments that are used to oppose drilling to protect the ANWR followed by arguments that are in support of drilling. As a result of a preliminary review of current literature outlining the pros and cons surrounding drilling, it is the thesis of this paper that drilling in the ANWR is unnecessary based on (1) the potential to cause irreversible damage to a very unique ecosystem that has not been adequately studied by scientists; and (2) the limited impact that drilling in the region will have on overall market prices and supplies due to the estimated small size of the ANWR’s oil and gas reserves. A brief history of the

Wilderness in its true state is lush, sleek, and channels water. It is because of its true natural state that is has the ability to generate billions of dollars into America’s recreational economy. One provident example, is the San Gabriel Wilderness in California. Now of course protecting this land has natural benefits,

In a letter from the former United States President Jimmy Carter, he argues the importance of the Arctic National wildlife refuge, expressing the negative impacts that future industrialization of the Alaskan wilderness would have, not only on the environment and organisms living within it, but among the indigenous peoples whom the ecosystem provides.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not only America’s last “truly great wilderness”, but it is home to a multitude of species that would be affected if it were transformed into a place for an oil industry. It is also a symbol of our national heritage where settlers once called it the wilderness. Throughout the essay, Jimmy Carter gives thorough evidence on why we should not destroy this beautiful environment. His evidence includes descriptive language, the use of pathos, and logical reasoning.

In his foreword, President Jimmy Carter proposes his thoughts on oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge. He contends that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be developed for the oil industry. He believes in the preservation of wildlife and the natural beauty that it provides. His argument is solidly structured by a personal anecdote, historical evidence of actions taken towards preservation, and a refutation to advocates of the drilling activity.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is located in the northeastern part of Alaska and has been the topic of many recent political and environmental debates. Many of these

     The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) is a beautiful 19.6 million acre coastal plain, and is located in the Northeastern part of Alaska. ANWR is home to numerous species of wildlife and one of the largest untapped oil preserves in the United States. There is an immense debate between the opposing environmentalists and the politicians who want to drill for oil on a section of ANWR, which is only 1.8% of the refuge. Environmentalists who oppose drilling for oil in Alaska say the wildlife and the native populations are threatened by drilling for oil in ANWR, even though most of the natives are strongly in favor of drilling. ANWR could save the US from having to import $800 billion worth

Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, creates a thought-provoking idea of the separation between people and nature in this excerpt from his book. His opinionated tone forces the reader to be concerned for the future generations by including ironic hyperboles and sarcastic diction, which appeal to the readers’ pathos. He uses these rhetorical strategies to indirectly state his opinions.

In “Last Child in the Woods” the author Richard Louv argues how americans are being separated from nature and why we should stay more involved in nature. He uses several rhetorical strategies to prove his point using imagery and rhetorical questions to convey his message.

Environmental change in the Arctic has been a subject of recent interest within the discourse of global warming, climate change, and indigenous rights; however, scholars have yet to examine the importance of 20th century racial, cultural, and environmental interactions within Northern Canada. Specifically, the Northern areas of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba provide interesting and important issues that are critical to current discussions of global warming, climate change, and water rights and quality because of their location to the Hudson Bay and the intertwined environmental experience. Unlike other areas of Northern Canada, areas in Northern Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario are subject to multiple political systems (i.e. provincial, federal,

Suckling argues mostly in support of the idea of a “Pleistocene wilderness,” yet indirectly, that nature is and was threatened by people, and had we not damaged the planet as we did, the environment would likely be in better shape. However, he looks at from a surveying perspective in that he recognizes that our actions lead to real consequences for nature, and these consequences cannot be taken for granted, taking account of the current state of the planet. Because of his very realistic ideas, I think Suckling would be in support of creating areas of “Pleistocene wilderness.” On the other side of the argument Karieva promotes the idea that traditional conservation is outdated and no longer the way to go with the current state of the environment. When it comes down to it, Peter Karieva argues for sustainable development to combat the issues of global environmental degradation, we must meet the development needs of the present without surpassing the needs of the future. Lastly, the authors of ‘New conservation’ or surrender to development?, make an argument that lines up directly with the idea of “Pleistocene wilderness.” Their argument is saturated with the idea of biodiversity and it’s importance to our environment and wilderness, a key point in the creation of places like Oostvaardersplassen. Ultimately, I think these authors are the most supportive of the

During his time, Aldo Leopold was a conservationist who believed in the longevity of the land and that we should protect it, even if we must protect the land from ourselves. While this was an unpopular opinion, realizing that the land and animals naturally work together in a symbiotic relationship to protect one another was very apparent to Leopold. He believed that humans should be doing our best to lessen our impact on the environment. Time has caught up with Leopold’s ideologies and it is time that our efforts and contributions to the earth did too.