Joel Pett Going Green

“Happiness Is a Warm planet”, by Thomas Gale Moore is an article concerning global warming. In the article, Moore claims that “Global warming, if it were to occur, would probably be beneficial to most Americans”. The main points that Moore explains in the article are that everyone will benefit from the rising temperatures, the cost of fighting CO2 emissions cost too much,, and that America will pay the price from third world countries not being able to keep up with new conditions. Essentially, his idea is that global warming would have a positive outcome. He believes that nothing should be done to stop global warming. Moore 's statements that global warming would be beneficial lacks evidence and reason. If nothing is done to stop global

In his essay titled “Climate of Denial”, Al Gore, a well known environmental advocate and former vice president, verifies the reality of climate change and global warming. The piece is an attack on corrupt companies and news outlets that attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not a critical issue. Gore also earnestly conveys our environment’s current state and offers possible solutions that would increase awareness about global warming and begin to revert the planet back to a healthier, more sustainable state. The overarching purpose of Gore’s work is to call attention to the widespread climate change that is occurring. However, he also focuses on the corruption and bias within the media, and their attempts to conceal the truth about global warming. Writing to those who are conflicted about who to believe, he makes a valid argument that defends the beliefs of he and his fellow activists and encourages others to become more active in the climate change issue.

Right away, she starts by referencing to a global warming statistic from the book, Effects of Global Warming. It states, “In 2010, the international community is facing many environmental challenges, including global warming, pollution, and dwindling fossil fuel resources… Scientists estimate that by the year 2030, there will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park (“Global Warming Statistics”) She uses this fact to explain her point in which she states that Americans “could demonstrate a commitment to buying local, and could set an example for global environmentalism” which is a big problem for industrial farms (Spriggs 92-93). This is example helps bring logic to the reader’s mind so that they can process that this paper and become better

In the article “It’s Not Climate Change-It’s Everything Change,” the author Margaret Atwood, starts of by talking about three different pictures. The first one being “The future without oil,” the second, “The future without oil arrives very quickly,” and the third, “Some countries plan for the future of diminished oil, some don’t have any, or don’t need any.” The first picture says to imagine driving around in our in vehicles fueled by hydrogen. Our goods will be coming to us by solar and sail driven ship, and trains and bicycles will become popular again. People start eating locally and start growing vegetables in their yards. Water is having to be saved and low draw lightbulbs are being used because incandescent have been banned. Also the slogan “Heat yourself, not the room” is no longer a slogan, it’s the way we all live now. The air conditioning systems no longer exist so during summer, there will not be huge amounts of power being used. Still imagining, the author discusses what will be wearing and what we will eat. Cotton will be consider too expensive, so recycled tinfoil and plastic will be used for clothing. The idea of obesity will no longer be a problem, and diet plans will be mandatory. This “picture one” is liked by the author because it’s comforting and says it might come true. The second picture the author discuses is “suppose the future without oil arrives very quickly.” Very sudden, there would be no cars, no planes, a few trains, and some bicycles. Water

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

Attention material/Credibility: No we’re not hungry, no we’re not worried. We’re just living life right now. Tomorrow? What is Tomorrow? If we for a second, glimpse into the future, we would see people suffering from the thoughtless decisions we are making right now. I don 't want to see my family starving or without water. If you don 't care about your self, then care for your family, or for your future family. They are the ones that will be affected by climate change.

Gore uses a variety of ways to appeal to pathos and logos. One of the first things he does, is explain global warming, he them proceeds to show a short, funny cartoon to describe global warming. While this short is not exactly accurate, and looks like it is taken from The Simpsons cartoon, it is comical, and he uses this short to intrigue his audience. After drawing us in, he keeps us attentive by sprinkling these little emotional

Pollan uses a serious tone in the article to persuade the audience. The subject of the article is climate change and he keeps a serious tone throughout the entire article. He keeps the serious tone because he does not want people to overlook this problem because it is such a phenomenon. He also uses a sarcastic tone in a few sentences. He uses the sarcastic tone because he wants the audience to look at it and think about it on their own perspectives. In the article, Pollan explains about how he could turn his life around and use less resources. Pollan then says, “what would be the point when I know full well that halfway around the world there lives my evil twin, some carbon-footprint doppelgänger in Shanghai or Chongqing who has just bought his first car that is eager to swallow every bite of meat I forswear and who is positively itching to replace every last pound of CO2 I am struggling no longer to emit.” On the flipside, someone on the other side of the world will be doing the exact opposite. Therefore, he is saying this in a sarcastic tone because he wants people to realize that it will take more than one person to solve

Environmentalists worry so much about the well-being of the planet for merely the human species’ survival. Things such as natural disasters, which reasons.org say “Part of that response acknowledges that the forces behind these ‘natural disasters’ play a critical role in Earth’s capacity to support life.” If people are so concerned about the planet, then people should realize that these natural disasters actually help the Earth regenerate itself. Without these natural ‘disasters’, the planet would not be how it is today. As Nash continues to criticize humans, he states, “...capitalist-driven culture in its cancer-like tendency to self destruct.” Pollution and destruction of wildlife is a problem, but it is something that can be fixed, or having Earth fix itself. Nash is saying that humans are destroying the planet entirely, which is kind of ridiculous. If people were really destroying the Earth as much as Nash says, Earth itself would have already gotten rid of people through things like natural disasters, disease, or natural selection. The Earth will take care of itself and as Tom Haering says, “Nature plays no favorites: Survival of the fittest.”

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Conserving the Earth is one thing that was always a priority. After the industrial era, there was many inventions that had started global warming. This is when people started to build over nature, and killed many trees, and habitats. The progressive era goal was to fix these problems and make America a better place. It first started in Theodore Roosevelt presidency. He believed in conservation, and help make the national park system. Today, United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that in the past century the average temperature has increased by 1.5°F. People believe that this is normal and that global warming is not a real thing and is just fake. Later on, EPA declares that this century the average temperature can increase by

The thesis of “Why Bother?” is “Why bother? That really is the big question facing us as individuals hoping to do something about climate change, and it’s not an easy one to answer.”

It states that Canada’s environment has been a prime resource of a successful and flourishing economy. The party believes that we are treating our environment more like a business in liquidation. Furthermore, they feel we are destroying our environment through excessive wastefulness of natural resources and a consistent lack of protection for the environment. Leaving a “legacy” that future generations will be left to clean up. The green party is a strong supporter of collectivism rather than individualism considering that they long to create a healthy future for all Canadians. The ideologies of capitalism, classical liberalism and individualism in this case would likely seek to prioritize the business side of the environment, further damaging it through continued wastefulness to continue company profits. The Green party believes that it’s the collective’s civic duty to keep our environment safe for all future generations rather than seeing it exploited for

"Save the Planet," "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," "Go Green." Quotes like these have become a commonality in today's age. We all are familiar with the large efforts to help preserve the environment. In "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments," Thomas E. Hill Jr. sums up his essay by stating, "The point is not to insinuate that all anti-environmentalists are defective, but to see that those who value such traits as humility, gratitude, and sensitivity to others have reason to promote the love of nature" (688; par. 4) This excerpt provides the thesis behind Hill's argument. The author found that

Environmental issues such as climate change affect life on Earth every day. As Leonardo DiCaprio discusses in his speech during the Paris Agreement for Climate Change Signing at the United Nations, the only way to diminish global warming, one of the most critical issues of this generation, is to take unprecedented action. By informing the audience with an effective strategy, DiCaprio persuades the delegates to make the right decision that will mold the future. His evidence compliments the coherent use of ethos, logos, and pathos. Climate change is a universal matter that can either persist, or be put to an end.