Lego 's Partnership With Oil Interests And The Destruction Of The Artic Gave Greenpeace

III. Purpose and stance; Here’s where we “read” the ad and describe it – visual rhetoric

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.

The advertisement that was chosen for this project covers that of gun issues, especially with the increase of school shootings over the years. Right off the bat with the advertisement come at full force with the message it wants to spread and the change it wants to bring. On the left side there is a young boy holding a Kinder egg; which is banned in the US as a hazardous toy. Whereas on the right there is a small girl who is holding a rifle of sorts. Both children hold a steady and grim gazes as they stare at the viewer; it is meant to be in a way unsettling and putting off because we never want to see children in any sort of harm's way.

Is developing the Arctic for oil and natural gas worth the powerful negative impact on the environment and native communities? The article published on September 20th, 2013 by Jennifer Weeks titled, “Future of the Arctic” examines the Arctic and the controversies within it. In the pro/con section of her article, Weeks asks the question, “Should the United States suspend Arctic offshore drilling?” Senator Mark Begich argues that the resources in the Arctic are too great of an opportunity to miss out on. Although Arctic drilling is a controversial topic, many people believe it should continue because of the financial and ethical circumstances; however, evidence to support this is lacking, which leads to the other side of the debate to be in

When analyzing images for visual rhetoric, it is an important step to note first impressions that one gets from an image. Understanding the context of this image is crucial to analyzing which types of stakeholders would utilize these visually rhetorical strategies. Examples that come to mind include: ecosystem preservations organizations, entertainment companies that use animals and carry a message of conservation (e.g. SeaWorld). A more cynical mind might consider an oil company to use these visual strategies in order to convince the masses that their drilling for oil actually is environmentally conscious, regardless of how accurate that claim may be. Taking into consideration the calming green and blue hues as well as the inspiring “mission

This advertisement speaks on a mostly visually level. It shows that pollution is a problem; which is constantly growing. By donating/planting trees you will be able to reduce the amount of co2 that is produced by factories, cars, etc. The company, Plant for The Planet, through this ad where able to get their message across. This was accomplished because they used logos, ethos, and pathos.

The news media often chose to highlight the views of environmental groups who had originally been opposed to Exxon’s drilling. These groups “traditionally feared oil development and oil tanker traffic in Alaska, and the opposed the trans-Alaska pipeline from the onset” (Birkland, 1998). They would, therefore, typically offer opinions that were most vehemently against Exxon and would make for more interesting news.

The smoke coming from the factory in the poster is shaped like a hurricane; a foreshadowing of what will be a result of global warming in the future. In the second poster, a waddle of penguins is portrayed traveling across a dry desert, which was used to interest an audience focused on the effects of global warming on the environment and animals. While the first poster’s image focused on the cause of global warming, this poster focuses on the effects of global warming. The picture shows that global warming will drastically change the environment and that animals will lose their normal habitats. It is important that both audiences are targeted in order to increase the number of viewers of the

I believe there could be some accuracy in his claims because some companies do imply that green energy could be a scam just to get others to agree with their efforts. Furthermore, a lot of greenwashing takes place which can cause for even more concern.

The modern advertisements for the companies, that pollutes the ecosystem, are created to greenwash the public images for the organization. Most of the big manufactures spends much bigger amount of money and time on its commercials to pretend to be clean or green other than actually developing the business to minimize the environmental imapct. In 2010, one of the popular gasoline company Chevron launched a campaign: 'We Agree," that represents that Chevron agrees and cares about the pollutions around the world. One of the images, that Chevron used, states "Oil Comapnies Should Fix The Problems They Create" with a picture of nature filled with the sludge from the gas companies and there is "We Agree" printed under the statement. This advertising angered some audience because many people believed that the Chevron was only pretending to care and the people changed the slogan to "Oil Comapnies Stop Pretending They Care," and made a "Chevwrong" nickname. For another example, there are many bottled water companies that produce a large amount of the plastic bottles.

Even with advanced technology at our fingertips, there is the potential for errors which could lead to oil spills. If a spill occurred in this region, the effects could be detrimental to the ocean. Oil and gas industries have plenty of experience and history of preventing oil spills, but they have “little experience in containing and cleaning up oil spills” (“Oil”). With the possibility of polluting the water, the plan for Arctic drilling loses the votes of all environmentalists, a group that is not to be trifled with. If authorization to drill in this region relied upon the approval of the environmentalists, it could be nearly impossible because of their strong lobbying power. The drilling is also viewed as a diversion to the country’s real dilemma, which is its disproportionately high rate of oil use. Americans guzzle up over twenty-five percent of the world’s total oil consumption. The United States should be working on making vehicles more fuel efficient so that a gallon of oil goes a long way rather than sucking the earth dry of all its oil. This fact, by itself, is seen as a more pertinent problem on which the country should focus instead of increasing available production. Another reason against the drilling in the Arctic region is that, even if the drilling is approved, there may not be as large yield as expected. All the statistics about how much

company. The argument I will present will be about how Shell is able to convince the reader .Convince the reader to believe the image that they put out for themselves through the use of visual rhetoric. Shell uses such visual rhetoric such as colors, text, size of image, image placement, in image visuals. The oil company Shell produced an ad with about a 60% picture and 40% word space. The ad was published in National Geographic. The ad hopes to develop a positive image of what the company is about, the colors are blue and show sadness of the current situation of

No matter someone’s political view, personal beliefs, or behaviors, it is undeniable that the Earth is slowly crumbling as it ages and humans have some part in that. We leave our carbon footprint all over the world, especially America. Fortunately, there are many people out there that are working on trying to fix the mistakes of others and are helping to clean up this Earth. Some of these people are what makes up the organization Greenpeace. It has a background of being a leading organization in the country. Like OD, Greenpeace is focused on education, having a long range prospective, looking for creativity in their volunteers, and working together as a group.

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

This shows how important it is, to let the public knows that their actions actually matters to the world. Especially during my study abroad program, where I travelled to a number of European countries, it is obvious to me that the Northern Europe is way more aware of this situation and their way of living is comparably more conscious of their actions than the current situation in the United States is. Comparably, if the United States can have the same state of mind as these “Green” countries, the ripple effect will be way stronger than those countries as well. This gives me a strong motion to educate my future clients about the impacts they can make and how they can actually do the world a better good.