While reading Colin Beavan’s No Impact Man, I had a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. One of my

Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.

However, just by reading the title of the article, one can feel an emotional connection to Ben and Jerry’s, especially if one is an activist in the field of environmentalism. “Sometimes lofty environmentalism is a cover for crude politics.”(Will) Judging by this quote, one can understand that this article is in fact against environmentalism. The author is targeting environmentalism as a waste of energy and effort. "So every time he digs into his Cherry Garcia, the conscientious environmentalist should visualize (in addition to world peace) a pile of grain, water, farm chemicals, and energy inputs much bigger than his ice cream bowl on one side of the table, and, on the other side of the table, a mound of manure eight times the size of his bowl, plus a balloon of methane that would barely fit under the dining room table."(Will) Here we see the parallel to the title of the article and what it has to do with the problems in environmentalism. The article itself can be considered satirical in that it makes fun of the environmentalist perspective, this can elicit emotion in the reader and can be called an emotional appeal. The tone can be considered humorous as well to the reader who shares the same view about environmentalism as the

While at first the sarcasm may be to lighten the mood and make her seem relatable, the harsh ridicule of the progressive party and their supporters really starts to depreciate her credibility. At first glance, the humorous way she describes the experience of hauling off all the CFLs she’s just recently changed in her home to the recycling center makes her appear to be just another likable character in a story. However, when brass hasty generalizations are made such as, “I’ve always believed Progressives love the planet, but hate the people who live on it”, it really starts to diminish any likability that she has created. Accusing a specific populous of human hatred is callous and very narrow minded. By now any one close to the middle and leftwards has already written her off and any opinions she has to offer. Another example is the ridicule of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) that limits mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. She says the EPA promises MATS will raise kids’ IZs, prevent a substantial amount of premature deaths, reduce heart attacks, and lessen childhood asthma”, she follows this up with, “I’d settle for weight control and whiter teeth”. Whether or not you believe MATS would actually do all these things, it seems pitiless to joke about matters that are so consequential to people from all walks of life. It also reveals contradiction in her reasoning. She rid her home of CFLs because they were hazardous to her family’s health. Yet the EPA’s MATS rule is purely a political move to kill jobs and have us “rubbing sticks together to food”. She either believes mercury is dangerous, hence ridding her home of CFLs, or she doesn’t believe they’re dangerous and the EPA is simply lining their

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

In reading Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and through my participation in the Kivulini Simulation lab completed in class, my knowledge and understanding of the psychological factors that contribute to the logic behind the decisions made by humans that negatively impact the planet we inhabit have significantly expanded. Many of these decisions are made out of ignorance, while others are made despite knowledge of the harm that results from them. There are some ways that I can apply this knowledge to my life in order to contribute to the effort to preserve this planet in the hopes of allowing it to sustain future generations.

Before taking the quiz, I had a mere idea of how I was helping or harming the environment. I knew about recycling, transportation, and some energy sources—but was not aware of many other behaviors. After going through these quizzes, I gained a better idea of my overall impact on the environment; I am now aware that my individual behaviors make a considerable footprint. Nonetheless, after taking the quiz the second time with modified answers, I realized that simple measures can go a long way. Taking the quiz twice made a huge impression, since I gained a new perspective of the significance of individual behaviors. Tweaking just a few behaviors during the quizzes substantially reduced my carbon footprint, which is an astounding discovery. The quizzes, overall, were helpful because they changed my thoughts on what I do, and made me question certain actions. I began asking myself “Do I really need to drive to all of these places?” and “Why don’t I recycle more?” and “How can I save

Many environmentalists advocate and try to convince people about living a life without harming the environment, but they fail to impactfully do so; however, Colin Beavan, a writer and blogger, puts himself to do the impossible: living a whole year without affecting the environment at all, which is more effective than only talking and not doing. Throughout the documentary No Impact Man, in order to convince the audience that they should live an environmentally friendly life, Colin Beavan appeals to ethos and uses imagery countless of times. He shows several moments of doing environmental friendly actions and talks about different associations wanting to contact him or quotes professionals; he also shows many hardships during times when he has to give up things he uses regularly to use less.

On the contrary, opponents of NASA may speculate that overpopulation or ruining our planet will not occur, therefore the time, effort, and money spent on exploring Earth-like planets is useless. In actuality, overpopulation and the diminishing of Earth’s resources and health are working hand in

The world is being sickened by the needs of man in today's society. People, love to live in luxury without knowing the consequences of their actions. This is because man lives at a pace set by himself, and not one that is naturally set by nature. This is shown excellently in a quote inside of the novel Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. The Quote states, “the rapidity of change and the speed with which new situations are created follow the impetuous and heedless pace of man rather than the deliberate pace of nature.” The Earth is experiencing such rapid and disastrous change due to the wants of man. Man demands too much from the earth and not only is this changing the Earth, but it is also depleting many non renewable resources

If we think about the situation we are in, “The environmental crisis” it is difficult to stop this kind of issue just because we are all blinded by other things like our jobs, school, and raising a family. I indeed do understand what the author is trying to stay on how we need not to be selfless and to act upon the things we love but he has to understand that it is all up to a few people living on this planet because out of everyone else living in this crisis they are too busy to even care or notice on behalf of this

As I read Paul Kingsnorth’s introduction in Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays I quickly understood what his main purpose is. It is to make humanity realize what they’ve done and continue to do in this world. We’ve all caused an excessive amount of harm and the destruction of such an astonishing planet.  In the text he states, “

Laura Gabbert’s intriguing documentary, “No Impact Man,” follows the life of one man and his family for one year, as they attempt to leave “no impact” on the earth. Collin Beavan, his wife, and daughter decide to give up the modern day luxuries of electricity, gas-powered transportation, shipped food and public waste disposal. While following the changes made in order to curb their environmental impact, Beaven attempts to persuade the audience that it is possible to live a good life without wasting resources.

In the article “Earth Without Humans,” Bob Holmes describes what negative impacts humans are having on our

According to the calculator, if everyone lived like me, we would need 5.1 Planet Earths to provide enough resources to sustain us all. More specifically, I produce 23.4 tons of carbon dioxide per year and my lifestyle requires 22.7 global acres of the earth's productive area. My footprint breaks down as follows: services that I consume account for 39%, food accounts for 27%, goods for 17%, shelter for 11%, and mobility for 6%.

In order to be an integral part in saving the Earth’s environment and ensuring resources for future generations, the way individuals live needs to change. Being fortunate enough to reside in one of the nation’s most developed countries, I wanted to make sure the way I have been living has been meeting the standards set by sustainable living. Using the overall environmental footprint provided by Global Footprint Network, I was able to pinpoint the areas in my life that needed to improve in order for me to be more sustainable. I chose to use this Footprint calculator because it gives you a breakdown on how many resources from the planet are needed in order to provide for your living standards. Once you have input the information, the calculator provides a general ecological footprint explanation and gives real case scenarios in which you can do to reduce it. The results for my footprint were as follows: If everyone were to live the way I do, we would need 5.3 planet earths to provide enough resources. It would take 23.6 global acres of land for energy production, which would emit 23.6 tons of carbon dioxide, and the biggest impacts on my personal footprint included 36 percent of services, 21 percent food and 19 percent mobility.