One of the interesting things about biodiversity (as a political issue) is that it's extremely difficult to find anyone sane willing to speak against it (i.e. "biodiversity is not important"). There's a good reason for this: biodiversity is crucial to our continued existence on this planet. To get a sense of why this is the case, read this brief article:
David Mussared - Biodiversity in Your Backyard
Even though most people agree that biodiversity is important, sometimes the preservation of biodiversity interferes with economic development. When biodiversity and economy clash, there is often heated debate as to which is more important. This is the case with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling controversy.
Some argue that a large-scale drilling project in Alaska would threaten biodiversity in a pristine wilderness region and is therefore a bad idea. Others contend that the economic advantages of drilling outweigh the biodiversity issues. Read the two articles below:
1.) Paul Driessen - "It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling"
2.) Susan McGrath - "The Last Great Wilderness"
Then answer these three questions in relation to each article:
1.) What is the argument of the article?
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
Post your answers in the "COMMENTS" section of this entry before class on Wednesday.
16 comments:
"It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling" - Paul Driessen
1) Driessen's main argument is that congress should over look the environmentalists "nonsense," and advocate drilling of oil in Alaska.
2) Driessen supports his argument with an array of facts: he reports that by drilling in the U.S. this would lower our dependency on foreign oil, and create jobs.
3) I don't find Driessen's article convincing, however, I do feel that he does bring a few valid points forward in terms of the economy, and foreign oil. His article has a very aggressive tone to it. He pokes fun at liberals and wildlife conservationalists. His article leaves me with a bad capitalist taste in my mouth. This is such a diverse topic. It seems almost impossible for any society to thrive without putting the expense of another on the line.
"The Last Great Wilderness" - Susan McGrath
1) McGrath takes the environmentalist position in her article. She advocates that conservation of wildlife should be of a higher priority than drilling for oil in Alaska.
2) McGrath seems to make the article appear personal to the reader; the article reads mostly like a journal entry. She details her travels through the tundra, and what wildlife she encounters.
3) I am not convinced by McGrath's article either. I was expecting some more evidence to back up the conservationalist perspective, instead her article reads more like a report on caribou. The article didn't leave me with any closure.
It's time to support ANWR drilling
1. The argument of this article is that there would only be a small percentage of drilling done, affecting little of the Alaskan plain. Also, these resources are necessary for America enconomically and industrially so much be extracted.
2. Driessen says that while America has no problem agreeing to obtain oil from other countries, they disagree with the oil lying right under our feet. He also states that it would put many Americans out of work. There is a high demand for petroleum, and not using our technology that is environmentally safe would be useless.
3. I somewhat find the article convincing, because he relies on mostly common sense. Driessen writes as he is having a conversation with the reaer, and makes sure he gets his point accross.
The Last Green Wilderness
1. The argument of the article is that the Arctic Refuge is one of the only areas that is completely wild, and we should do everything to keep it that way.
2. McGrath introduces the article, and continues the article by using a story from her own personal experience. She lets the reader know that she has had direct interactions with the animals and wonderful wildlife that exists in the ANWR. It almost puts a sense of guilt on the reader as well, because she explains the effects on species there when they are forced to move closer to the mountains or conditions get harsh.
3. I also found this article convincing, but I felt like she overexaggerated some parts. McGrath used statistics, even some that opposed her own opinion, which was very effective.
It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling
1. Driessen argues that we should drill in Alaska due to it being only a small amount of drilling and that the environmentalists are wrong.
2. To support his argument Driessen says that allowing this drilling will not only create jobs for America, but also make us less dependent on foreign oil. Driessen also takes a shot at the opposition that seem to think drilling in America is bad, but it is ok for us to drill in sensitive areas of other countries and buy oil from dictators.
3. I find this article convincing because the way that Driessen presents his argument with statistics and comparisons.
The Last Great Wilderness
1. McGrath sides with the environmentalists in her article and says that the wildlife conservations is more important that the drilling in Alaska.
2. McGrath starts of with personal accounts of her time in the tundra. This can be seen as a way as almost trying to bring the reader into the tundra with her and add guilt to anybody who is in favor of the drilling.
3. I did not find this article convincing because of the journal-like opening that made me completely uninterested in the article.
"It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling"
1. The argument of this essay was that anti-oil policies are hurting jobs, the poor, and future generations in America. Driessen also argues that drilling in the ANWR is crucial to our economy.
2. Driessen’s main technique for his argument is trying to evoke anger in the reader. He begins by saying that what environmentalists say is nonsense and that senators go against their constituents’ interests. He also states that the oil companies make “obscene” profits and that senators from the Midwest, Northeast and California won’t pass bills allowing drilling in the ANWR for that reason. These claims are not things that you would hear people saying walking down the side-walk, they evoke feeling of anger and disappointment about representatives in the government. He also states that by drilling for oil overseas we are allowing for American jobs to go overseas. Driessen also makes light of the impact drilling could have in on the environment stating that the ANWR is only 2,000 acers and that they would only drill during the winter months when the animals are not around. He also states that it has been estimated that 16 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from drilling in the ANWR, which would be very beneficial for our economy.
3. I though this article was somewhat unconvincing. I thought that by making light of what environmentalist were saying made him lose a bit of his creditability since environmentalist are scientists and have done lots of research n this topic. I think he would have been better off just disagreeing with what they were saying instead of making fun of it. I also felt as if he was trying to speak for everyone when he stated that senators are not looking out for their constituents’ interests but he doesn’t know how everyone feels about this issue. This article also lacked discussion about issues with pollution. If we do drill in the ANWR that will provide more gas and more gas will lead to more pollution, which will affect the environment. I think we should spend more time investing in alternative energy sources such as ethanol made from corn or sheets of algae. Not only would these sources help solve the oil problem but they are also much better for our environment. I also though that it was very unrealistic that he thought that they could only drill for oil drilling the winter months and while they were not drilling during the summer the animals would come back. If we started drilling there we are going to have to build pipes and buildings and other things that would become a part of the landscape so the animals would not just be walking around on land that was exactly the same as it had been prior to the drilling.
"The Last Great Wilderness"
1. The argument of this article is that the wildlife in the ANWR is very important to the animals that live there and that drilling for oil would be detrimental to their environment.
2. McGrath’s main technique is playing to the emotions of the reader. She tries to create a sense of moral obligation in the reader that we should not drill in Alaska. Throughout the article she describes the landscape, using lots of imagery, as very serene. She also brings up examples of oil spills that have occurred in Alaska such as the Exxon Valdez spill. This presents the oil companies as irresponsible and unreliable. It also raises questions about how drilling for oil could ever be environmentally sensitive. By talking about the Eskimos she also instills a sense of historical importance in the land. She also describes the industrial site that is already in Alaska as a very dingy place with pipes and building everywhere and states drilling in the ANWR would push the animals towards the mountains where there are less resources for the animals.
3. I didn’t find this argument as convincing as I wish it had been. I think coming from an environmentalist perspective and studying the area around the drilling site she should have provided more facts and statistics. She also could have provided more examples instead of just a narrative about her experience in Alaska. I do think that this article presents more accurate facts abut how much oil we could expect to receive from drilling in the ANWR but it also does not dispute any of the claims made by the first article such as how the oil would benefit the economy. I thought that it should have least illustrated why saving the animals is more important than the money we would get from the oil.
Biodiversity in your Backyard by David Mussared
1) Argument of article? – The central argument of this article is that even if we can do without a certain single species in the present, who knows if/when we’ll need it in the future.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – Scare tactics are used. Mussared also brings up how many animals/plants/living things we depend on every day and how many are in a single suburban backyard. The last paragraph brings up new efforts made by the global Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve Australia’s biodiversity.
3) Is the article convincing? – I thought even this simple and brief of an article was convincing. He made some good points when referring to biodiversity as the earth’s ‘insurance policy’, such as the possible life saving drugs that some time in the future could be extracted from an Australian plant.
It’s Time to Support ANWR Drilling by Paul Driessen
1) Argument of article? – Driessen’s main argument is that ANWR drilling is very necessary for the increased demand of petroleum and oil.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? – Tries to argue a sympathetic side by bringing up how without drilling in Antarctica it will be increasingly harder for the poor people to pay their bills. Also, he argues it would create more jobs.
3) Is the article convincing? – I didn’t think this article was convincing in some parts and not convincing in others. I though it was unconvincing for one because I’m against the drilling in the first place. Also, because I thought it was bad for his argument to bring up that everybody in Congress (not even the Republicans), which is filled with elected officials the American population greatly respects, plans to vote against the drilling. Obviously not everyone is a supporter of everyone in Congress, but he made it sound like every single person is against it. One thing I did think was rather convincing was the idea that drilling in Antarctica would create 700,000 jobs and would eliminate the need to import $800 billion worth of foreign oil.
"It's Time To Support ANWR Drilling" Paul Driessen
1) The main argument of this piece is that Congress should go ahead and pass Bush's bill allowing drilling in the ANWR, despite what those crazy environmentalists say.
2) He uses facts in support of the drilling such as more American jobs, less dependence on foreign oil/trade, how small of a section would actually be affected by the drilling.
3) It amazes me that we can consider destroying a place that takes hundreds of years to develop, for a resource that could possibly last us only a year. Think about all the money put into survey and drilling of that land, is it really worth wasting all that money on oil when it is going to run out so fast? Why not put those millions towards renewable energy exploration?
"The Last Great Wilderness" Susan McGrath
1) McGrath sees the ANWR with her own eyes and comments on what an amazing place it is and how drilling has affected and could further affect the numerous ecosystems that exist inside.
2) She uses a number of facts from environmentalists and workers inside the Reserve, along with her personal research on the types of wildlife and plant life inside. She also visits the drilling fields and has information from workers at BP. She uses these facts, along with her own experience in Alaska to show how special and important this place truly is.
3) She talked about her trip and what she learned and saw along the way. It read as more a narrative of her adventure than any sort of call to protect the ANWR from oil drilling.
Article 1
1. The article argues that drilling for oil should be allowed in Alaska.
2. The author tries to create sympathy for poor Americans and claims that the drilling will create jobs and bring money back to the poor. He also argues that no animals are alive around the areas that would be drilled.
3. I would have to do more research on the topic, but if what Driessen writes is true, I find his argument pretty convincing.
Article 2
1. She argues that drilling for oil in Alaska would be detrimental to the endangered wildlife living there.
2. The author writes about her personal experiences in the wild and tries to create a mental image of what the Alaskan wild is like. She tries to use this image to create guilt for those who don’t protect the animals.
3. I don’t find the argument convincing. The author comes off as a biased environmentalist who isn’t open to any other ideas than her own.
"Its Time To Support ANWR Drilling"
1. The main argument of this article is that the economic benefits of drilling in ANWR is much larger than the negative effects it would cause on the environment.
2. Driessen tries to convince the reader by giving all these stats on how much oil is actually there. Also, he tries to minimize the biodiversity in ANWR by basically saying its cold, barren land with hardly any wildlife.
3. I do not find the argument convincing for a couple of reasons. The oil that would be extracted from there will eventually run out, but the effects on the environment from drilling for oil would last for much longer. Also, this land must be protected for a reason, and just because it is treeless and you dont see big animals roaming around doesn't mean it is not important.
"The Last Great Wilderness"
1. The argument of this article is that ANWR is a "one of a kind" environment that could be forever ruined if drilling for oil is allowed.
2. McGrath gives a detailed account of her trip to ANWR which paints a picture to the reader about the area. Also, she tells about the effects drilling for oil would cause in a non-confrontational way.
3. I find this article convinving because you get a sense on how important this land really is to so many species. When I think of northern Alaska, i don't realize that far, cold land would have much value. But when I really look at how it is a habitat for so many species, I realize the significance of protecting this land.
Rachel Post
“It’s Time to Support ANWR Drilling,” Paul Driessen
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument is that pumping oil in the ANWR should take place. Driessen argues that the hype over the refuge is not as big of a deal as has been publicized. He thinks that the increase in jobs and the short time oil companies would take in the ANWR will outweigh any problems it might cause to the ecosystem.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author starts the story with a menacing statement, which grabs the reader’s attention. He uses a rhetoric writing style to try to convince readers to agree with his point of view.
3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I don’t find the argument convincing, because Driessen didn’t back up his arguments with enough evidence. He doesn’t present the other side of the story and too easily dismisses anyone who feels the opposite.
“The Last Green Wilderness,” Susan McGrath
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The argument is that the ANWR should not be invaded in order to pump petroleum.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
McGrath uses a storytelling technique, appealing to the reader’s emotions. She integrates facts and arguments into the story.
3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find the article convincing because she supports her point of view with many credible sources, while telling an important story.
Paul Driessen Article
1. The article argues that drilling in Alaska should be done. So much oil could be safely taken from the ANWR area that is seems stupid to let it just sit there. Since gas prices and heating bills are going way up, we might as well use what resources we have as opposed to always relying on other countries.
2. The author uses the fact that people are tired of rising gas prices. If we could retrieve oil from the Alaska area, gas prices would fall and people would be happier. It also says that local wildlife populations wouldn't be drastically affected either.
3. I do find the argument convincing. If no wildlife are going to be affected, then why not? We need to oil for our growing country, and we need to start relying on oursevles more.
Susan McGrath Article
1. The article argues that drilling should not be done in Alaska, and that it should keep its natural, wild state.
2. The article uses many stories. She describes how animals live in the area and that humans should not encroach upon that land.
3. I don't find the article convincing. It was too long, and the stories left me bored and distracted.
It’s time to support ANWR drilling
1. The central argument to this article is that we should drill for oil and natural gas in ANWR because it is necessary to our economic future that we do so, and that it wouldn’t have any negative effects on the environment.
2. The main way this article pushes its point is by talking about how badly the economy needs these resources. The author repeats the idea that doing nothing will only hurt the economy, productivity, and the poor. The author does this in an attempt to make the reader feel like not drilling in ANWR is un-American and by doing nothing we turn our backs on our country and our people.
3. I did not find this article convincing at all. The author, as previously stated, talks about how not drilling is hurting the economy and the poor, and says that if we drill in ANWR that we could save the economy and all our problems would be solved for decades. He talks about how rising energy prices are making it difficult for the poor to heat their homes and whatnot. I think I’ve got a solution to that that does not involve drilling: STOP BANNING WOOD BURNING STOVES AND FIREPLACES!!! In many places the government is not allowing people to use wood burning stoves or fireplaces to heat their homes. The people must pay the government to heat their homes for them. THAT’S what’s making it difficult for poor people to heat their homes. My grandparents live in the country and use a wood-burning fireplace to heat their home, and their heating bill is next to nothing! But the government won’t allow that anymore. The government isn’t making enough money during the winter off people like my grandparents, so guess what? NO FIREPLACES FOR YOU!!! *maniacal laughter* The author also states that drilling would have no harmful effects to the environment because it’s in a desolate polar region and there is no wildlife there anyway. Even so, taking drilling equipment and machinery to multiple locations in a polar region could be part of the reason why the polar regions are decreasing: machinery replaces polar regions = less polar regions! (sucks!). He also mentions that the oil and gas we could get from drilling these areas would fuel the economy for decades. But what happens after that? We’re in the same boat, but now we’ve destroyed more of the natural part of the earth and are therefore left with even fewer resources to utilize in possibly finding a more renewable, efficient energy source. In short, the author only seems to be concerned with making money in the short run, and doesn’t consider how the actions he’s proposing could affect the world in the long run.
The Last Great Wilderness
1. The central argument of this article is that we should not drill in ANWR and should instead preserve it for the sake of the wildlife that calls the place home.
2. The author talks a great deal about the beauty and wonder of ANWR through personal stories, and about how it would never be the same if we drilled there. She also includes conversations she has with various people about this debate, to show the different sides of the issue. One conversation with Ken Boyd, the former director of the Alaska State Division of Oil and Gas, includes Ken saying that he would not consider any part of the Wildlife Refuge off-limits to drilling, and that sentence really bothered me that he would not want to keep any part of the area, which has been designated solely to the wildlife (hence the name Wildlife Refuge!) off-limits to oil drilling. The author goes into much greater detail than the author of the first article (“It’s time to support ANWR drilling”) and seems more like a sensible person, rather than just a money-hungry economist.
3. I did find this article convincing, or at least more convincing than the first article. Though I must admit that I was already strongly in favor of this article’s viewpoint over the first, so I don’t know how objective I have been. I think one thing that really made this argument work better than the first argument is the fact that the author includes conversations with other people so that the reader gets more than one person’s opinion. The first article is simply one man’s opinion about this issue (and honestly he sounds like a dumbass to me), while this one includes multiple opinions, including one from someone who is in favor of drilling. I think this article appeals to more people, because it touches the human side of nearly every person on the planet (though obviously this side is buried deeper in some people than in others), while the first article only reaches those people who are more economically minded and only think about money. Unfortunately, many politicians are in the latter group, so I think this article would be more effective if it would add a little more about economics rather than simply emotions and “save the animals” simply because that approach doesn’t work on everyone. Again, I did find this article to be much more convincing than the first, but there is still more that could be added.
Paul Driessen - "It's Time to Support ANWR Drilling"
1.) What is the argument of the article?
The author argues that the prosperity of the US and people, particularly the poor, are more important than biodiversity. He explains that the lack of petroleum is driving up the cost for fuel and hurting the economy. The poor suffer the most because of the cost.
2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
The author uses various techniques to convey his argument. He appeals to ones emotions (pathos), when arguing for the poor. The article begs the question, are organisms more important than the well being of people? Paul Driessen presents the economic benefits of using American oil instead of soaking the cost of imported oil. He disproves the argument of environmental effects.
3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
I do not necessarily agree with Paul Driessen argument but he does raise good points that affect our nation. I find the argument somewhat convincing because of what Driessen is arguing for.
Susan McGrath - "The Last Great Wilderness"
1.) What is the argument of the article?
a. Susan McGrath argues that because of the wild precious land in Alaska, we should not drill for oil. It will have negative environmental effects.
2.) 2.) What techniques does the author use to persuade the reader?
a. The author uses massive amounts of resources and evidence to support her claims. She also uses her personal experience to show that human activity truly does influence the environment
3.) 3.) Do you find the argument convincing? Why or why not?
a. I do not find the argument convincing but I do agree with what the author argues.
McGrath
1.) Everything and everyone on this earth are codependent on each other. Wild refuges should remain wild.
2.) She discusses legislation that has affected biodiversity and the history of specific issues.
3.) Yes, she knows what she’s talking about.
Driessen
1.) Money’s more important than the earth.
2.) He discusses the governmental and economic sides of the issue, instead of the environmental side.
3.) No, I find it difficult to be convinced by opinion pieces because I already know where I stand on issues.
My responses to the questions of the other 2 articles were posted earlier. **And to correct myself earlier I wrote Antarctica instead of Alaska on accident.**
The Last Great Wilderness by Susan McGrath
1) Argument of article? - This author is clearly against the and she’s arguing to preserve the Alaskan wildlife.
2) Techniques used to persuade reader? - Along with the first two authors, McGrath plays on our sympathetic side by bringing up the caribou and helpless wildlife of Alaska. It was interesting that she could bring her own experiences
3) Is the article convincing? - This article is about as convincing as the first article. McGrath’s article is more complex and makes up for what Driessen’s article lacks in seriousness. Although the ‘storytelling’ tone of this article is a little distracting at times, it’s message is clear. Also, the beginning starts off pretty slow and might cause a few readers to lose interest, especially if they’re only interested in her take on the drilling.
shawn finney
1. the main arguement is to drill in the protected area bc it will help the poor and economy
2.his support comes from "strong" facts
3. i dont find the arguement convincing bc i know the oil wont last long and this dependencey on oil needs to end sooner than later
1.he says in his argument that we should go the enviornmental way, by not digging
2. he makes it as though its a jurnal entry giving details to make the reader seem like its there
3. i found this one a little more convincing bc i feel we shouldnt dig for it even though i think the global warming is a little exadruated, it could of given some more stats and numbers evidence
Article 1
1. The argument of this article was that biodiversity is a serious issue and something needs to be done about it soon.
2. The techniques used to convey this argument is that the author uses a lot of facts and statistics to express just how many different species live in a single backyard. The author also goes on to show a chain reaction of events that implies that all species are connected and if one is disrupted, they all are. He uses other statistics to show an estimate of how many species vanish each year.
3. I do find this ad convincing because of the startling statistics and the realization how species are connected. This makes me want to do something soon which is what the article was going for.
Article 2
1. The argument of this article is that drilling in Alaska is good because of the positive effects that will result from it such as an economy boost and helping the poor.
2. The techniques used are that the author appeals to reason and uses past experiences to show what will happen again. He uses the “history repeats itself” reasoning to show that they have done similar things in the past and it did not hurt the wildlife and environment, in fact, it seemed to help. He also attacks politicians and generalizes his audience by using sports metaphors.
3. I did not find this ad convincing because the amount of oil that is suspected to be in Alaska does not seem worth the risk of risking hurting the environment and wildlife.
Article 3
1. The argument of this article is against drilling in the Alaskan wildlife preserve. They claim the wildlife preserve should remain wild.
2. To convince the audience of the argument, the author uses a lot of statistics and numbers to show how the environment will be ruined such as saying how many tons of machinery will be put on the permafrost.
3. I did find this article convincing because of the statistics used and how the author stated what type of machinery will be used and how it will affect the environment because of the weight and tread used. I also found it convincing because the article made it plain that the amount of oil that can possibly be gained is not worth the amount of risk in hurting the environment by drilling.
Post a Comment