Analysis Of Ehrlich's Essay 'How To Poison The Earth'

The environment has become a popular topic this year due to our on-going drought. It has always been a serious issue; something Saukko informs us in her sarcastic essay “How to Poison the Earth”. She uses sarcasm and irony in her essay hoping her readers will do the complete opposite of what she is saying because of the stress she puts on the harming chemicals we use every day. We do not appreciate our environment and take it for granted. This ideal is what Ehrlich's essay “Chronicles of Ice” focuses on by using analogies and scientific definitions to describe aspects of glaciers. The melting of the glaciers introduces us to the topic of global warming and how our society is doing nothing to stop it from getting worse. Gawande’s “The Cancer-Cluster

Myth” connects with the concept of environmental issues by informing the reader about the causes of cancer-clusters and whether or not they can be identified as so. He uses his expertise and outside sources for credibility, but when we analyze the essay in greater detail, we realize that Gawande’s words are not as clear as they may seem. Each essay has its own take on the environment, but “How to Poison the Earth” is able to raise awareness to the reader in an entertaining yet credible manor best when compared to the other two essays.
Saukko’s essay focuses on the heavy use of dangerous chemicals that are poisoning everything in the earth, causing ecological damage. She uses verbal irony and situational irony in her essay by stating the opposite of her purpose in order to get her message across in a different perspective. This perspective comes to us as satire because she also exaggerates her statements. One example of her strategy is “generate as many poisonous substances as possible and be sure they are distributed in, on, and around the entire earth at a greater rate than it can cleanse itself” (Saukko 2). In this quote we can see both satire and irony when she uses words such as “entire earth” to emphasis the opposite of poisoning. She knows her use of reverse psychology was not interpreted the wrong way because the use of irony and satire reveals the transparency of her essay, being that we need to end the use of chemicals such as uranium-238, plutonium, and polychlorinated biphenyl in order to stop hurting our environment. The effect of her strategy was that it made her essay entertaining and informative at the same time. Unlike other informative essays, she kept hers short and simple but was able to provide us with lots of critical information.
Ehrlich’s argument focuses on the effects global warming has on glaciers.

She uses Perito Moreno as an example and divides her essay into categories: admiration for glaciers, how glaciers function, the inside of glaciers, and global warming effects. Satire may not be found in this essay, but we still get a sense of entertainment with the way she makes nature seem like it’s something that is taken for granted. She opens our eyes to the power something as simple as a glacier withholds in order to see the big threat behind all environmental destruction. Her uses of analogies clarify the purpose of her essay by stating them in the beginning of her paragraphs while defining them clearly right afterwards. One example is “a glacier is time incarnate” (Ehrlich 2). In this quote Ehrlich wants us to know that losing a glacier is like losing any human because we lose all kinds of history that cannot be restored ever again. She even references the bible to describe this fall we are living with the loss of glaciers. Ehrlich made a connection between “the rise of our smokestack and tailpipe society” and the rise in water and air temperatures by using the oxygen bubbles the glaciers provide (Ehrlich 2). She state “as snow becomes firm and then ice, oxygen bubbles are trapped in the glacier, providing samples of ancient atmosphere: carbon dioxide and methane” (Ehrlich 2). Our cars and factories produce these gases in large amounts which have greatly affected our air quality and the cleanliness as well as freshness of our water. She manages to make her point clear, making the reader look at nature with another

perspective.
Gawande’s essay tries to focus on whether cancer-clusters can be identified, but tends to go on a tangent which leaves his credibility at stake as a doctor. The first few paragraphs introduce the idea of cancer-clusters and how he believes they are caused by environmental damage such as toxic waste. He supports this with many examples such as Los Alamos, Levittown, and his own town in Newton, Massachusetts. As we read on he states that “when scientists have tried to confirm such causes [environmental damage], they haven’t been able to”, something that contradicts the whole purpose of his essay (Gawande 2). In the course of developing his claim, other miscellaneous topics are mentioned such as basketball, the sharpshooter fallacy, and the law of small numbers. All the topics mentioned are ideas as to what the cancer-cluster myth is because a myth cannot be defined for certain due to uncertainty. Even though some cancer clusters are formed by environmental damage, other factors play a part as well. Cancer-clusters have too many factors, some less than others, which make it difficult to figure out which is the primary source.
Saukko’s essay is more effective in providing a sense of environmental urgency to the reader. Ehrlich and Gawande provide longer essays which tend to drag on the subject rather than making it a priority. Saukko made sure environmental awareness was her direct message even though she did not use a direct method in her writing like the others. When reading an essay that has a purpose for entertainment we tend to doubt its credibility, but not in Saukko’s essay. She provides credible sources such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the credibility she holds herself as someone who works and is educated in the field. Saukko’s use of credible sources compared to Gawande’s miscellaneous information makes Saukko the better writer and leaves Ehrlich as the runner-up in my opinion. Ehrlich’s method to entertain the reader is to make glaciers seem magical and make the reader see that their loss is something one should act upon. Saukko’s method is to show the reader how bad the environment is along with statistics in order for them to act and change the current reality.
Saukko took a risk in her writing and it paid off. Unlike the two authors, she was able to get through the reader by giving other information. Unfortunately, that did not work for Gawande who went in different directions. Ehrlich did well in teaching us something about glaciers and how everything ties into global warming. The way she narrated her experience at Perito Moreno made us interested in her proposal, but not enough to take action. Even at the end of her essay she wants to make sure her readers understand what the steps are required in order to poison the Earth so we can tell everyone what to avoid in order for the planet to be able to cleanse itself. When it comes to action, Saukko is the one who makes you get off your seat and do something for a change.